A beautiful star cluster that's relatively close to Earth: just 200,000 lightyears away.

JeffKeryk

JeffKeryk

Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
19,191
Location
Los Gatos, CA
From the James Webb Space Telescope...

NGC 346
This image shows a beautiful star cluster that's relatively close to Earth: just 200,000 lightyears away. (186,000 miles per second * number of seconds in a year * 200,000 years).
1 lightday is 16.1 billion miles. 1 light year is 5.8 trillion miles. Bring a lunch, as they say...
It can be found in the Small Magellanic Cloud, which is a satellite galaxy of our own Milky Way.
Webb data shows wisps of cosmic gas and dust: the very ingredients consumed by growing stars and planets during their formation.
Chandra's contribution to the image includes the large purple cloud on the left, which is the remnant of the supernova explosion of a massive star.
Chandra data also shows young stars, scorching hot, that are projecting powerful stellar winds outwards into space.

1685930403367.png
 
Last edited:
If a theory has a substantial conflict between prediction and observation it is illogical to continue promoting the theory as true.

The photos obtained from the James Webb telescope reveal a universe that is contrary to the expectations of big bang theory. This is by no means the first time that observations have heavily contradicted the theory and it is likely that this issue will largely be ignored and covered up through fudge factors such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, due to cosmology's philosophical bias.

Could it be the so-called missing matter/Dark Matter problem is being solved right before our eyes as more real mass is being discovered in the Universe?
 
Last edited:
MolaKule said:
If a theory has a substantial conflict between prediction and observation it is illogical to continue promoting the theory as true.

The photos obtained from the James Webb telescope reveal a universe that is contrary to the expectations of big bang theory. This is by no means the first time that observations have heavily contradicted the theory and it is likely that this issue will largely be ignored and covered up through fudge factors such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, due to cosmology's philosophical bias.

Could it be the so-called missing matter/Dark Matter problem is being solved right before our eyes as more real mass is being discovered in the Universe?
Click to expand...
Interesting... "Science is man's endless search for truth in nature."

Truth is good, but what could go wrong when people are involved?
 
vavavroom said:
We are getting great image interpretations from the data Webb is capturing. I can't wait to see the widefield shots that the ROMAN will provide in a few years.

roman.gsfc.nasa.gov

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope
roman.gsfc.nasa.gov roman.gsfc.nasa.gov
Click to expand...
"The Roman Space Telescope will delve into the mystery of Dark Energy by studying how the distribution of Dark Energy has changed throughout cosmic history."

This statement should actually be worded as follows: "The Roman Space Telescope will delve into the mystery of assumed Dark Energy by studying how the distribution of assumed Dark Energy has changed throughout assumed (simulated) cosmic history."

It seems the more telescopes we put up the more questions they raise and generates more contradictions to current theory.
 
In the Hot Big Bang model as described by M.S. Longair, Theoretical Concepts in Physics, Harvard University Press (a text which we often use in advanced History of Physics courses), in determining the matter density of the Universe factor Omega, he states the process of element formation is over in only a few minutes, because the temperature has fallen below the temperature at which nuclear interactions can take place. He refers to the chart by R.V. Wagner in Astrophysics Journal 179, p. 343, 1973.

"...this is difficult to account for by stellar nucleosynthesis." So stellar nucleosynthesis cannot account for the abundance of D, 4He, 5He, 7Li. The 4He abundance is an observational measurement. "Notice in particular, the strong dependence of the Deuterium abundance on density...If the matter density is high, the Deuterium is all converted into 4He and so, to obtain the present Deuterium abundance, a low value of the mean density of the Universe at the present time is required. Even more important is the fact that we only know ways of destroying Deuterium astrophysically and not ways of creating it. On this basis, the density parameters of the Universe for the baryons (or ordinary matter) must be less than about 0.1 and it can be seen that a value of ~ 0.03 can explain the abundance of all the light elements. It seems highly improbable that this could be a result of chance because so many computations involve so many different interactions..." Emphasis mine.

Even today, the mean mass density Omega is still being modified/changed/disputed, etc.

Do we even know if the simulations are accounting for all of interactions involved? How do we know we have accounted for all of the interactions?

Now previously, he stated the basis of these computations "...depend only upon the ratio of the number of photons (or particles of the thermal background radiation) to protons (or baryons or real matter) in the Universe. Now we know quite accurately the number density of photons in the microwave background radiation and so the results depend only on the present density of matter in the Universe..."

Do we really know the total number density of photons in the microwave background radiation or the baryons in the Universe? NO. And the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) theory has recently been called into question.

So I hope you see the stack-upon-stack of assumptions and speculations on which the Hot Big Bang theory rests and why constant fudge factors such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter have been and have to be introduced.
 
Last edited:
MolaKule said:
If a theory has a substantial conflict between prediction and observation it is illogical to continue promoting the theory as true.

The photos obtained from the James Webb telescope reveal a universe that is contrary to the expectations of big bang theory. This is by no means the first time that observations have heavily contradicted the theory and it is likely that this issue will largely be ignored and covered up through fudge factors such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, due to cosmology's philosophical bias.

Could it be the so-called missing matter/Dark Matter problem is being solved right before our eyes as more real mass is being discovered in the Universe?
Click to expand...
From my understanding many of these images could be hundreds of thousands of years old, as in what the JWT is seeing is not how that Galaxy is currently.
 
MolaKule said:
If a theory has a substantial conflict between prediction and observation it is illogical to continue promoting the theory as true.

The photos obtained from the James Webb telescope reveal a universe that is contrary to the expectations of big bang theory. This is by no means the first time that observations have heavily contradicted the theory and it is likely that this issue will largely be ignored and covered up through fudge factors such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, due to cosmology's philosophical bias.

Could it be the so-called missing matter/Dark Matter problem is being solved right before our eyes as more real mass is being discovered in the Universe?
Click to expand...
I've read 20 books on cosmology from over a dozen different authors and every book presents no less than 5-10 theories on the origin of the universe. Some of the authors thought some theories were more plausible than others but not a single author hung their hat on a single theory. This "philosophical bias" may exist in the general population who don't know or understand much about cosmology but it certainly doesn't exist in cosmology, at least not among the authors I've read, who gave the rationale and data for and against each theory equal time and consideration.
 
Last edited:
97prizm said:
From my understanding many of these images could be hundreds of thousands of years old, as in what the JWT is seeing is not how that Galaxy is currently.
Click to expand...
These beautiful and amazing images themselves are in real time and are the result of these photons reaching us today..
 
MolaKule said:
These beautiful and amazing images themselves are in real time and are the result of these photons reaching us today..
Click to expand...
Yes but from what many astronomers have said in the past (there's still debate). Some stars are so far from earth the light is still traveling towards us but the star has already burned out.
 
atikovi said:
It's light is also traveling away from us as well. Can we see that light too?
Click to expand...
There are stars constantly disappearing from the furthest parts of our visible universe as the distance between us and those stars is so great they are now (or where) moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
 
97prizm said:
From my understanding many of these images could be hundreds of thousands of years old, as in what the JWT is seeing is not how that Galaxy is currently.
Click to expand...
MolaKule said:
These beautiful and amazing images themselves are in real time and are the result of these photons reaching us today..
Click to expand...
I believe @97prizm is referring to the length of time it takes for light to travel from one place to another. We see objects not as they are now but as they were at the time when they released the light that has traveled across the universe to us. Astronomers can therefore look farther back through time by studying progressively more-distant objects.
 
Last edited:
atikovi said:
It's light is also traveling away from us as well. Can we see that light too?
Click to expand...
With the proper photonic sensors Theoretically Yes.

The assumption is that if the light is red-shifted then the object that emitted it is moving away from us, whereas an object that is moving toward us its light will be blue-shifted.

Here is some background info on this phenomenon which is a result of the Doppler shift in Physics:

www.space.com

What Are Redshift and Blueshift?

Redshift and blueshift are used by astronomers to work out how far an object is from Earth.
www.space.com www.space.com
 
Last edited:
PWMDMD said:
...This "philosophical bias" may exist in the general population who don't know or understand much about cosmology but it certainly doesn't exist in cosmology, at least not among the authors I've read, who gave the rationale and data for and against each theory equal time and consideration.
Click to expand...
The philosophical bias exists within the cosmological community and other adherents to the Hot Big Bang cosmological Hypothesis.

I found this alternative theory from discussions on another website that is a scientifically and mathematically coherent cosmology:

Consider Patrick Tonin's hypothesis, The Quantum Bang Hypothesis; An Alternative to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 2020, 6, 753-764?

It is available for download from the Internet as a PDF.
 
Last edited:
MolaKule said:
The philosophical bias exists within the cosmological community and other adherents to the Hot Big Bang cosmological Hypothesis.

I found this alternative theory from discussions on another website that is a scientifically and mathematically coherent cosmology:

Consider Patrick Tonin's hypothesis, The Quantum Bang Hypothesis; An Alternative to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 2020, 6, 753-764?

It is available for download from the Internet as a PDF.
Click to expand...
Two points:

1. SEVERAL alternative theories to the origins of the universe exist and while the Big Bang Theory is popular and probably has the most support from data, even if data and theory don't fit perfectly, it is one of MANY theories.

2. Since most people do not know any alternate theories on the origin of the universe and most have only heard about the Big Bang Theory, the "bias" for the Big Bang Theory may exist but it is in the general public and not the cosmology community. As I said, I have never read a book on cosmology that did not present at least five alternate theories. Professional cosmologists are acutely aware of all alternate theories as well as the data that does or doesn't support those theories.
 
PWMDMD said:
Two points:

1. SEVERAL alternative theories to the origins of the universe exist and while the Big Bang Theory is popular and probably has the most support from data, even if data and theory don't fit perfectly, it is one of MANY theories.
Click to expand...
If data and theory don't fit, then the theory should be discarded in lieu of a better theory, not the data. Interpretation of the data are often modified to fit the theory which happens regularly in the cosmology community.
PWMDMD said:
2. Since most people do not know any alternate theories on the origin of the universe and most have only heard about the Big Bang Theory, the "bias" for the Big Bang Theory may exist but it is in the general public and not the cosmology community. As I said, I have never read a book on cosmology that did not present at least five alternate theories. Professional cosmologists are acutely aware of all alternate theories as well as the data that does or doesn't support those theories.
Click to expand...
Not in my experience. One of the textbooks still used by universities is by Niel Comins, "Discovering the Essential Universe," and not one mention of alternative cosmological theories is to be found.
 
Last edited:
JeffKeryk said:
I believe @97prizm is referring to the length of time it takes for light to travel from one place to another. We see objects not as they are now but as they were at the time when they released the light that has traveled across the universe to us. Astronomers can therefore look farther back through time by studying progressively more-distant objects.
Click to expand...
How fast light arrives at a viewer from an emitter depends on the angle of incidence at the viewer. In Reichenbach's theory, if one-way light impinges directly on the viewer from a zero angle, the photon has arrived instantaneously from the emitter.

https://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-5-issue-1-article-43.annotate (from his, "Conventionality of Simultaneity" Theory)

Remember, the canonical speed of light c is an "average" value developed from two-way speed-of-light experiments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top