• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

More high redshift contradictions with the big bang model....

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Astronomers discover unusual monster galaxy in the very early universe

"In this epoch, very few galaxies have stopped forming stars, and none are as massive as XMM-2599," said Gillian Wilson, a professor of physics and astronomy at UCR in whose lab Forrest works. "The mere existence of ultramassive galaxies like XMM-2599 proves quite a challenge to numerical models. Even though such massive galaxies are incredibly rare at this epoch, the models do predict them. The predicted galaxies, however, are expected to be actively forming stars. What makes XMM-2599 so interesting, unusual, and surprising is that it is no longer forming stars, perhaps because it stopped getting fuel or its black hole began to turn on. Our results call for changes in how models turn off star formation in early galaxies."

So essentially, galaxies in the distant universe are already "ultramassive", and they are far too "mature" in the sense that they aren't forming stars anymore, in defiance of BB models. There's almost *nothing* about the so called 'early' universe that actually jives with BB models. I suspect that the James Webb telescope will drive the last few nails in the big bang model. I'm sure it's going to show "massive and mature" galaxies for as far as it can see too, just like all of our other telescopes.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Here's another link by the way:

A galaxy from the early universe grew astonishingly fast, then suddenly stopped | Live Science

I think it's quite telling and rather amusing that the BB model fails virtually every single new high redshift observation. It's actual "predictive value" is less than zero. Almost all of the core elements of the BB model were never "predictions" to begin with, they were "postdictions" which were based on previous observations. The actual "predictive" value of the big bang model is horrible. Every new high reshift observation defies the model entirely, including this one. Galaxies at the highest redshifts look and act just like our galaxy and the galaxies in our local galaxy cluster. They are "mature". They are 'massive'. They have all the same basic features as galaxies in our local region of space. The whole concept of galaxy evolution over time has been blown out of the water more times than I can count. The rationalizations as to why the BB model fails high redshift observations is getting ever more desperate and ever more bizarre over time. The BB model will not survive the James Webb data set.
 
Upvote 0