Too Old and Too Large; challenges for an "early universe"

[RedshiftDrift]

"Astronomers Found a 13 Million Light-Year Long Vine of Galaxies in the Ancient Cosmos"
https://youtu.be/sKKoZllEQyY
Preprint {submitted to A&A}: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04867

[mikehelland]

FWIW, that channel isn't credible and certainly not affiliated with NASA.

[RedshiftDrift]

For less 'sensationalism' read the preprint {submitted to A&A} here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04867

[bgreenman]

I support the arxiv/abs/2311.04867 paper

[bgreenman]

I think everyone in the alternative cosmology field should read the preprint

[OlliSant]

Very fine and important. That's what we are waiting! Make it scientific for the mainstream, if possible.

[RedshiftDrift]

"A galaxy only 350 million years old has surprising amounts of metal"
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-galaxy-million-years-amounts-metal.html
and the pre-print "JADES: Carbon enrichment 350 Myr after the Big Bang in a gas-rich galaxy"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09908

[bgreenman]

Pre-print arxiv/2311.09908 and phys.org/news articles prove the Big Bang model is on its last legs unless foolish academics prop it up

[RedshiftDrift]

"JWST uncovers a surprising amount of nickel in adolescent galaxies"
Researchers 'flabbergasted' by some of what they found in these young star factories.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/jwst-uncovers-a-surprising-amount-of-nickel-in-adolescent-galaxies/

[bgreenman]

These new findings confirm my statement 4 days ago the Big Bang model is on its last legs

[OlliSant]

How to make the mainstream to understand that? We must collect all the arguments and make an alternative theory, or some good alternatives. Then defend those innovations in scientific papers.

Much work for everybody. And together.

[bgreenman]

A great idea would be to reference all the scientific papers that challenge the Big Bang model and have qualified researchers present these papers at physics and astonomy conferences

[OlliSant]

And philosophy conferences.

[bgreenman]

good to attend too

[RedshiftDrift]

"Candidate Galaxies at z ~ 11.3-21.8 and beyond: results from JWST's public data taken in its first year"
H. Yan et al., preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.15121

The abstract contains the 'mandatory' disclaimer required for publication:
"The emergence of galaxy population at z ~ 17.3 or earlier is consistent with the suggestion of an early cosmic hydrogen reionization and is not necessarily a crisis of the ΛCDM paradigm."

"While no models in the pre-JWST era predicted the emergence of galaxy population at a time as early as z ~ 17.3, it is not necessarily a crisis for the ΛCDM paradigm if our candidates are proved to be at such high redshifts. For example, the new "feedback-free burst" model within the same paradigm can now produce abundant luminous galaxies in very early time, and it is possible to fine-tune to match our derived luminosity functions. The existence of a large number of galaxies at z ~ 17.3 is in fact consistent with the suggestion that the hydrogen reionization began at z ~ 17.2 based on the detection of global neutral hydrogen absorption signal. It is, however, in conflict with the determination of z_re = 7.64 based on the CMB anisotrophy measurements of the Planck mission."

---

The galaxy COSMOS_168 (photo p. 32) is quite impressive with a resolved ~0.5'' diameter.
SED fits give z = 18.4/16.8 (p. 51) and z = 20.7 (p. 54).
In a static universe, a diameter of 0.5'' at z = 16.8 corresponds to a physical diameter of ~28 kpc (like the Milky Way) at at a distance of 38 Gly.

[bgreenman]

Figures F200W And F277W are correct, because without a full spectrum of emission lines the exact redshift can't be calculated for particular galaxies.Some emission lines are absorbed by particular elements or compounds. the big question is will the JWST be used to break the VMT.Who is getting priority in using the JWST?

[HanDeBruijn]

@RedshiftDrift .

JWST could be the telescope that breaks VMT [ .. ]

Really? Let's quote from Hubble's law (Wikipedia).
Some cosmologists even use the term Hubble volume to refer to the volume of the observable universe, although this has a radius approximately three times larger. [bold by me]

Now the observable universe in VMT has a radius of $R_O = W.c/H$ where $W=3.383634283$ . Consequently, our $R_O$ is even larger than the approximately three times the Hubble length in standard cosmology. So if you want to break VMT then you first have to break some Big Bang beliefs. That will represent a problem if your sources consist of papers describing observations within the mainstream paradigm.

[RedshiftDrift]

This quote is written from the perspective of the Big Bang model. We know that distances are incorrectly calculated in that paradigm.

[HanDeBruijn]

@RedshiftDrift . Just curious. How does SSTz prevent Olbers’s paradox ?

[RedshiftDrift]

Two aspects of the paradox must be explained:

1. The bright sky: As Olbers predicted, "any line of sight from Earth must end at the surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright". Since an increasing redshift with distance is observationally confirmed (this is not specific to SSTz) the night sky is not very bright at 5500 K ("white") but is very bright at 2.7 K, eliminating Olbers' bright sky at visible wavelengths.
2. The energy density: SSTz explains that the energy from the redshifted light is used to produce fission of light elements. This imposes a limited amount of energy density that corresponds to the energy of the 2.7 K blackbody radiation. This is compatible with observations, as calculated here.¹

Footnotes

1. The Big Bang hypothesis gives almost the same result. However, ΛCDM does not predict the correct angular distribution of the microwave background temperature, as demonstrated by the Hubble tension! ↩

[RedshiftDrift]

1.2 Mly; "Structures larger than this size are incompatible with the cosmological principle according to all estimates."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures#List_of_largest_structures

[HanDeBruijn]

It can be shown that not being homogeneous and isotropic is not such a big deal with an eternal and Static Euclidean Universe.

In the section about Seeliger's Paradox at my website we find a possible alternative for the unsolved integral in a paper by Amitabha Ghosh and Ujjal Dey. The latter works with spherical coordinates and the former works with cylindrical coordinates. After some necessary modifications the integral with cylindrical coordinates is:

$$ F = 2\pi G m \rho \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} h \left[ \int_0^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\Gamma\sqrt{R^2+h^2}}R dR}{(R^2+h^2)^{3/2}}\right] dh $$

where $m=$ test mass, $G=$ gravitational constant, $\rho=$ homogeneous and isotropic mass density, $\Gamma=H/c=$ with $H=$ Hubble parameter and $c=$ lightspeed.
With an analogous method as presented by Simeon Albert L.M. the outcome can be found: the force exerted on a test mass by the entire infinite universe is zero.

$$ F = 2\pi G m \rho \left[ - \frac{1}{2\Gamma} + \frac{1}{2\Gamma} \right] = 0 $$

Now suppose that, instead of infinite, our universe is semi-infinite. Formulated otherwise: our test mass is near the edge of an immensely large void below it and almost all the available mass of our universe is above it. Then we have, approximately, a non-zero acceleration $a_P$ towards the semi-infinite part of that hypothetical universe.

$$ F = 2\pi G m \rho \frac{1}{2\Gamma} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad a_P = \pi G \rho \frac{c}{H} $$

According to formula (5.12) and the last sentences of section (6.2) in the book Origin of Inertia by Amitabha Ghosh we have

$$ \kappa = (\pi G_0 \rho)^{1/2} = H_0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \pi G \rho = H^2 $$

Notation has been adapted in our frame of reference because Amitabha thinks that there is a variable gravitational constant instead of a variable mass (density). Anyway with the above it follows that

$$ a_P = \pi G \rho \frac{c}{H} = H.c $$

Wikipedia is wrong. The Pioneer anomaly is not explained by some thermal recoil force but there is indeed a cosmological connection and $a_P$ is not at all by coincidence close to Mordehai Milgrom's constant in MOND : $a_P = (8.74\pm 1.33)\times 10^{-10}m s^{-2} \approx a_0 \approx H.c = (6.59\pm 0.075)\times 10^{-10} m s^{-2}$ .

[RedshiftDrift]

It is trivial "that not being homogeneous and isotropic is not such a big deal in any" Non-Expanding Euclidean Universe.

[RedshiftDrift]

Discovery of the Big Ring, an ultra-large cosmological structure, by Alexia Lopez and her co-authors, further challenges what we understand about the universe.

This finding was announced yesterday at the Winter Meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

✅ AAS 243 Press Conference: https://youtu.be/86Ps7vE6JHI?t=315
"Do we need a new standard model?" Yes

✅ Research News by UCLan: https://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/big-ring-in-the-sky
"A Big Cosmological Mystery" Not so in a non-expanding framework.

✅ The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/11/newly-discovered-cosmic-megastructure-challenges-theories-of-the-universe
"Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe." It doesn't challenge non-expanding models of the universe.

✅ BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67950749
"Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos" but not everybody's thinking.

[RedshiftDrift]

More challenges for the Big Bang model: too distant FRBs, galaxy structures that are too large, Hubble tension at 8 $\sigma$, galaxies going bananas, etc. https://youtu.be/3NeKR7bqolY?t=440

Dr. Becky is going bananas too...