James Webb Telescope found 6 galaxies that shatter our understanding of the universe

avatar
(Edited)



Modern materialistic mainstream Science is breaking

grafik.png

James Webb Telescope found 6 galaxies that shatter our understanding of the universe

The James Webb telescope found six galaxies that may be too hefty for their age

The masses of the galaxies raise questions about how they got so big so fast

The James Webb Space Telescope’s first peek at the distant universe unveiled galaxies that appear too big to exist.

too big to exist xd

Six galaxies that formed in the universe’s first 700 million years seem to be up to 100 times more massive than standard cosmological theories predict, astronomer Ivo Labbé and colleagues report February 22 in Nature. “Adding up the stars in those galaxies, it would exceed the total amount of mass available in the universe at that time,” says Labbé, of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. “So you know that something is afoot.”

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/james-webb-telescope-six-galaxies-old

maybe maybe
xd

According to a new paper published today in Nature, objects that are thought to be at least six galaxies dating back as far as 500 million years after the Big Bang have been discovered with populations of tens or even hundreds of billions of stars. The largest of the six is thought to have a collective mass one trillion times greater than our sun—or 10 times the size of the Milky Way.

“It’s bananas,” said Erica Nelson, an assistant professor of astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a co-author of the paper, in a statement that accompanied its release. “You just don’t expect the early universe to be able to organize itself that quickly. These galaxies should not have had time to form.”

https://time.com/6257544/webb-telescope-galaxies/

It's bananas xd

yea, all those theories are full bull sh.. bananas :D

(did you know bullshit is a scientific word?)


Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder:
a good scientific explanation should be "..as simple as possible and you shouldn't add any unnecessary assumptions, no matter how much you need them to justify your hypothesis."

duh xd

grafik.png


the stories and assumptions of current physics are all

grafik.png


while we cannot say that the big bang theory is wrong, we can also not say that is is truly true

because

grafik.png

duh


We will see where reductionism, dialectic materialism, modern mainstream science will lead us.. :)

Have a great monday, start into the week ;) !

/wolf



0
0
0.000
11 comments
avatar

This is definitely bananas!
When concepts no longer match with reality, the concepts should normally be discarded and replace with new ones. We're gradually rediscovering the nature of the universe.

0
0
0.000
avatar

and rediscovering (or remembering ?) ourselves

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'll pick rediscovering :)
Sounds more interesting.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich das Ausmaß dieser Entdeckung überhaupt richtig deuten kann.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The masses of the galaxies raise questions about how they got so big so fast

What is "big" and what is "fast" can only be named as such when I already know the "size" of the Universe in which "speed" can be determined because it can be extrapolated from known and observed events. But as the whole of the Universe can neither be observed in total and therefore not measured nor be understood my man, it's laughable to say that "masses of galaxies" should have behaved differently than "one has expected". The universe peoples and that's why people also are not predictable in total, not even the individual is, because the single is at the same time part of the plural.
To divide the "I" from the "all" and then wreck ones brain about how to fit those two together for centuries, (as Alan Watt puts it) is an insoluble problem and therefor, we have to ask other questions, which are soluble.

It's the very expectation which puts this form of science at a loss.

Some question the "solid" laws of physics and rightly so. As much as these laws apply to almost anything we think we know, is it not sensible to assume that they might not apply everywhere in the Universe? And when I say everywhere, this term already is not really correct.

0
0
0.000
avatar

it's laughable to say that "masses of galaxies" should have behaved differently than "one has expected".

well - your physics (on which all science are based)

crisis of physics/ cosmology/ biology/ science

:)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Wichtiger ist, dass ich, bevor ich das Universum zum Zentrum meiner Beschäftigung mache, erstmal herausfinde, wie ich meine Topf-Pflanzen richtig pflege, damit sie nicht eingehen. Wenn ich nicht mal das schaffe, dann braucht die Galaxie mir keine Sorgen bereiten. LOL

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Okay - dann bitte einmal ALLE Wissenschaftler feuern.

Die Meisten können sich ohnehin nicht mal mehr den Arsch abwischen - von einer Grippe ohne erzwungene erperimentelle Gentherapie zu überstehen, braucht man gar nicht erst anfangen.

Das mit der Topf-Pflanze wäre auch eine super Übung für krasse Biologen, welche erst alles töten (bspw den Frosch) um dann nach dem Leben zu suchen.
Die können sich doch nicht mal um einen Kaktus kümmern - ihre Geisteskrankkeit steht ihnen im Weg.

@jaki01

0
0
0.000