Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

The CMB. That's the only thing your going to "see" in a Universe without stars.

But even our understanding of what the CMB represents may be wrong.
New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

Don't go counting them until they are spectroscopically verified. Until then they are just speculative.

But some have been verified as linked at around 320 million years after the big bang. If the dark ages lasted to around 1 billion years how can this be so.

What is this "standard model"? The only "standard model" I know of in cosmology is LamdaCDM which doesn't specify the details of structure formation. To get structure formation (including galaxies) you need a 3D computer simulation of structure formation.

The standard model does specifiy details about what the structure of the universe should be according to general relativity.

It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology[1] because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of
the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales.
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

I see blobs in those images. Why do you call them "mature"? How do you think we know how the Milky Way formed and how it "matured"?

Not sure what you mean by blobs. Those blobs are said to be galaxies that are too big, too bright and too developed to be existing at 320 million years after the big bang.

 

[NxNW]

Most of us don't.

I see both arguments on this forum.

 

[stevevw]

The cosmic radiation background is detected by radio telescopes and has a redshift z ~ 1100 when the Universe was around 300,000 years old.
So where are all the microwave shifted galaxies that should readily detected in the 70 - 500 metre single dish radio telescopes where the photon collecting capacity is vastly superior to the JWST which has an aperture of only 6.5 metres.

Then there is the fact many astronomers don’t believe the z values of these high redshift galaxies as they were determined using photometric analysis which has a high degree of uncertainty when compared to measuring the redshift directly from its spectrum.
This was demonstrated by the JWST team when a galaxy with a reported value of z~16 using photometric analysis was found to have a redshift of only z = 4.9 from its spectrum.

View attachment 341224
​

Confirmation and refutation of very luminous galaxies in the early universe

During the first 500 million years of cosmic history, the first stars and galaxies formed, seeding the Universe with heavy elements and eventually reionizing the intergalactic medium. Observations with JWST have uncovered a surprisingly high abundance of candidates for early star-forming...

arxiv.org

Thats something you need to take up with the scientists who have measured these red shifts.
Observations from the James Webb Space Telescope have resulted in various galaxies confirmed by spectroscopy at high redshift, such as JADES-GS-z13-0 at cosmological redshift of 13.2.[86][87]. Existence of surprisingly massive galaxies in the early universe challenges the preferred models describing how dark matter halos drive galaxy formation.

And the other problems with the standard model.
Violations of the cosmological principle
Violations of isotropy
Violations of homogeneity
Hubble tension
S8 tension
Axis of evil
Cosmological lithium problem
Violations of the strong equivalence principle
Cold dark matter discrepancies
Galaxy morphology problem
Fast galaxy bar problem
Small scale crisis
Missing baryon problem

Not to mention the model is unfalsifiable according to
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

 

[Hans Blaster]

But even our understanding of what the CMB represents may be wrong.
New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

Nothing in her video indicates a problem with the meaning of the CMB. The whole thing is about what is the appropriate scale for the "cosmological principle" to take hold. If it is larger than previously assumed, it may affect the interpretation of some of the parameters in the standard cosmology from our observational data.

Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

But some have been verified as linked at around 320 million years after the big bang. If the dark ages lasted to around 1 billion years how can this be so.

That's the thing you need to provide evidence of. What is driving your insistence that no galaxies can form by 320 Myr after the BB? What would be needed is a comparison of galaxy number densities as a function of redshift comparing observations to a simulation (or three) at high redshift (say z=10-15).

The standard model does specifiy details about what the structure of the universe should be according to general relativity.

When cosmologists speak of structure they mean non-uniformities -- galaxies, clusters, streams. The standard cosmology model is about the mean evolution of the expansion of space, etc., and does not cover structure.

It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology[1] because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of
the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales.
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

I know what Lamda-CDM is. I dare say more than you do.

Not sure what you mean by blobs. Those blobs are said to be galaxies that are too big, too bright and too developed to be existing at 320 million years after the big bang.

These very distant galaxies have poorly resolved or unresolved shapes and internal structures. The "maturity" of a galaxy is measured by things that are not resolved in those images. It is impossible to tell if they are "mature" or not. A few years ago before JWST we had to argue against the opposite claim (a claim that the most distant galaxies visible in HST images were *not* mature because they were "blobby", of course what HST was seeing at the those redshifts was the UV emission from the distant galaxies that can be clumpy even mature galaxies. Those galaxies did turn out to be mature spirals when observed with JWST.)

Speaking of blobs at those distances, I have a report on the properties of GN-z11, the most distant galaxy IDed by HST at z=10.603

[2401.04186] A Size Estimate for Galaxy GN-z11

The featureless round blob has a measured radius of 150 parsecs, about the size of a decent H II region like the Tarantula Nebula, and much smaller than the Milky Way (the Sun is ~8000 parsecs from the Galactic center, and Earth isn't in the Outer Rim [or on the Kessel run ] ). The conclusion about GN-z11 is that the light primarily comes from an accreting central black hole of around a million solar masses.

My point -- we need to know the properties of these distant galaxies (and true distances) if we want to understand how they fit into models of galaxy formation (and BH growth). Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[sjastro]

Why not address my question of where are all the redshifted galaxies into the microwave region instead of this response which comes across as a deflection.

Thats something you need to take up with the scientists who have measured these red shifts.
Observations from the James Webb Space Telescope have resulted in various galaxies confirmed by spectroscopy at high redshift, such as JADES-GS-z13-0 at cosmological redshift of 13.2.[86][87]. Existence of surprisingly massive galaxies in the early universe challenges the preferred models describing how dark matter halos drive galaxy formation.

Do you understand cosmological and galaxy formation models are not the same?
Despite not providing a link, your description is self-evident the challenge is in addressing the galaxy formation model not the cosmological model.

And the other problems with the standard model.
Violations of the cosmological principle
Violations of isotropy
Violations of homogeneity
Hubble tension
S8 tension
Axis of evil
Cosmological lithium problem
Violations of the strong equivalence principle
Cold dark matter discrepancies
Galaxy morphology problem
Fast galaxy bar problem
Small scale crisis
Missing baryon problem

Why not provide a balanced response which also includes where the standard model has made successful predictions and is supported by observation?
No other model such as Steady State, Static or Plasma cosmology comes even close to the successful predictions made by the standard model.

You are engaging in blatant confirmation bias, for example referring to the “cosmological lithium problem” conveniently overlooks the successful prediction for the primordial isotopes of helium.
None of your references show the standard model is wrong but incomplete, the only one where there is an age issue relates to the Hubble tension where the BB occurred either 13.8 or 12.3 billion years ago depending on whether measurements were made using standard candles or the CMB.

Not to mention the model is unfalsifiable according to
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

Another problem by engaging in confirmation bias is being open to contradictions.
The λ-CDM is clearly falsifiable, in fact what you have been doing is an exercise in falsification (albeit incorrect) by trying to show the λ-CDM model is not supported by the evidence of high redshift large galaxies.
If the λ-CDM is unfalsifiable there is no evidence to show it can be right or wrong.
An example of an unfalsifiable model is incorporating the supernatural.

New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology

Did you even try looking at the video or just the catchy title as part of your confirmation bias.
If we do exist in a local low density hole in the universe then we can revert back to something resembling a BB model without resorting to dark energy and the Hubble tension is resolved.
This makes the BB model stronger not weaker or wrong.

The point however which Sabine Hossenfelder appears to have missed is the scale at which the universe becomes isotropic and homogeneous may be larger than expected rather than not existing over the 46.5 billion light year radius of the observable universe.

 

[Mountainmike]

Given that time was one of the things that was formed in the Big Bang, I think it's a bit odd to ask what was around "before" the Big Bang.

You really do need to study some science to get the story straight before stating such things .
So defeating illogic, I can give you a very long list of actual renowned physicists who disagree With you,
Not that facts ever seem to worry you!

So at least give us the benefit of labelling faith statements as what they are.
Precede all such statements with “ I believe” eg I believetime was formed in big bang..

My question is why do you disagree with such a long and esteemed list of names??
did gravity precede matter, or did matter precede Gravity?
Can gravity exist without time?
So did time prexist gravity and matter.
Has gravity always Been what we observe, or has it changed? Is it the same everywhere anyway?
Did speed of light prexist light? Has that always been the same?

Your ONLY logical answer is don’t know, but I believe. …
The problem with models is they are just models
Gravity mass and light are just part of a model…
And none of them - the model - work in a singularity.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see both arguments on this forum.

I know, I know. But the great majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that do not require such a stand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know, I know. But the great majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that do not require such a stand.

Despite the impressions you might get from the most vocal, a great many of us ex-Christians also came from denominations that did not require the taking of such stands (or certain modern miracles).

 

[AlexB23]

Young-Earth Christians often claim that the speed of light or rate of radioactive decay have changed, and therefore the processes used to date the universe are wrong.

How can Christians claim the constants are both changing and unchanging?

I honestly do not know. I am an Old-Earth Christian.

 

[SelfSim]

.. The point however which Sabine Hossenfelder appears to have missed is the scale at which the universe becomes isotropic and homogeneous may be larger than expected rather than not existing over the 46.5 billion light year radius of the observable universe.

Isn't that her point though(?) In order to arrive at that conclusion, the current concordance model needs to change, (perhaps), leaving dark energy out of it? (Ie: resolving the Hubble tension issue?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Isn't that her point though(?) In order to arrive at that conclusion, the current concordance model needs to change, (perhaps), leaving dark energy out of it? (Ie: resolving the Hubble tension issue?)

Doesn't see so. I just watched the end again and she seems to confuse the "concordance" (or "standard") model (LambdaCDM) with the cosmological principle. She also speaks of abandoning the cosmological principle, but that wouldn't really be the case, it could just be that the scale to apply it is bigger than observable universe. Not quite the same thing. Finally as she signs out she talks about replacing the standard model which seems a bit of an extreme way to describe adjusting the parameters to account for new information (modest non-uniformities in the background that require adjustment). She may not be "wrong" so to speak, but the language she uses does fuel misunderstanding about the scale of the issue and the consequences.

 

[sjastro]

Isn't that her point though(?) In order to arrive at that conclusion, the current concordance model needs to change, (perhaps), leaving dark energy out of it? (Ie: resolving the Hubble tension issue?)

The point I was making prior to the λ-CDM model there was a BB cosmological model.
The poster seems to be under the impression that changing the λ-CDM model requires getting rid of the BB altogether.
No where in the video does Hossenfelder suggest this rather the rate of expansion has to be changed by altering the Hubble constant accordingly.

 

[SelfSim]

Doesn't see so. I just watched the end again and she seems to confuse the "concordance" (or "standard") model (LambdaCDM) with the cosmological principle. She also speaks of abandoning the cosmological principle, but that wouldn't really be the case, it could just be that the scale to apply it is bigger than observable universe. Not quite the same thing. Finally as she signs out she talks about replacing the standard model which seems a bit of an extreme way to describe adjusting the parameters to account for new information (modest non-uniformities in the background that require adjustment). She may not be "wrong" so to speak, but the language she uses does fuel misunderstanding about the scale of the issue and the consequences.

Yes .. there seems to be some ambiguity in her wind-up.
Whilst the cosmological principle is more or less a philosophical notion, it has held up against the evidence pretty well and, I think, has therefore demonstrated its usefulness, as a guiding principle for research(?) There's no reason I can see not to continue with it as more challenging data 'appears'. If it were to lead to agreement that our pocket of a much bigger universe is a low local density 'hole', then it yet again shows its usefulness(?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes .. there seems to be some ambiguity in her wind-up.

I have some issues with the way she puts things, but first, you said something I need to disagree with...

Whilst the cosmological principle is more or less a philosophical notion, it has held up against the evidence pretty well and, I think, has therefore demonstrated its usefulness, as a guiding principle for research(?)

The cosmological principle isn't really philosophical, it's a standard technique in physics -- define equations to simplify them. In this case, to assume that the small fluctuations don't matter to the big picture -- the evolution of the expansion of the Universe. If the cosmological principle only applies at scales close to or bigger than the observable Universe, then it won't be useful anymore and the full distribution of the largest scale variation must be mapped directly to assess the expansion.

There's no reason I can see not to continue with it as more challenging data 'appears'. If it were to lead to agreement that our pocket of a much bigger universe is a low local density 'hole', then it yet again shows its usefulness(?)

If the cosmological principle (uniformity of expansion) does not apply at the the scales necessary to compute the expansion of our portion of the Universe, then clearly more complex versions of expansion will need to be formulated. (The ones used currently assume expansion is uniform in every direction as viewed not only from our point of view, but *every* point of view in the entire Universe. One "simple" modification would be to add a dipole to the expansion, which is the kind of addition you mentioned. (After all what *can't* be described as an expansion in spherical harmonics. )

If it seems like I'm being harsh with Sabine, I kind of am. Her phrasing leaves room open for all of the kooky alternatives that try to seek in at any hint of a "crisis in cosmology". (You know the kind, the thunderboltzzz.disfo types, the universe is twice the age science claimed, the static universe nonsense. It was already the tacit claim with the posting of that video.)

My other issue with Sabine is that she seems to be drifting into that "I'm a smart person, I can understand everything" mode. This is only a small hint of it, but it's nearly impossible to do a one-woman (or man) general science news channel. People still trust her because she has mostly kept to physics, but...

 

[SelfSim]

I have some issues with the way she puts things, but first, you said something I need to disagree with...

The cosmological principle isn't really philosophical, it's a standard technique in physics -- define equations to simplify them. In this case, to assume that the small fluctuations don't matter to the big picture -- the evolution of the expansion of the Universe. If the cosmological principle only applies at scales close to or bigger than the observable Universe, then it won't be useful anymore and the full distribution of the largest scale variation must be mapped directly to assess the expansion.

Ok .. understandable point ..

If the cosmological principle (uniformity of expansion) does not apply at the the scales necessary to compute the expansion of our portion of the Universe, then clearly more complex versions of expansion will need to be formulated. (The ones used currently assume expansion is uniform in every direction as viewed not only from our point of view, but *every* point of view in the entire Universe. One "simple" modification would be to add a dipole to the expansion, which is the kind of addition you mentioned. (After all what *can't* be described as an expansion in spherical harmonics. )

Hmm .. ok ..

If it seems like I'm being harsh with Sabine, I kind of am. Her phrasing leaves room open for all of the kooky alternatives that try to seek in at any hint of a "crisis in cosmology". (You know the kind, the thunderboltzzz.disfo types, the universe is twice the age science claimed, the static universe nonsense. It was already the tacit claim with the posting of that video.)

Not sure what your view is, but I couldn't care less, and refuse to be driven by, what those self demonstrated nutballs think, or say. They'll never deter me from following the real research. I'm more focused on what they come up with, following their observations.
Sabine mentions Alexia Lopez. Her/her team discovered 'The Giant Arc' and now they've found 'The Big Ring' (paper here). Fyi: the ring is apparently more of coil shape, like a cork-screw, that is aligned face-on with Earth:

“The Big Ring and Giant Arc are the same distance from us, near the constellation of Boötes the Herdsman, meaning they existed at the same cosmic time when the universe was only half of its present age. They are also in the same region of sky, at only 12 degrees apart when observing the night sky.

My other issue with Sabine is that she seems to be drifting into that "I'm a smart person, I can understand everything" mode. This is only a small hint of it, but it's nearly impossible to do a one-woman (or man) general science news channel. People still trust her because she has mostly kept to physics, but...

I don't think I doubt there's one huge ego behind that mind of hers .. but that doesn't really change the evidence she's presenting.

 

[stevevw]

The cosmic radiation background is detected by radio telescopes and has a redshift z ~ 1100 when the Universe was around 300,000 years old.
So where are all the microwave shifted galaxies that should readily detected in the 70 - 500 metre single dish radio telescopes where the photon collecting capacity is vastly superior to the JWST which has an aperture of only 6.5 metres.

As far as I understand there is a ? as to what the CMB map represents. A recent paper says it may only represent our local part of the universe. Assuming the earth at the centre for any reading may distort the findings. The researchers mapped the local universe and found it resembled parts of the CMB map. Further research is needed to map larger sections but it may be that the CMB and the BB theory need revising at the least.

A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

We find that, due to nearby galaxies, the largest-scale fluctuations of the Planck CMB map have a remarkable resemblance to those of the foreground map. In particular, the shape of the first multipoles, including the quadrupole and the octopole, shows a strong correlation between the observed CMB and the predicted foreground map

Understanding the physical mechanisms associated with the L2023 foreground is needed in order to correct the observed CMB maps and therefore address its impact on the cosmological parameters.​

[2305.00268] A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

Then there is the fact many astronomers don’t believe the z values of these high redshift galaxies as they were determined using photometric analysis which has a high degree of uncertainty when compared to measuring the redshift directly from its spectrum.
This was demonstrated by the JWST team when a galaxy with a reported value of z~16 using photometric analysis was found to have a redshift of only z = 4.9 from its spectrum.

View attachment 341224
​

Confirmation and refutation of very luminous galaxies in the early universe

During the first 500 million years of cosmic history, the first stars and galaxies formed, seeding the Universe with heavy elements and eventually reionizing the intergalactic medium. Observations with JWST have uncovered a surprisingly high abundance of candidates for early star-forming...

arxiv.org

The trouble is they are finding so many now. Some have been rechecked and verified at around z-12 and 13. Its not just the redshift. Its their look, their size, brightness, star content and maturity that we would not expect after a short time after the BB. The JWST can see back to around 13.5 billion years so these galaxies are certainly in their range. Some of these galaxies are said to take billions of years to evolve.

What if they keep seeing these big galaxies and nothing else. Then we know close to the BB were these galaxies and quantities of stars without any sign of an evolution from a gradual transition as Darwin said with evolution.

From memory they also dicovered merging Black Holes around 700 million years after the BB which seems impossible.

 

[sjastro]

As far as I understand there is a ? as to what the CMB map represents. A recent paper says it may only represent our local part of the universe. Assuming the earth at the centre for any reading may distort the findings. The researchers mapped the local universe and found it resembled parts of the CMB map. Further research is needed to map larger sections but it may be that the CMB and the BB theory need revising at the least.

A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

We find that, due to nearby galaxies, the largest-scale fluctuations of the Planck CMB map have a remarkable resemblance to those of the foreground map. In particular, the shape of the first multipoles, including the quadrupole and the octopole, shows a strong correlation between the observed CMB and the predicted foreground map

Understanding the physical mechanisms associated with the L2023 foreground is needed in order to correct the observed CMB maps and therefore address its impact on the cosmological parameters.​

[2305.00268] A possible common explanation for several cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies: A strong impact of nearby galaxies on observed large-scale CMB fluctuations

The paper you cited does not even remotely resemble what you think it is.
Photons emitted by the CMB can interact with galaxies before reaching the observer resulting in a distortion in the spectral characteristics of CMB.
The most common distortion is caused by galaxy clusters, the Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect.
In the paper the distortion of the CMB is caused by individual galaxies and the foreground map is a map of these galactic sources.
The foreground map does not mean the CMB is local, despite the correlation using multipole analysis which is described in this post.

The trouble is they are finding so many now. Some have been rechecked and verified at around z-12 and 13. Its not just the redshift. Its their look, their size, brightness, star content and maturity that we would not expect after a short time after the BB. The JWST can see back to around 13.5 billion years so these galaxies are certainly in their range. Some of these galaxies are said to take billions of years to evolve.

What if they keep seeing these big galaxies and nothing else. Then we know close to the BB were these galaxies and quantities of stars without any sign of an evolution from a gradual transition as Darwin said with evolution.

From memory they also dicovered merging Black Holes around 700 million years after the BB which seems impossible.

And yet for umpteenth time radio telescopes far more powerful than the JWST can probe back to around 13.79 billion years without finding a single galaxy.
JWST is an IR telescope and was designed to probe the reionization era of the universe when the first stars and galaxies were formed.

Your argument is meaningless as it completely ignores the most obvious scenario the problem is in our understanding of the formation of galaxies.
If on the other hand radio telescopes detected galaxies which are redshifted into the microwave range when BB nucleosynthesis predicts the only photons which can be emitted are from the 21 cm hydrogen line then yes, the BB model is comprehensively destroyed.
You are clutching at straws.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The trouble is they are finding so many now. Some have been rechecked and verified at around z-12 and 13. Its not just the redshift. Its their look, their size, brightness, star content and maturity that we would not expect after a short time after the BB. The JWST can see back to around 13.5 billion years so these galaxies are certainly in their range. Some of these galaxies are said to take billions of years to evolve.

We know Masie's galaxy has a spectroscopic distance and I posted about GN-z11. If we want to talk about these galaxies we really need the references. Until then how do we know how mature and what they are made of. At least one "faction" finds GN-z11 to be largely powered by an AGN. GN-z11 also isn't very large in terms of its diameter. We need to see those reports on the stellar content and not just some hand-waving about how unpossible it is.

What if they keep seeing these big galaxies and nothing else. Then we know close to the BB were these galaxies and quantities of stars without any sign of an evolution from a gradual transition as Darwin said with evolution.

Are they big? There are two things we need to keep in mind when talking about galaxies this far away: Malmquist bias and the evolution of angular size with redshift.

If you are dealing with brightness limited samples (and with both the most distant HST detected galaxies and the medium-deep JWST images definitely are) the brightest object can be seen from much further away, so the z~10-15 galaxies being detected are certainly the intrinsically brightest objects in that patch of sky. This is Malmquist bias and generally means that the distribution of objects in astronomical surveys are biased towards the brightest objects. These are the extremes.

The second issue is how big things look on images, the angular size. If you start with a group of identical objects at different distances (redshifts) the nearby objects will look smaller with increasing distance, but for high redshift the angular size actually grows(!). The minimum angular size is near z~1-2 depending on the contents of the Universe. For the standard cosmology, an object at z=10 will look about twice as big as the same object would at z=2. So when you look at an image showing "low" redshift (z=2,3) and high redshift objects, your intuition is that the far objects should look smaller, but it is the opposite. The professionals know this. What you need to pay attention to are the physical parameters: diameter, stellar mass and content, BH mass.

[Edit: I completely forgot to include this link:

Angular size and redshift ]

From memory they also dicovered merging Black Holes around 700 million years after the BB which seems impossible.

Memory is fallible. I can't find this discovery. (Also, what seems impossible to you is not evidence.)

 

[stevevw]

The paper you cited does not even remotely resemble what you think it is.
Photons emitted by the CMB can interact with galaxies before reaching the observer resulting in a distortion in the spectral characteristics of CMB.
The most common distortion is caused by galaxy clusters, the Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect.
In the paper the distortion of the CMB is caused by individual galaxies and the foreground map is a map of these galactic sources.
The foreground map does not mean the CMB is local, despite the correlation using multipole analysis which is described in this post.

Ok so heres a commentary on that paper which seems to support what I and the paper are saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKw2nwJ4UM&ab_channel=RayFleming

And yet for umpteenth time radio telescopes far more powerful than the JWST can probe back to around 13.79 billion years without finding a single galaxy.
JWST is an IR telescope and was designed to probe the reionization era of the universe when the first stars and galaxies were formed.

Your argument is meaningless as it completely ignores the most obvious scenario the problem is in our understanding of the formation of galaxies.
If on the other hand radio telescopes detected galaxies which are redshifted into the microwave range when BB nucleosynthesis predicts the only photons which can be emitted are from the 21 cm hydrogen line then yes, the BB model is comprehensively destroyed.
You are clutching at straws.

Then why are scientists even the head scientists of the JWTS are saying this in an anomely and we should not be seeings such large, bright and mature galaxies at that point in time.

As mentioned its not just the redshift anomelies. Scientists have also found that early galaxies around 600 to 800 million years after the BB had formed heavy elements way earlier than the current standard model predicts. They have also found black holes around 500 million years after the BB which seems also impossible considering they take at least 1.5 billion years to evolve a black hole.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As mentioned its not just the redshift anomelies. Scientists have also found that early galaxies around 600 to 800 million years after the BB had formed heavy elements way earlier than the current standard model predicts. They have also found black holes around 500 million years after the BB which seems also impossible considering they take at least 1.5 billion years to evolve a black hole.

You keep saying these kind of things, but never offer any evidence. Could you show a paper on galaxy and structure formation that shows galaxies of the observed size and composition are not possible?