James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

[admin]

Thousands of disk galaxies like our own Milky Way were spotted in the early universe, where they shouldn't exist.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe : Read more

 

[zarryzims]

This evidence seems to offer proof that the universe is twice as old as we think it is.

 

[sachi]

This evidence seems to offer proof that the universe is twice as old as we think it is.

Or we watching our selves through the vastness of universe's Periscopic view!

 

[bkbkjbb]

This evidence seems to offer proof that the universe is twice as old as we think it is.

Or...the universe is just infinite and eternal . Why is this so hard for humans to accept.

 

[Clea170]

What does he mean “Shouldn’t Exist” does he have authority over the universe? It’s there for a reason!

 

[Thychomyces]

Thousands of disk galaxies like our own Milky Way were spotted in the early universe, where they shouldn't exist.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe : Read more

The universe is a forever expanding sphere in all directions started from the creation point. The closer one's line of sight is aligned to this creation point, the more one will see the early universe. Should one look across the creation point, one will see matter from the other side of the creation point moving towards the observer. Thus one will observe matter older than the creation point. Present day graphics depict the universe as a cone starting from this creation point. This to the expense of an expanding sphere in all directions.

 

[SpaceCadet3223]

"Shouldn't exist" as in we might be living in a simulation, and JWST has just seen the edges of it?

 

[realitycrash404]

The universe is a forever expanding sphere in all directions started from the creation point. The closer one's line of sight is aligned to this creation point, the more one will see the early universe. Should one look across the creation point, one will see matter from the other side of the creation point moving towards the observer. Thus one will observe matter older than the creation point. Present day graphics depict the universe as a cone starting from this creation point. This to the expense of an expanding sphere in all directions.

You've seriously misinterpreted a couple theories within cosmology. You're comment comes off in a way to where it seems you believe the light goes around and then comes back towards you, hence giving the impression you're observing something older/beyond the "creation point" then you say expanding in a sphere in all directions, which explains why you think it loops back around. This hypothesis has undergone many years of testing and has been fully falsified. Not one single mirror galaxy, star, or even one mirror photon has ever been detected.
Also, the cone graphic you're talking about, go check it again and actually look at the x y z axis on it. It's a cone so it can demonstrate the expansion over time distance and age (they're the axis)
All it is is a way to show the data visually to people in what was meant to be understandable for a layman, but you went wayyyy off the deep in understanding incorrectly what was being represented to you.

 

[realitycrash404]

EVERYONE IS MISUNDERSTANDING THIS SHOULDNT EXIST LINE 🤦 It's shouldn't exist as in for example, is a dwarf galaxy takes 10 yrs to form, a full on disk galaxy takes 100yrs to form, but only 3yrs has passed yet you have a full disk galaxy, it shouldn't exist, not enough time has passed. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT. WHAT THE DATA IS TELLING US, AS HE EVEN QUOTES SOMEONE SAYING AS SUCH, IS, OUR THEORIES OF COSMOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ARE WRONG BECAUSE THE DATA IS PROVING IT WRONG. There's galaxies there already that should've taken alottttt more time to form than has passed, but there they are.
(Note, my numbers were just simple examples to make it easy to grasp)

 

[Oscar B]

When I consider infinity and eternity i try to keep in mind that not long ago the earth was flat and the sun circled the earth.

Infinite and eternal describe our universe. We are existing in a time constrained and space defined (dimension, universe?) thus, our difficulty in reasoning outside the box as new information arrives. I see it like this.

We exist. We and our universe exist. This is a creation.
There cannot be a creation without a creator.
Infinity and eternity make sense on a most basic level. What's one step beyond the edge? What's one minute before the beginning?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.
We will get the whole story later, as our perspective expands.

For now, for science, the earth is still flat. For now.

 

[Miscle]

This was predicted by scientists who think dark matter is foolishness and model using MOND.

Theories with Predictions that are found to be true in science have higher weight over ones that continuously fail (dark matter theories).

WHAT WILL JWST SEE?

What JWST will see

Big galaxies at high redshift! That’s my prediction, anyway. A little context first. New Year, New Telescope First, JWST finally launched. This has been a long-delayed NASA mission; the launc…

tritonstation.com

Galaxy Formation – Triton Station

Posts about Galaxy Formation written by tritonstation

tritonstation.com

Dark Matter – Triton Station

Posts about Dark Matter written by tritonstation

tritonstation.com

 

[TallDave]

this is another strong piece of evidence in favor of inhomogenous cosmologies

as Wiltshire and Buchert have proposed, the FLRW equations probably need to be extended to account for backreactions near large-scale cosmological structures (on the scale of galaxy filaments like our own Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex), which is computationally difficult to do (at least relative to the flat timespace assumed by FLRW)

this would lead to results such as the one in the article, in which galaxies in the Webb-relevant redshifts appear to be "younger" (in terms of elapsed time between the Big Bang and the emission of the photons) than they actually are, due to time passing faster in the intervening voids where the photons detected here on Earth spent most of the billions of years of their existence

Euclid will probably confirm this within a couple years with a more detailed map of high-redshift galaxies combined with Type 1A supernova data

this should also resolve the confusion around why measurements of the local modern universe suggest it is "younger" than the 13.787±0.020 BY that LCDM measures for the early observable universe by several techniques