/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14754387
The jwst showed there were way too many neat,stable galaxies present in the early universe ( according to the big bang model). so yeah, no big bang.

>>14754387
Why are those galaxies distorted?

>>14754387
it means the estimate of the age of the Universe is completely wrong and they all look like a bunch of chumps

>>14754409
it's photoshopped

>>14754408
>>14754409
>>14754419
>>14754427
Look at all these contrarian faggots with their dicks out. Big Bang is obviously and unquestionably correct. Get off 4chan and do something useful once in a while.

>>14754440
It's actually hilarious. Don't disturb them, I want to laugh

>>14754440
galaxies cant form and be perfectly stable after only 100 million years , its over Sheldon.

>>14754440
stellar argument anon. top notch stuff

>>14754440
DO NOT QUESTION THE UNPROVABLE THEORY!
I HAVE SPOKEN!

>>14754463
> picrel is literally the guy in OP's article

>>14754409
>Why are those galaxies distorted?
Gravitational lensing.

>>14754409
gravitational lensing around the galaxy cluster in the middle, which is the pale area around the dots

>>14754408
"The big bang model" doesn't predict the number of galaxies. Firstly there are many cosmological models with big bangs, not one. Secondly a cosmological model has to be combined with a model of galaxy formation to make any such prediction, and there are dozens of those and they're all works in progress. Galaxy formation is not solved.

Secondly these galaxies are only candidates, they are not spectroscopically confirmed. Many of these objects are in dispute, and different papers do not all find the same galaxy candidates. The only people claiming these galaxy candidates in pre-print papers disprove the big bang are people who were already making the same claims before. It's just confirmation bias.

>>14754611
Big bang theory could maybe be recovered, but don't act like everything is going according to plan. A Huge amount of theories we had about galaxy formation and the early universe have been broken. The first study begins with "Panic!".

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09428.pdf

>inb4 s-so?? it's all explainable with Dark Galaxies!! Trust the models!!

LOL, religion BTFO again.

>>14754825
If you looked beyond the title you would see they don't actually compare to any simulations or models. Nothing has been broken because the only thing they compared to was measurements from Hubble. Read what you post.

>>14754827
wut? Webb has just proven that galaxies formed INSTANTLY after the Big Bang, proving Gods handiwork

>>14754864
No, we just assume a Dark Galaxy Forming Matter (DGFM) that influenced the early forming of galaxies. This matter is of course undetectable.

>>14754825
>but don't act like everything is going according to plan.
What "plan" ? what does that means in the context of science ?

> Trust the models!!
The Poltard way of 'understanding' science has really rotten the brain of a lot of people.

Alright bros, so since it has been confirmed that not only is the universe infinite in size, but also ageless and eternal in existence, what does that say about every creationist religion and myth since matter has always existed?

>>14754882
No one mentioned /pol/. Take your meds

>>14754890
>No one mentioned /pol/.
Writing any variation of "trust the science!" is clearly poltard behaviour.
Why the fuck would someone say that discovering something that we did not expect would mean that it's going against "the plan" ?

>>14754901
You need to seek therapy. The world (and the universe) is much bigger than you and your imagined /pol/ boogeyman but that's what you've reduced it down to. When was the last time a day passed by without you injecting your /pol/ obsession into something?

>>14754457
Why are you assuming that the issue is with the big bang theory and not our current understanding of galaxy formation?

>>14754924
>Typical /pol/ reply.
Figures.

>>14754944
>>14754935
>>14754924
>>14754901
>>14754890
Stfu
>>14754888
They're all fake, existence is eternal, has always existed, will exist, and will keep existing forever, creationists BTFO for once and for all

>>14754944
Dude, you pretty much proved his point. Can you comment on the topic instead of what's going on with other boards?

>>14754935
because the BBT relies entirely upon the motion of the galaxies coming together 13.8 billion years ago, thats now clearly not the case.

>>14754870
Kek

>>14754972
>clearly
Based on what quantitive evidence?

>>14754955
Fuck man, I though I wasn't that subtle with my humorous 'pol obsessed' reply
I commented on the topic though, several times. I'm actually interested in the subject. Can't people understand why "Trust the models!!" is the type of things that is killing discussions ?

>>14754993
Jwst images

>>14755041
Images are just data, you have to do some work to make quantitive measurements. So what was the analysis that showed this?

>>14755052
The same kind they used thus far i imagine

The big bang theory was just the natural evolution of monotheism into a depersonified, materialist world-schema. The human mind knows less about the distant past, than the near past, than the present. So naturally it tends to simplify as it extends back into the past, and construct a narrative where everything was one thing in the beginning, because that's where the ability to "rationalize" ex nihilo reaches the point of exhaustion. You should take theoretical physics as modern day philosophy, nothing more profound than that.

>>14755067
There have been dozens of analyses on many different topics, you're going to have to be more specific. Which paper are you referring to, or did you do the calculations yourself?

>>14755073
There's one linked itt

>>14755077
Which shows there is a higher fraction of disk galaxies at moderate redshift, compared to Hubble results. Nothing to do with " the motion of the galaxies coming together 13.8 billion years ago".
What a surprise, you were talking shit.

>>14755083
There should be more in google

>>14754944

>>14754440
>Big Bang is obviously and unquestionably correct.
You must be dumb as fuck not to know that this theory is little more than a blatant idiotic scam, easy to refute and with assumption that belong to /x.

No i don't repeat my arguments over here, 3 times "pruned or deleted" is way more than enough. This side is for retards believers and scientific parasites which only support the common thing

>>14754924
Choke on cocks, you DOUBLE NIGGER.