The James Webb Telescope Has Discovered a Primordial Galaxy That Is as Old as the Universe!

There's definitely no turning back now! The James Webb telescope has found a primordial galaxy as old as the universe! This discovery heralds the definitive end of the old astrophysics and cosmology. We are at the beginning of a completely new natural science that will change the foundations of our physics forever. If the new figures are correct, this galaxy is far older than the universe and this means that our previous understanding of space and time must be completely reconsidered. But are we really ready to rewrite the history of the cosmos and expand the boundaries of our knowledge?

[goolooinboin]

Light takes so long to reach us that all that JW sees maybe gone? There maybe nothing there? Is that possible?

[shabbyroadscholar]

Lost me at 4:03. When he said 270 million light years after the big bang.
Light year is a measure of distance not time. I mean that's fundamental high School level cosmology.
Sometimes I question all human knowledge I don't think anyone really knows about the nature of the universe

[Music_Creativity_Science]

A lot has to be reconsidered and re-formulated in physics / astrophysics. For example, with simple logic & math I here below show that relativity theory is based on an incorrect basic assumption (the Clock hypothesis).

Einstein was undoubtedly a very creative person, with groundbreaking ideas/statements about reality. But he also made mistakes, the most well known is perhaps believing in a static universe, until he changed his mind 1931, long after the General theory of relativity was produced (1915). Another fairly well known mistake by Einstein, was to reject the existence of black holes. He did that in a published paper 1939. Slightly remarkable concerning this is that Karl Schwarzschild (clearly also an astrophysics genious) mathematically showed (1916) that black holes should exist, using Einsteins own basic equation system in General relativity! From Schwarzschild's equation (called the Schwarzschild metric) the gravitational time dilation equation, used since then, could be derived.

In the Special Theory of relativity (1905) there unfortunately seems to be a profound mistake (a thought error concerning the physical interpretation of certain equations), which actually can be proven without much mathematical acrobatics after understanding the conceptual aspect of it. I do that below. I think a big problem at that time for scientists was the lack of knowledge of the atom structure, and how physical time basically is relative rates of change in such structures. Physical time emanates from matter, not from a dimension in space.

1. When reasoning about clocks and time, one should use atomic clocks. Because physical time emanates from rate of change of the parts (electrons, quarks) atoms are made up of. Mechanical acceleration (not free fall with gravitational acceleration) cause time dilation, slowed rate of change in atoms. Einsteins equivalence principle is correct *, but not completely correctly interpreted physically by the mainstream science community imo.

* The rate of change in atoms in an object positioned fixed in a gravitational field (it is then mechanically accelerated upwards), is the same as the rate of change in atoms in an object similarly mechanically accelerated in a non-gravitational environment (and while accelerated, moving in an absolute sense).

2. It is a mathematical fact in the Lorentz factor, used in the Special Relativity (SR) time dilation equation, that the squared velocity variable there is equal to: 2 • acceleration • distance. Which is an equation originally derived by Torricelli (v squared = 2 • acceleration • distance, assuming initial velocity = 0), later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion. What that means is that the SR time dilation equation is not valid (can not be used) for calculating time dilation for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Which means that the so called Clock hypothesis is false, which assumes that acceleration as such has no effect on time dilation. Instead, it is ONLY accelerated motion (but not gravitational acceleration with free fall) which creates physical time dilation.

In summary:

- Equations in Special relativity, containing the v^2 variable can not be used for inertial (non-accelerated) motions, they are only mathematically valid for accelerated motions. This seems to be a very common mistake by many physicists in calculation examples.

- The twin "paradox" can then be fully explained/understood, intuitively, logically, mathematically and physically. Physical processes in atoms slow down when a rocket is accelerated. Only one twin is accelerated and it does not matter how far he/she travels back and forth with a non-accelerated coasting motion, the physical time dilation will be the same. The so called distance proof, that velocity as such, in inertial or non-inertial motion, is the source of time dilation is false. It is an invalid use (interpretation) of the time dilation equation, which produces different time dilations for different travelled total distances for the travelling twin.

- The Minkowski spacetime concept is based on the Clock hypothesis (which means continuous time dilation while an object is moving trough spacetime with a constant velocity), and therefore becomes false if the Clock hypothesis is false. Einstein was reluctant to accepting the Minkowski spacetime concept when it was presented (1908), and he should have kept that position instead of later accepting it. Space and time are two completely different entities, and there is no such physical connection between them as the spacetime concept wants to create.

- If muons are time dilated (live longer in average before disintegrating) when decelerated in the atmosphere moving towards the ground of the earth, they can not be fundamental particles. They must in reality be constructed with parts which can change their rate of change when accelerated (decelerated), to fit with the pure mathematical reasoning in point 2 above.

[generator]

“Wah, it’s GOTTA have BIG BANG or we lose our funding!”

[Maelthras]

Galaxies are loosely collected gas with burning plasma balls of it, at what point do we see just a galaxy sized star? Also, what if dark stars are just a blackhole devouring a massive star. A blackhole would not simply envelop it, as the material a black hole can absorb is proportional to its size.

[Realnatur]

Welcome Cloud and rain model universe.. 🙏🙏

[ungmd]

We don't even even know how galaxies are formed, so how can we know long it takes to form a mature galaxy? Then by extension, how can we know a galaxy predates the Big Bang? Could somehow galaxies be formed right at the Big Bang ? OR could we be wrong about the age of the universe?

[garymcaleer]

Out with the old "truth." In with the new! Humility is as far from these people as HD1 is from the Earth.

[mikedougherty]

How do we know it's a galaxy and not a primordial black hole or something else

[abacus]

5.23mins. You say that the James Webb telescope has just confirmed that STARS ARE POWERED BY DARK MATTER. The Sun is our nearest star. The James Webb cannot look at it because it uses infra red technology. Can you prove that the Sun is powered by 'dark matter'?

[jgn]

Or. Is it possible that SPACE TALK is in fact, Mainly Theoretical, .? Isn't it almost Impossible to say. ITS ALL FACTUAL? Im a mere human. Not in university at any time.

[abacus]

Is the Webb Telescope AERONAUTICALLY capable of travelling at 720 miles per hour without falling apart? Has this been proven?

[AngelRamos-lsdx]

James Webb say it could look at different galaxy but it can't find planet X 😂🤣😂

[BuckshotPA]

The flat earthers on YouTube say that all this is computer generated!

[jgn]

Oh. And Which came first. GOD, or something else???

[apsonrex]

In my view, the human capacity for understanding the origins of the universe is limited. I believe the universe is boundless, extending infinitely in every direction. It transcends the concept of a beginning and an end, existing in a perpetual state of existence.

[shaddouida]

The JADES team has found the new farthest galaxy humans have ever seen: JADES-GS-z14-0. This source, which is found at a redshift of 14.32, is so distant we're seeing it as the Universe was when it was only **290 million years old.**

[TexLogan-duyi]

I think there's a problem. We look at this old galaxy and say that because of distance and time it is older than the universe. However the race of beings on a planet in that old galaxy has a telescope pointed at the milky way galaxy and they're pulling out their hair screaming that the milky way galaxy is older than the universe! There is a reflexive problem due to the fact that any and every point in the universe is technically the exact center of itself.

[darrennash]

When they originally stated universe was 12 to 13 billion years old I thought impossible given earth is a few billion years old

[joehughes]

The big bang was just our bang. Those are other bangs. Space is vast indeed