James Webb Space Telescope 2024 data which contradicts the Big Bang 'model'.
Same as the data from 2023. Rending of clothes and models. Maybe the 'Standard model' is rubbish and needs to be replaced?
Last year I posted an update on the James Web Telescope and its findings which contradict the Big Banging theology. From last year:
Contrary to STR and Banging theology, stellar galaxies should be far less than 1 billion years old but this is not what they have found
Galaxies – larger than ours – are newly created which is not what the ‘standard model’ expects
Super galaxies have formed in short periods of time
According to STR (the gospel of the special theory of relativity) and Banging, the Universe should collapse on itself, and to compensate for this magical dark matter and dark energy are invoked though neither has been found or can even be described
2024 looks no better for ‘The Science’. There are simply too many observational issues which cannot be explained by the Big Banger framework and the ‘standard model’.
The Laments
Exhibit A) The Big Science propagandists at BigThink.com discover many anomalies from JWT’s 2024 observations. A Dr Ethan Siegel reviews highlights of findings by the JWST and can’t stop mentioning how all of it is ‘unexpected’. In analysing the purportedly furthest galaxy away from us, the JADES-GS-z14-0, Siegel admits it contradicts the ‘standard model’ and expectations.
“First off, this galaxy was bright: not only brighter than our leading theories would predict, but substantially brighter than even previously-observed ultra-distant JWST galaxies. And second off, there’s extremely little dust in this galaxy: again something that defies predictions.”
Maybe the galaxy is not ‘billions of years old’ and maybe it is not accelerating away from us (redshifting) at millions of miles per hour?
Exhibit B) The marketers of ‘The Science’ at the University of Texas at Austin find that the JWT data conflicts with their ‘Reionization Models’.
“Established theories state that this epoch ended around 1 billion years after the Big Bang…However, if calculating this milestone using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope, Reionization would have ended at least 350 million years earlier than expected.”
JWT is “challenging current models….is counter to what many people anticipated.”
JWT challenges the assumptions around the endless deep time of the universe. JWT also indicates that the Earth is near the barycentre of the Universe.
Exhibit C) The apostles of ‘Science’ at The Conversation who are never at odds with the ‘standard model’, seem unhappy with JWT’s data, lamenting,
“The earliest galaxies formed amazingly fast after the Big Bang. Do they break the universe or change its age?”
The universe is not as old as we are told apparently. Radiation is far more anisotropic than the standard model would predict. Matter is not as ‘clumped’ and is smoother than Big Bang models expect.
“Recent measurements of the distribution of matter in the universe (so-called large-scale structure) appear to be in conflict with the predictions of the standard model of cosmology, our best understanding of how the universe works…indicate that the matter is less clustered (smoother) than it ought to be according to the standard model.”
“The model is based on a solution to Einstein’s general theory of relativity (our best understanding of gravity) that assumes the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales – meaning it looks the same in every direction to every observer.
It also assumes that the matter and energy in the universe is composed of normal matter (“baryons”), dark matter consisting of relatively heavy and slow-moving particles (“cold” dark matter) and a constant amount of dark energy (Einstein’s cosmological constant, denoted Lambda).”
The universe is not isotropic or homogenous. It is anisotropic, or not homogenous in every direction (ie. not as ‘old’ and ‘mature’ as the model demands). The Sloan Digital Survey long ago proved this. JWT is simply providing more evidence for anisotropy.
“Some solutions are relatively mundane, such as unknown systematic errors in the measurements. But there are more radical solutions. These include rethinking the nature of dark energy (the force causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate), invoking a new force of nature or even tweaking Einstein’s theory of gravity on the largest of scales.”
No one can imagine ‘The Science’ rethinking any of its assumptions or its ‘standard model’ (unless the flow of money into new ideas and frameworks is initiated).
Exhibit D) Sandro Tacchella at the University of Cambridge and the The Kavli Institute, is perplexed by all the anomalies from the JWST which threaten current theories. There is a loud complaint about the lack of Redshift proof for ‘old ages’, many posts on here outline why Redshift means nothing:
“The surprising findings from JWST of bright galaxies at high redshifts, or distances, could imply that these galaxies matured faster than expected after the Big Bang. This is important because it would challenge existing models of galaxy formation. The constant star-formation efficiency model described above, while effective at explaining much of what we see, struggles to account for the large number of bright and distant galaxies observed with a redshift of more than ten.”
The Standard model is wrong
You can take the JWT data, WMAP data, Sloan Digital Sky data, COBE data and discover that the standard Big Bang model is simply wrong. To make it work, you need to invent ‘constants such as ‘dark energy’, or ‘dark matter’. Or, to make the models ‘valid’, based on your philosophical view, you need to constantly ‘refine’ or programmatically derive your ‘rates’ of inflation, ‘bursting’, light creation, ‘Redshifting’ or galaxy formation to fit the model. We see the same fraud in the religion of evolution.
WMAP, COBE and other deep space observations clearly indicate anisotropy in the background radiation – the opposite of what Bangers propose, which is homogeneity. Matter is clumped not smooth. Galaxies form in the blink of an instant. Their ‘redshift’ indicates that they are young and not trillions of miles away. WMAP data indicates that the universe is a flat disc and not expanding. JWT data is saying the same.
As with Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and many other cosmologists, someone can take the exact same data and come up with precisely the opposite conclusions of ‘The Science’, using agreed upon scientific principles and verifiable calculations. The assumptions and conclusions in the ‘standard model’ of the ‘Big Bang’ are being proven to be invalid and incorrect. Given that the ‘standard model’ and the ‘Big Bang’ are philosophies and not pure science, ending their paradigmatic reign is difficult.
All hail.
