Theory: point the JWST at any point in the universe and you will find fully formed galaxies further and further away, as the resolution gets tighter. This is based on my theory that the universe is much larger than what we can see. Theory is, basically, draw a circle at any diameter that you want, draw a V away from the circle, and then draw a box. Everything in that box is what we can see. The rest of circle, which happens to be a sphere, is the rest of the universe that we can't see. This is due to the fact that we can't detect a curvature to the outer limits of the observable universe. This means that we can be anywhere within that sphere, except on the surface. I'm under no delusion that we are the center of the universe, again. Just a couple of ideas I've been pondering.

I have to confess that I’m trusting the scientists’ interpretation of the magnified pixel readout that was shown in this video. But if what is said is true, then doesn’t this raise the question again: “Was there really a Big Bang?” Big “thank you!” to the video graphic illustrators, who take the new scientific information and make such beautiful, colorful, animated displays.

@jgkitarel

Жыл бұрын

To that question, current evidence says yes. As in, everything we've seen and detected has so far confirmed the theory. We can also "see" the afterglow of it via the Cosmic Microwave Background. What's been found doesn't call that into question, it calls into question the theories and hypotheses that formed the models of cosmology. And the discoveries are not done with, new ones will be made that will throw everything into question again.

@Bippy55

Жыл бұрын

@@jgkitarel Thanks for your prompt reply. It reminds me of Dr. Carl Sagan once showing students where our Solar System was in the Milky Way; Not toward the "important looking center"... but at the edge of a tiny area of one of the spiral arms. We're seeing the big Milky Way from an edge view. And now every time the JWST Team studies a part of the Cosmos, all these newly discovered galaxies sort of "photo bomb" the study region. Many thanks again!

@virgiliodelossantos1627

Жыл бұрын

I am not really convinced about the Big Bang theory. It's a theory. To be a fact, it need to have a solid and indisputable things about it, like where the so-called infinitesimal small material that is assumed to explode came from. What caused this explosion? Now, the newest space telescope, are finding galaxies that if the big bang theory is a reality, those galaxies should not be there because of the time it takes for them to fully develop.

@Bippy55

Жыл бұрын

@@virgiliodelossantos1627 I get what you're saying for sure.

@paultyson4389

Жыл бұрын

@@virgiliodelossantos1627 Exactly! They cling to their "Big Bang" with the tenacity Christians cling to a god creating the universe, some say in 6 days!! It is time they starting admitting, the bleedingly obvious, we don't know.

I tend to the idea of an everlasting cosmos with universes being created in a process that has been going on forever. In this phase our universe began, amidst a soup of rich material, with an event/bang, and almost immediately depleted the available 'local' fuel but the event was so powerful it pulled in/attracted further fuel from 'outside' which included not only raw material but also material that had begun to coalesce; effectively our universe may have 'cannibalised' other young and emerging universes and what JWST is seeing are remnants of that cannibalisation/adoption process.

@Bippy55

Жыл бұрын

What you're saying makes sense to me.

@bassmanjr100

Жыл бұрын

In an infinite universe there is a world that is 100% identical to Earth except everyone has purple eyes. I should say there are infinite worlds 100% identical to Earth with people that have infinite shades of purple eyes. That makes sense to you?

@Bippy55

Жыл бұрын

@@bassmanjr100 Anything is now possible in an truly infinite universe. I just won't see it in my lifetime. Take care!

@johnsilfen70

10 ай бұрын

@@bassmanjr100 There is nothing that demand this to be true. Nothing tells us anything of how the Universe looks at a very far distance. It migth be empty for example? And there is no law that says the stuff around us must be repeated. It could be such a rare event that the earth were formed as it is 1 in an infinity probabillity. It migth even be a patch in the Universe we are located in that had energy enough to cause matter to form. Even if itlooks roughly the same everywere, there just is nothing that says the earth must be repeated.

If there are beings occupying these earliest galaxies, then they are so advanced in technology, mental abilities...

This is just superb. Love this channel.

Could these distant galaxies be part of another’big bang’, an overlap from another event similar to the one we are part of? These observations are so fascinating!!

Thank you for yet another amazing video!!! These are exciting times for astrophysics!

It's amazing what information can be derived from a picture that looks like a pixel color selection chart.

The JWST is not a time machine. Telescopes can't look back in time. The massive galaxies located at a distance when galaxies were supposed to be small and young are empirical evidence telescopes can't see back in time. In the first paperback book I published September 27th, 2021 on page 48 I wrote quote, "James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." I accurately predicted the massive galaxies before the JWST was launched. Future telescopes in the making will find galaxies larger than the Milky Way but further than 14 billion light years away. They'll be younger than the supposed big bang but larger than our galaxy.

@paulb3436

Жыл бұрын

By default the further away you're looking the further back in time you're seeing something. You can't see it as it appears in this present moment (what we're seeing out there looks different right now, but it's light /image takes billions of years to reach our eyes, ergo, you're seeing it as it WAS. Not as it currently IS)

@paulb3436

Жыл бұрын

When you see the Sun, you're seeing it as it WAS, 8 minutes ago. Our closest star is 4 light years away. If it blew up now, we'd only see that explosion 4 years from now. So yes, we are looking back in time the further out we look.

@ronaldkemp3952

Жыл бұрын

@@paulb3436 Not according to special relativity. Sure the theory of general relativity assumes light takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach us but it can't be proven with our sun because it's so close. the only way to prove we can't see back in time is if the furthest galaxies appeared to be larger than expected containing old red giant stars. That's why I made the prediction, if special relativity was right then the JWST would see distant galaxies in the here and now and they would be as large as our galaxy or even larger. And then in 2022 the CEERS survey discovered just that. So, the massive galaxies in the early universe proved that general relativity's look back time was wrong and special relativity was right. The problem arises when astrophysicists and astronomers claiming to be experts still try to blame the massive galaxies on exotic things like dark matter, slow light or even that time ran at a different rate in the early universe, you know, things that can't be proven. It shows their incompetence. Apparently they don't understand special relativity's time dilation and length contraction that happens when light travels at c.

@ronaldkemp3952

Жыл бұрын

​@@paulb3436 By default? Don't you mean according to general relativity's look back time? Well if that were the case then why are the most distant galaxies smooth and fully developed, up to 10 times larger than our own Milky Way? If they are massive, then it means they formed from collisions. In only 300 million years they would not have enough time to smooth out. In order for a galaxy to be 10 times larger than our galaxy and smooth, it would have to take a long time to smooth out after other galaxies collided with them. They should be young, irregular galaxies about 300 million years old at that distance. But nope, they're larger than our galaxy by far. Why do you think astronomers were so confused about the massive galaxies that far away? It's because they still believe a telescope can look back in time. I however don't believe that at all. All this time they've been wrong and they had no idea they were wrong. And still today they continue to believe they can use a telescope to look back in time even after the telescope found their claims to be wrong. We cannot use a telescope to look back in time. That would be as silly as believing we could use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the observer or telescope is contained inside the EM field being measured.

It's good JWST found more theory-defying galaxies, because if it only ever found one, _that_ would be _really_ troubling.

These photometric redshifts of galaxies with the JWST are probably in error. The JWST measures several "colors" of these objects, and those few numbers are used to calculate the probability that the galaxy has a particular redshift. The thing is, these probability distributions are multi-peaked. There may be a "high probability" of the photometric fit indicating, say, a redshift of z = 16, but there are lesser probabilities of the data fitting much lower redshifts, say, a radshift of z = 6. There may be several widely-different redshifts that are possible fits to the data. It may very well be that the raw "highest probability" redshift is a very high z = 16, but when that probability function is confronted with a Bayesian prior that embodies everything else we know about the Universe we see that one of the lower redshift possibilities is actually the most likely. It's all very exciting to report results of the "highest redshift ever", but it's probably wrong. In any case, actual spectroscopic determination of the redshift will reveal the truth.

Those galaxies are just being difficult -- they enjoy giving us a hard time. And if you continue calling them "universe breakers", they will become even more obstinate!

@richardmercer2337

Жыл бұрын

"Water and other complex molecules" -- and I always thought water was a simple molecule...

@RAD-82ndABN

Жыл бұрын

Ummm, live long and prosper? 🖖

If the moment of the occurance of the big bang was calculated by the gravitational effects of the assumed sum total of the energy and matter in our universe, would that still hold after decades of discovering more space? Or can the recent mapping of the CMB radiation be considered as the penultimate scope of our universe and does that precisely tally with the assumed time of the big bang?

@bloodyorphan

Жыл бұрын

The CMB is only a map of photons that have red-shifted to microwave frequencies. So No, if you want to know how old our Universe is and how far back the big bang was, you need to consider the temperature time dilation. Let's say the temperatre of the Big Bang was 10^288 Degrees Celsius (A minimal estimate likely many many more times that). That means the time dilation and therefore the velocity dilation of any particle the BB emits will be the speed of light divided by (10^288/5)^2 That's the speed at which space grows around the big bang, from the electrons perspective. Now multiply any window of observation by that number to understand the length of time the Universe had to wait for the Big Bang to expand that observed distance. Photons emitted by the Big Bang are created when the Proton potential of space went above zero. That potential can happen anywhere in space between us and infiinity. **EINSTEIN**

@antonystark9240

Жыл бұрын

It's possible, even likely, that the sum total of all the energy in the Big Bang is zero. The positive energy of all the "stuff" is balanced by negative energy, in particular gravitational potential energy. Study of anisotropy and polarization of the CMB do indeed give their own accurate measure of the parameters of the Big Bang, including the time since the Big Bang. These measurements are much more accurate and extensive than conclusions that can be drawn from a few questionable photometric redshifts from JWST. Lambda CDM is not going to be disproven any time soon.

@milosbhat6920

Жыл бұрын

This begs the question: how the estimated temperature is calculated? A big cortical strain for a nonmathematician. The math of Alan Guth, for instance. Reading about the steep drops in temperature immediately after the big bang, calculated precisely to fractions of seconds. Anyway it seems that besides the precise values obtained for the CMB and the expansion rate; though allegedly the Hubble constant can vary in time, the theory has got some of its predictions proved right, like the value for the CMB and the amount of helium (25%) formed at the time. Though some claim that the universe was not entirely empty at the time and one hears about reversions to cyclic, eternal or evolutionary progressive nature of our universe, the big bang theory however seems to be independently founded on solid foundations, at least to me and at the present. Thanks for your detailed answer to my inquiry.

The more we look into the cosmos, the more questions we have. We know so little.

Idea(s). They were able to form so late and so early because (A) Matter was more densely packed so soon after the Big Bang and (B) the attractive tendency of Gravity, along with other “constants”, was not constant. Perhaps the “constants” (including time) all continue to change over time. Or (C) I should have never dropped out of high school and just stuck it out… We may never know.

"Why are these early galaxies so big, only a few hundred million years following the big bang?" --------------- Perhaps they were there before the big bang, suggesting we inhabit a much older and/or larger universe, or even one with no apparent beginning or end.

@moha5007

Жыл бұрын

HST and JWT still allude to the (big bang) as being on our 'doorstep' using red-shift as evidence. "A time machine", really ? These 6 16:13 newbies were as close as Andromeda, we would not observe their light as being 'shifted'. We would also not be able to 'date' them either, as being close is not historic. We have to be more 'real'.

@ulfingvar1

Жыл бұрын

Or the big bang happened earlier than thought, so the universe is older than thought. That would solve the "mystery" and not contradict all the stuff, like the CMB, that actively support the big bang theory.

@moha5007

Жыл бұрын

To me, the incidence of a theoretical concept, actively under debate, cannot decide it's own relevance. The scientists, and many, use bb, 🌑 matter/energy, Doppler, visual optics, which many 'rely' upon....we must not. Not dissimilar to going through a long theoretical tunnel with our intellectual eyes shut. Historically piggy-backing on previous theorems, as the 300year gravity theorem, using an 🍎. All science, apart from selective ideas, are used as peer-pressure only. These posts use the same techniques. Lambs to the slaughter, blind, in a long tunnel of their own creation.

@bobgreene2892

Жыл бұрын

@@ulfingvar1 Either the universe has a known point of origin, or we must admit we simply do not know enough (yet) to spin a definitive creation theory.

@lordfrito420

Жыл бұрын

Why not just black hole stars that were galaxy size that were short lived . = clumping faster

Is there any correlation between these galaxies and cold versus hot regions in the cosmic background radiation? If so it might suggest gravitational influences that have been proposed.

@Bippy55

Жыл бұрын

You make a great point!

Since the arrow of time only applies to a human as an illusion, is possible that they are not old as we think they are cause the big bang happened to be everywhere at the same time?

@paulb3436

Жыл бұрын

Where'd you get the idea the arrow of time is only an illusion that occurs to humans?

With what goes on inside our bodies, to plants and animals that look like they're out of a dream or nightmare, to me, it's not surprising at the stuff we're finding. There's even a planet that's basically a giant diamond and it was said that if we brought back 1/4 of it, it would completely devastate the economy. There's also a planet that has silicon for rain and turns to glass due to the pressure being so high.

Intelligent design. 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

Dr. Becky youtube channel already provided a plausible scientific explanation of these "ancient galaxies"

The explanation for early galaxies is that matter formed as neutrons at the very first moment after the Big Bang and the Universe was not hot yet. Not too long after, neutrons turned into protons and electrons, the Universe expanded and photons were generated. So, the Cosmos was densely populated at a very young age.

The time travel within JWST telescope how can look back into time of universe with a telescope?

If we have a telescope to looks one trillion years in the past we still find Galaxys

🙏🙏, thank you for this posting. I once again propose that the answer is to evaluate the structure of the Universe which includes data from bank of "Big Bang theory"; dark matter, dark flow, asymmetry of CMB temperature, dark energy, and pattern fact of nature. The proposed is "Cloud & rain model Universe". Yes, this is only one suggestion., but this is a logic proposal. I apologize for repeating this suggestion, thank you 🙏🙏

I wonder if those galaxies a few pixels big are looking at our galaxy as pixels...

Our ignorance increases the farther we look. This should be factored into the equations. All in all, we are like fish curious about what lies beyond the ocean. Just like fish, we are not built nor have the capacity to understand. This is a fact and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we will appreciate what we have on earth and cherish it like a Mother that has given birth to us and the Father meteorites that laid the seeds. We are all children of Mother Earth. Meteorites are like sperm and habitable zone planets are mothers. This makes the most sense to me.

there is a time shift between here and there

The galaxy with water vapor sounds off. Where did the Oxygen come from, if it's so young that only Population III stars form it?

We should not discount the possibility that these observed galaxies are from previous universes that existed from the present one.

@bobgreene2892

Жыл бұрын

You and I posted similar models, at the same time. It makes more sense we live in a universe with no apparent beginning or end, than to suggest fully-formed galaxies sprang into being in a hyper-accelerated growth phase of a few hundred million years.

@xxx_michael_xxx5587

Жыл бұрын

@@bobgreene2892 Another Perspective on How The Universe was Created The present universe, with planet earth and all of the galaxies, is the 7th universe created by the All Mighty. The creation originated from a single entity (single unit of creation) which was clove asunder (Big Bang) in a dark space environment (consisting of dark matter, dark energy and black holes of different masses) six days (13.63 billion years) ago. The flat universe is expanding and spreading, resulting in the vastness of space. Like Man, the present 7th universe has a term appointed and will very soon come to an end (estimated to be in about 2.5 million years). The end of the universe, due to a Big Blast from a black hole, will give rise to a new single unit of creation - the seed of creation of a new universe. As such, the creation of the present 7th universe (or for that matter past and future universes) started as a Big Bang (from single unit of creation) and will end later in time as a Big Blast (from black holes). Each of the previous flat universes, one stacked on top of each other, also had its own planet Earth (with Man). However, due to the Big Blast at the end of each of the previous universe, the earths with Man are now gone. The present 7th universe is not the last of the universes. Very soon a new universe (the 8th universe) will be created with a Bang from the single unit of creation produced after the end of the present 7th universe. Like the previous universe, the 8th universe will also have its own planet earth. This process of a series of ending and creation will be repeated over and over (cyclic in nature), resulting in more universes in the future, unless the All Mighty decides otherwise. Likely Evidences of Past Universe There were six other universes before our present 7th universe. The ending of the previous universe, due to a big blast from a massive black hole, caused a giant cosmic tsunami with the following resulting effects: i) partial destruction of the previous universe (extent unknown) with all of its destroyed matter falling into the massive black hole and eventually concentrated at a place called the single unit of creation (equivalent to the singularity of a black hole) - which then acts as a seed for the creation of a new universe through the Big Bang, ii) creation of a super void (likely circular in shape) at the centre of the blast; a feature attributable due to the loss of destroyed matter that fall into the black hole, iii) displacement of stars and galaxies that are located far away from the centre of the blast to form arcs and walls like the Giant Arc, Sloan Great Wall and other cosmic super structures. The stars and galaxies of the previous universes that were not destroyed after the Big Blasts are hence still there and should be seen to this day. As such, the observable universe that we see should include not only the stars and galaxies of the present 7th Universe but also the stars and galaxies of the previous universes (First to Sixth). All of these stars and galaxies of the previous universes should be older than the present 7th Universe, e.g. Methuselah.

@debbiehenri345

Жыл бұрын

It's perfectly possible that Webb could be seeing past the fringes of our Universe and into the boundaries into another. Of course, given that our Universe seems to give a uniform impression that stars and galaxies are all rushing apart from each other, originating as if from a central point of expansion and travelling rapidly outwards, wouldn't the same process and behaviour also be happening in a neighbouring Universe? Which surely would mean that old galaxies at the edges of a neighbour Universe are also rushing away from 'its' central point of expansion, penetrating the fringes of our own Universe, and should be heading towards us. In a sense, we could imagine neighbouring Universes acting like a group of starburst fireworks, their edges overlapping each other other. Would this not affect the redshift of these ancient galaxies significantly enough to be detected by astronomers and the difference between 'one of ours' and 'one of theirs' identified?

@xxx_michael_xxx5587

Жыл бұрын

@@debbiehenri345 The creation of our present universe, which took place in a dark space environment, originated from a previous universe (older than 13.8 billion years) that partially collapsed as a result of a Big Blast from a massive blackhole. Before the collapse and the existence of our present universe, the previous universe also showed characteristics and behaviour which are similar to that observed in the present universe. After its own Big Bang, the previous universe expanded and spread to form the vastness of space, with all the stars and galaxies rushing away from the point that caused the Big Bang. The spread of matter, namely the stars and the galaxies, was anisotropic with the spread dominantly in the x and y axis directions, thus resulting in a universe that is thin and flat. This previous universe which is above our present universe is still there and expanding but due to the effect of the Big Blast also contains a super void and fringing it, the super structures like either the Giant Arc, Sloan Great Wall or other walls. As our present universe is also flat and situated below the previous universe, it is likely that some of the galaxies of the previous universe may be closer to earth than the furtherst galaxies of our present universe. It is also unlikely that the stars and galaxies of the previous universe will encroach or penetrate our present universe. Due to the longer period of expansion, some of the galaxies from the previous universe can also be further away than our outer most galaxies of the present universe. Measuring the redshift in this case requires an interpretation that should take into account the above said factors. The z value will give a good measure of distance but it may not necessarily give the correct age of the galaxy, e.g. the galaxy of the previous universe nearest to earth can have a low z value but in reality is older than our present universe.

@jcelldogs

Жыл бұрын

I always wondered that if a "universe" is the ultimate size description, then how can there be more than one? For example, the smallest unit is lets say city, then county, then state, USA, north America, northern hemisphere, earth, solar system, milky way galaxy, then universe. How can there be anything bigger than universe or another if that's the largest scale thing we know?

And billions will follow

Seeing all that green in the dog bone galaxy ! Does that mean that green stars actually exist ?

@DiannaGold

Жыл бұрын

Our sun puts out mostly green/blue light. Our Sol is a green star... The only reason it looks yellow is because you see it through our atmosphere. All the blue light is scattered by the gasses. Which is why the sky appears blue . ... So Green - Blue = Yellow. To the Naked Eye in space the sun looks white because it's still putting out every wavelength. But still mostly Green Teal light

@scottymoondogjakubin4766

Жыл бұрын

@@DiannaGold ive read that some time ago i believe it was from anton petrov's channel but i didnt believe it because he questioned why there were no green stars ! Im just glad we cant hear the sun ! It would drive us to insanity ! 😛

@yunusjhon651

Жыл бұрын

Universe is inside of space matter of no ending point./infinity.

@scottymoondogjakubin4766

Жыл бұрын

@@yunusjhon651 so far this seems to be the most likely theory yet to date ! 💯

@ihateyoutubecomments8100

Жыл бұрын

No

Maybe universe is spherical and we are watching galaxy images which are before us

Why is NASA ignoring the fact that these so called galaxies are not galaxies, but universes of galaxies shaped like galaxies.

😅😅😅well ingormeti0n good show 😃

The more we learn the more we don't know.

The Theory The older the galaxies the more massive they are. Problem that JWST brought about: Very young galaxies are as massive as Milky way which is 13.8 billion years OLD - which is also the age of the Universe. To resolve this issue; make the age of the universe just thousands of years old. 6,000 year old Milky way is as big as a 1,000 year old young galaxy. 5,000 year gap is not that wide in astronomy.

I think galaxy was formed by large star super nova an became blackhole and became galaxy

Time to chuck the ridiculous cosmology of dark hole a dark matter fudges made up to make equations work for a fictional universe and get back to real physics.

After running around in fanciful confusion, it is now time for cosmologists to look to genesis for the answers. Only rebellion and the dogma of evolution prevents scientists and humanity at large from giving Almighty God the deserved credit for the magnificence and grandeur of nature

A big shout out to the real masters of the universe......Engineers! Astrophysicists are comedians constantly playing catch up with their own bull crap.

Lets accept we don't know how the universe was created. The big bang is wrong.

They are made out of garlic that's why

What came before the big bang? How did something come from nothing? Did matter come before energy or did energy come before matter? I believe in God but I don’t believe in fairy tales. For example, I don’t believe in a giant ark and a talking snake. Nevertheless, I believe in a higher power.

They broke our paltry theories, not the universe.

The big bang didn't happen

ആരാണ് ഇതിന്റെ ഒക്കെ പിന്നിൽ 🤔🤔🤔

And that supposed body of God .

There is no beginning or end ...only the light of god....as jesus the light states

Red shift measure mistake possible?

Hehehhmmm what can we learn the asked question hehehe simply this, as we build more powerful technology an telescopes,even as we travel w them further into deep space, there will always be, more to discover,more to see, more breakers,lololololololfunny thinking

We have to ditch the big bang nonsense

All I heard was A LOT of speculation and conjecture, that's not science