Are these latest JWST theories the pinnacle of self-delusion?

www.youtube.com...

So these deep infrared galaxies being watched by JWST which are supposed to have existed only 300 and some odd million years after the big bang, look like totally normal galaxies.

Except now they're not. Because the big bang theory says there shouldn't be much helium in the early universe so if these galaxies have helium 2 emission spectra (like modern galaxies do) then they are special galaxies with special dark matter stars that look like normal stars but are special and prove that dark matter exists. Because only special dark matter stars would have helium 2 emissions that early on in the Universe.

We could be sensible and use occam's razor and acknowledge the fact that these are normal galaxies with normal stars and normal helium emissions just like modern galaxies but the pursuit of science demands we suspend our disbelief and shove the square peg into the round hole.

youtu.be...

Personally I was hoping for even better. I wanted the JWST to see black hole stars, the mythical dragons of the early universe which could only exist thanks to dense dark matter and would have given rise to the supermassive black holes we see in spiral galaxies today. But the JWST didn't see these, it sees perfectly normal galaxies that look no different from any of the other galaxies we've seen.

We need to accept the facts. The current theory is wrong.

Big Bang could still be true, but the Universe might be much older than we think it is. This just means the math is wrong. Which could be the result of sociology rather than people just being bad at math. Scientists who push wildly different theories get shunned in academia. There is definite peer pressure to fall in line and support the mainstream theory. Once the first person said the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, there was sociological incentive for everyone else to find ways to make their math support that conclusion.

What fascinates me is how far into wonderland they are willing to go now that hard observational evidence proves the math wrong. They are willing to deny the evidence and say the stars are magical stars and the utterly normal galaxies they are seeing are more special than the other galaxies they've seen, despite the fact they're identical to everything else. It reminds me of threads here on ATS about Mars rocks. Granted there are a few pictures with questionable rocks but a lot of the pics I've seen here are mind-numbingly stupid.

No that rock is not a gray alien waving at the camera its just a rock

No that galaxy is not made up of dark stars it's a utterly normal galaxy with utterly normal helium 2 emissions

*embedding didn't work so just posting links

a reply to: peskyhumans

Here are your videos:

a reply to: peskyhumans

I am telling you. Space-time is an illusion. Space and time also known as space-time are emergent properties that emerge out of consciousness. Nothing spatially actually exists. What you believe to be real (space and time) is infact only and illusion. Since space does not actually exist, whatever does exist is infinite, because it takes up all of the space available to it, which is no space, yet all of space, no time, yet all of time. And it’s infinite since it exists throughout all of space and time that can ever exist, which is nothing, because they don’t actually exist. They are emergent properties.

a reply to: DaRAGE
Beautifully explained, thank you.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
We need to accept the facts. The current theory is wrong.

That's what the media was screaming in February 2023 based on JWST observing some old galaxies that seemed too big or bright. There was a thread on ATS about that, where I commented that I thought the assumptions used in that paper about luminosity to mass ratios being invariant over time sounded like bad assumptions.

Since then other physicists have documented in a paper that apparently it WAS a bad assumption! If that paper is correct, which it looks pretty reasonable to me, they made corrections to the bad assumption based on observation, and now it doesn't look like our current model is wrong about those previously "too big to be so old" galaxies.

You know the old saying about what happens when we "ASS U ME" things, right? That apparently was the case in the February claims that JWST "broke the universe".

There's a thread on ATS saying it looks like the current theory may not be wrong after all, and those were just bad assumptions in the claims that our current model is wrong.

Did James Webb Space Telescope "Break The Universe"? Apparently not.

So as explained in that thread and in the linked video, some people jumped the gun with some bad assumptions, and by using observations instead of bad assumptions, we find the model can account for the observed galaxies after all.

I'm not saying our models don't have problems, because Lambda-CDM model still has a lot of tension in the Hubble constant which doesn't seem to be getting any better. Hopefully, JWST can provide some observations to help fix that problem.

But the old galaxies do not appear now to be the problem initially thought. Anton's video about some alternative possibilities seems reasonable, because we don't have all the answers especially with JWST where we are seeing things as we've never seen them before. We should learn some things, otherwise JWST would have been a huge waste of money.

But for us laypersons not being the ones writing the papers, we have to allow them to generate these hypotheses and kick the tires on them in the scientific community to see which hold up to scrutiny, and that can take some years. In the meantime, we can eat some popcorn while they work the problems and the new observations.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...
7 TRILLION stars vanish.

Maybe DaRAGE is on to something.



It may be possible that we are in a simulation. Only what he observe is "loaded in" as it's being observed, like in modern open world Video Games.

Maybe the JWST is pushing the limits of what can be observed and loaded in....

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Things that make you go Hmmmmm...
7 TRILLION stars vanish.

Maybe DaRAGE is on to something.

Where in that video does it say anything about 7 trillion stars vanish other than in the title where it says "Over 700 Trillion Stars Suddenly Vanished, But Now Something Emerged!"? Did you even watch the video? The title doesn't even say 7 trillion stars vanish, it says 700 trillion, but the video doesn't discuss even one star vanishing!

That's a pet peeve of mine, I've watched numerous youtube videos that make a title and then never discuss what is actually in the title. I've started making a ban list of youtube channels I have banned myself from watching when I find they employ this tactic.

Another annoying thing about that channel, is there was no need to spend 25 minutes on that topic in such a confusing presentation.They could have spent 1 minute describing the cold spot, then jumped to 19 minutes where they say:

"Scientists however are moving closer to understanding the cold spot phenomenon. They use the data from the dark energy survey to confirm the existence of the Eridanus supervoid, one of the largest known to humanity, as reported in a paper published recently. (Shows image of paper "The Structure of Supervoids: I: Void Heirarchchy in the Northern Local Supervoid by Lindner, Enasto et al) This previously hypothesized but now confirmed void in the cosmic web could be a possible cause for the CMB anomaly. " Then they go on to say

"-Either Lambda-CDM is correct and the cold spot is just an extreme anomaly that just happens to be in front of a massive supervoid, or
-The Lambda-CDM model is incorrect and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is stronger in supervoids than expected."
And they say more research is needed to figure out which is the case which is a fair statement, but they never said anything about stars disappearing. I'm surprised that you cited that title as if you actually believe it, but hopefully now you are forewarned that clickbait titles from unreliable sources can't be trusted. That channel has some nice graphics, too bad they have such a clickbait title I won't watch them again.

It may be possible that we are in a simulation.

It may be possible that pigs can fly, but I doubt it. 7 or 700 trillion stars disappearing doesn't suggest it because that's not even a real thing. Stars explode sometimes but that's not exactly "disappearing" because the remnants of the star are still there which wouldn't be the case if it disappeared.