What do the James Webb images really show?
From: IAI News
August 11, 2022 -- It
is not too complicated to explain why these too small, too smooth, too old and
too numerous galaxies [which dominate the early James Webb data] are completely
incompatible with the Big Bang hypothesis. Let’s begin with “too small”. If the
universe is expanding, a strange optical illusion must exist. Galaxies (or any
other objects) in expanding space do not continue to look smaller and smaller
with increasing distance. Beyond a certain point, they start looking larger and
larger. (This is because their light is supposed to have left them when they
were closer to us.) This is in sharp contrast to ordinary, non-expanding space,
where objects look smaller in proportion to their distance.
Put another way, the
galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us,
assuming that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to
distance.
Smaller and smaller is
exactly what the JWST images show. Even galaxies with greater luminosity and
mass than our own Milky Way galaxy appear in these images to be two to three
times smaller than in similar images observed with the Hubble Space Telescope
(HST), and the new galaxies have redshifts which are also two to three times
greater.
This is not at all what
is expected with an expanding universe, but it is just exactly what I and my
colleague Riccardo Scarpa predicted based on a non-expanding universe, with
redshift proportional to distance. Starting in 2014, we had already published results, based
on HST images, that showed that galaxies with redshifts all the way up to 5
matched the expectations of non-expanding, ordinary space. So we were confident
the JWST would show the same thing—which it already has, for galaxies having
redshifts as high as 12. Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are
just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is
assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is
proportional to distance.
Dark
Matter Doesn't ExistRead moreBut from the standpoint of the Big Bang,
expanding-universe hypothesis, these distant galaxies must be intrinsically
extremely tiny to compensate for the hypothesized optical illusion—implausibly
tiny. One galaxy noted in the papers, called GHz2, is far more luminous that the Milky
Way, yet is calculated to be only 300 light years in radius—150 times smaller
than the radius of our Milky Way. Its surface brightness—brightness per unit
area-- would be 600 times that of the brightest galaxy in the local universe.
Its density (and that of several other galaxies in the new images) would be
tens of thousands of times that of present-day galaxies.
Tiny and smooth
galaxies mean no expansion and thus no Big Bang.
Big Bang theorists have
known for years from the HST images that their assumptions necessitate the
existence of these tiny, ultra-dense “Mighty Mouse” galaxies. JWST has made the
problem far worse. The same theorists have speculated that the tiny galaxies grow
up into present day galaxies by colliding with each other—merging to become
more spread out. An analogy to this hypothetical merger process would be to
imagine a magical toy car a centimeter long that nonetheless weighs as much as
a SUV and grows up into a real SUV by colliding with many other toy cars.
But the JWST has shot
through this far-out scenario as well. If you could believe the toy car story,
you would at least expect some fender dents in the colliding cars. And Big Bang
theorists did expect to see badly mangled galaxies scrambled by many collisions
or mergers. What the JWST actually showed was overwhelmingly smooth disks and
neat spiral forms, just as we see in today’s galaxies. The data in the “Panic!”
article showed that smooth spiral galaxies were about “10 times” as numerous as
what theory had predicted and that this “would challenge our ideas about
mergers being a very common process”. In plain language, this data utterly
destroys the merger theory.
With few or no mergers,
there is no way tiny galaxies could grow to be a hundred times bigger.
Therefore, they were not tiny to begin with, and thus the optical illusion
predicted from the expanding universe hypothesis does not exist. But no
illusion means no expansion: the illusion is an unavoidable prediction from
expansion. Thus, the panic among Big Bang supporters. Tiny and smooth galaxies
mean no expansion and thus no Big Bang.
Since nothing could
have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies
demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.
Too old and too many
galaxies mean the same thing. The JWST uses many different filters to take its
images in the infrared part of the spectrum. Thus, it can see the colors of the
distant galaxies. This in turn allows astronomers to estimate the age of the
stars in these galaxies because young, hot stars are blue in color and older,
cooler stars, like our sun, are yellow or red in color. According to Big Bang
theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only
400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the
galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old.
Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these
galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.
Just as there must be
no galaxies older than the Big Bang, if the Big Bang hypothesis were valid, so
theorists expected that as the JWST looked out further in space and back in
time, there would be fewer and fewer galaxies and eventually none—a Dark Age in
the cosmos. But a paper to be published in Nature demonstrates that
galaxies as massive as the Milky Way are common even a few hundred million
years after the hypothesized Bang. The authors state that the new images show
that there are at least 100,000 times as many galaxies as theorists predicted
at redshifts more than 10. There is no way that so many large galaxies can be
generated in so little time, so again-- no Big Bang.
While Big Bang
theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a
few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we
published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would
show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds
has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years. The widely-publicized
crisis in cosmology has drawn general attention to the failed predictions of
the Big Bang hypothesis for the Hubble constant relating redshift to distance.
But our papers, published over the past decades, have pointed to far more
contradictions, each individually acknowledged by other researchers.
Based on the published
literature, right now the Big Bang makes 16 wrong predictions and only one
right one—the abundance of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen.
The Big Bang prediction
of the abundance of helium is off by a factor of two, the prediction for the
abundance of lithium is off by a factor of 20. In addition to the absence of
the larger-more-distant optical illusion, there is also the existence of
large-scale structures too big to have formed in the times since the Big Bang,
wrong predictions for the density of matter in the universe, and well-known
asymmetries in the cosmic microwave background that should not exist according
to theory. There are many more contradictions. In early July I published two comprehensive
papers summarizing the situation. Based on the published literature,
right now the Big Bang makes 16 wrong predictions and only one right one—the
abundance of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen.
Cosmology
in crisisRead moreReaders may well be wondering at this point why they
have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media
outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to
this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New
Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and
unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very
few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated
by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big
Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded.
It has now become
almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any
astronomical journals.
Until the past few
years, if researchers could self-fund cosmology research as a sideline, as is
the case with me, they still could publish “heretical” papers, although those
papers were often ignored by the cosmological establishment. As recently as 2018,
the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS), a leading
journal, published one of my papers showing how the sizes of galaxies contradicted
the expanding universe idea.
But as the crisis in
cosmology became obvious in 2019, the cosmological establishment has circled
the wagons to protect this failed theory with censorship, because it now has no
other defense. It has now become almost impossible to publish papers critical
of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals. An anonymous senior editor
rejected my survey papers, writing “There are many journals which would be
interested in publishing a well-argued synthesis of existing evidence against
the standard hot big bang interpretation. But MNRAS, with its focus on
publication of significant new astronomical results, is not one of them”. The
replies from several other journals were similar.
Such censorship is now,
as always, inimical to the progress of science. Two dozen researchers in
astrophysics, astronomy and space science have signed a letter of protest to the arXiv leadership. I have
personally called on leading Big Bang theorists to openly debate the new
evidence. For cosmology – as for any research area - to advance, this debate
must happen openly in both scientific journals and the public media.
To use fusion energy,
the power that drives the universe and gives light to the Sun and all the
stars, we need to understand the processes that drive cosmic evolution.
These scientific
questions matter in the here and now. Over decades scientists, starting with
Physics Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven, have shown that if the Big Bang
hypothesis is thrown out, the evolution of the cosmos and the phenomena that we
observe today, like the cosmic microwave background, can be explained using the
physical processes we observe in the laboratory—especially the electromagnetic
processes of plasmas. Plasma is the electrically conducting gas that makes up
nearly all the matter that we see in space, in the stars and in the space
between the stars. Only the Hubble redshift relation would still need some new
physical process to explain the loss of energy as light travels huge distances.
One of the key
processes in plasmas that Alfven and his colleagues identified, and which has
been studied for 50 years, is plasma filamentation. This is the process by
which electric currents, and the magnetic fields they create, draw plasma into
the lacy system of filaments that we see at all scales in the universe from the
aurorae in the earth’s atmosphere to the solar corona to galactic spiral arms,
even to clusters of galaxies. Together with gravitational forces, plasma
filamentation is one of the basic processes in the formation of planets, stars,
galaxies and structures at all scales.
That process of plasma
filamentation is also key to the enormously important effort to develop fusion
energy here on earth. To use fusion energy, the power that drives the universe
and gives light to the Sun and all the stars, we need to understand the
processes that drive cosmic evolution. Just as the Wright Brothers developed
the airplane by studying how birds controlled their flight, so today we can
only control the ultra-hot plasma where fusion reactions occur by studying how
plasmas behave at all scales in cosmos. We need to imitate nature, not try to fight
it. We at LPPFusion have
been applying that knowledge concretely to the development of a cheap, clean
and unlimited source of energy that can entirely replace fossil fuels starting
in this decade.
While many researchers
have been funded to study these processes on the scale of the sun and the solar
system, work on larger scales has been hobbled by the straightjacket of the Big
Bang hypothesis, which has diverted hundreds or thousands of talented researchers
into futile calculations of the imaginary entities, like dark matter and dark
energy, that have been invented to prop up a failing theory. Open debate can
clear away that failed theory and lead to the reorientation of cosmology to the
study of real phenomena, advancing technology here on earth. It is time to end
the censorship and to let the debate begin. Cosmology can emerge from its
crisis once it is recognized that the Big Bang never happened.
Eric Lerner will be a
speaker at our upcoming festival HowTheLightGetsIn London
2022 September 17-18 , taking part in the debate “Cosmology and
the Big Bust”.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?_auid=2020
No comments:
Post a Comment