https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02056-5
JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... cosmology/
Perhaps the only falsifiable concept about the Lambda cold dark matter (LCDM) model anymore is the concept of galaxy evolution over time. It's one of the few places where "fudging the numbers" with the LCDM model becomes much more complicated than simply sprinkling in some additional amounts of magical forms of matter or energy.
From the first article:
A "disk" shaped galaxy has to rotate a number of times before the disk itself forms in the LCMD model. Our galaxy is thought to rotate once every 200 million years. "Mature" galaxies like disk galaxies would need to rotate a number of times in order to form a disk shape.Some early galaxies are surprisingly complex
Webb’s distant galaxies are also turning out to have more structure than astronomers had expected.
One study of Webb’s first deep-field image found a surprisingly large number of distant galaxies that are shaped like disks. Using Hubble, astronomers had concluded that distant galaxies are more irregularly shaped than nearby ones, which, like the Milky Way, often display regular forms such as disks. The theory was that early galaxies were more often distorted by interactions with neighbouring galaxies. But the Webb observations suggest there are up to ten times as many distant disk-shaped galaxies as previously thought.
With the resolution of James Webb, we are able to see that galaxies have disks way earlier than we thought they did,” says Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. That’s a problem, she says, because it contradicts earlier theories of galaxy evolution. “We’re going to have to figure that out.”"
DISCOVERY OF THE "WOLFE DISK" TESTS THE THEORY OF GALAXY FORMATION
https://www.inverse.com/science/wolfe-galactic-disk
The discovery of many "mature" disk-shaped galaxies so early in the universe *significantly* deviates from standard galaxy formation models. Keep in mind the LCMD model is off by at least an order of magnitude in terms of the number of disk-shaped galaxies expected to exist at these long distances. But wait, there's more...Most galaxy formation models have shown that it would take approximately 6 billion years after the Big Bang for a galaxy disk to form.
First article again:
So not only are early galaxies more "mature" than expected, and forming into disk shapes much earlier than galaxy formation models predict, the "size" of the distant galaxies seen in Webb images also defies their LCDM model. The LCDM model presumes that just after the "bang", just hydrogen atoms existed in space, then atoms started "clumping" together to form the first suns, and over time small galaxies formed, which collided with other small galaxies to produce larger ones. The mainstream timeline to form "massive" galaxies is much greater than what we're seeing in Webb images. But wait, there's even more trouble in LCMD paradise...Another preprint manuscript suggests that massive galaxies formed earlier in the Universe than previously known. A team led by Ivo Labbé at the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, reports finding seven massive galaxies in the CEERS field, with redshifts between 7 and 1010. “We infer that the central regions of at least some massive galaxies were already largely in place 500 million years after the Big Bang, and that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the Universe,” the scientists write.
The mainstream solar models also require time in order to form heavier elements, and their solar composition models are rather "stringent" in terms of composition and how early they expect significant amounts of heavier atoms to form in any real quantities. There's a bit of fudge factor here since they can make early suns "larger" which would burn out faster and produce heavier elements faster, but they have to fit all these things into their computer models, and such changes are simply "ad hoc" changes in the final analysis. They don't follow from their actual model.And studies of galactic chemistry also show a rich and complicated picture emerging from the Webb data. One analysis of the first deep-field image examined the light emitted by galaxies at a redshift of 5 or greater. (Spectral lines that appear at various wavelengths of light correlate with the chemical elements composing the galaxies.) It found a surprising richness of elements such as oxygen11. Astronomers had thought that the process of chemical enrichment — in which stars fuse hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements — took a while, but the finding that it is under way in early galaxies “will make us rethink the speed at which star formation occurs”, Kirkpatrick says.
So, already we're finding significant tension between LCDM galaxy and solar evolution models and what we actually observe in space in Webb images.
It's going to be a very bumpy ride for LCDM proponents over the next decade. Not much about their galaxy evolution concepts hold any weight and is theoretical garbage. No base in reality.
Additionally, given the JWST results so far, I'm shocked (shocked I tell you!) that NASA hasn't already pulled the graphics on their website that say the FIRST STARS formed at 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.
For example, this fancy timeline graphic says the 1st star appeared “about 400 million” years after the Big Bang It's displayed at multiple locations on the NASA websites ...
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/t ... e-universe
Or this example that's on the first page of this webpage ( https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ) which discusses WMAP results. Click the image and you go here ... (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html ) where you can download the image as a "media resource". And indeed, the media is still using it.
Another example, here's an article that was just published on October 20th: by *science communicator* Monisha Ravisetti. The article contains that graphic.
https://www.cnet.com/science/space/why- ... -big-deal/
The Chandra website shows another timeline: although it states the first stars are at about 300 million years (and galaxies at 1 billion years).
https://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/ ... ndex5.html
The Hubble Website says pretty much the same thing … that stars appeared about 400 million years after the Big Bang.
https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives ... c0805c.jpg
And NASA is not the only space agency doing this. The European Space Agency (ESA) has this graphic that says the first stars formed "300 to 500 million years" after the Big Bang.
https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/55392- ... e-universe
https://cdn.sci.esa.int/documents/34222 ... 7216030508
This must be very confusing to *science communicators*, the public and especially future astronomers. Especially since back in 2009 Scientific American published an article titled "The First Stars in the Universe" which stated that "The first stars did not appear until perhaps 100 million years after the big bang".
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... in-the-un/
Where did NASA and ESA go wrong ... to abandon an answer that was far closer to what JWST says and proclaim the first stars appear 200 to 300 million years later instead? It wasn't a lack of resources. They spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars to get a wrong answer. So how did it happen?
Might I suggest their gnome filled Big Bang model led them farther and farther away from the truth? Either way, the Big Bang never happened, unless that is you believe in creation out of nothing.
“It is a self-evident truth, which will not admit of argument, that nothing remains nothing. Nonentity is the negative of all existence. This negative possesses no property or element upon which the energies of creative power can operate.”-Parley P Pratt
Not only is the JWST disproving long-held beliefs and theories of the big bang but the two scientific crutches that it stands on (Redshift and Microwave Background ) have been disproven time and time again to be false, at least their interpretation thereof. I have posted extensively on these two topics including recently here... viewtopic.php?p=1312732#p1312732
