Scientists Warn! New Image from the Jwst Shows That Something Is Wrong with Our Universe ...

What conclusions did a gathering of the world's top astronomers come to about the biggest crisis in contemporary cosmology? The scientists warn: “The latest images from the James Webb telescope show that something is wrong with our universe. We must act now and cannot teach outdated knowledge in schools and universities. The old rules no longer apply and the Webb telescope shows us the clear evidence. Are 100 years of work now completely in vain? Or can parts of our old worldview still be saved?

[mikecawood]

Nothing is wrong with the Universe, it's the theories of the scientists that are wrong.

[davidbrandenburg]

OMG what arrogance, we have only started flying to our outer atmosphere and our moon and they act like they should know it all!.

[dbob]

Wow, is the universe in for a big shock when it learns it has been operating for an eternity on a system that doesn’t fit in with what the monkeys on a tiny greenish blue planet in an obscure part of the universe thought it should.

[shamancredible]

Youtube whines and complains about "misinformation" when it comes to giant medical companies, but not when it comes to, oh, I don't know, this shit.

[edc]

The universe isn't the problem. It's our lack of understanding of it😅

[edwardevans]

TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO FIND OUT SOMETHING ELSE WE DON'T KNOW

[DeepWebDiary]

I think the "Expanding Universe" theory is wrong. It's more likely that the galaxies we perceive as moving away are simply completing their orbits around something we can't see. Probably a central black hole. There is nothing in the Universe that doesn't orbit something even down to atoms. What makes us think that doesn't apply on a macro scale?

[denniscowdrick]

So just why should the Universe be uniform in density, velocity, or any other easily measured parameter?

[classic_sci_fi]

Current cosmology suffers from many problems. The greatest is the misinterpretation of Kirchhoff's description of a black body radiator. He specifically states that temperature of the BODY is dependent upon it's temperature. What has been systematically an institutionally ignored is that this holds only for a body, i.e. condensed matter -- a liquid or solid. An early universe consisting ONLY of gas and plasma IS NOT condensed matter. The CMB is an artifact and shown to be such.. A black-body emits electromagnetic radiation in a CONTINUOUS SPECTRUM. Gas or plasma DOES NOT. Gas or plasma emit broken spectra based upon their quantized energy levels and absorption lines. The CMB is said to be a near perfect black body radiator which is impossible. It has been shown that the CMB is likely the result of large amounts of water on the Earth which has not been shielded from either Earth bound or space observatories. In any case, it is an artifact created by condensed matter. Only condensed matter has all the degrees of freedom to generate a continuous spectrum. Gas or plasma only has rotational, vibrational, or select electron energy levels -- limited degrees of freedom. Similarly, stars consist of condensed matter, namely liquid metallic hydrogen. Stars emit continuous spectra while their atmospheres display Balmer and other series for Hydrogen, Helium and trace elements.

Other theories regarding the formation of stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters include magnetic field lines over vast distances of thousands of light years. It is observed that galaxies and clusters are laid out like pearls along twisting glowing strands. These are Birkeland Currents. Such currents may be created in a laboratory and demonstrate concentrations analogous to the bar-spiral shapes of galaxies or binary stars -- the most common type in the universe. Ions spiral along magnetic field lines through interstellar space just as they create aurora's at our poles. At a certain point of high current density, ions focus into a Z-pinch. It is at such points where stars or galaxies form. Just as with Birkeland Currents, the star at the center consists of predominantly lighter elements according to ionization potential, such as Hydrogen -- which is also the most abundant element. When one considers electromagnetic forces are 10E40 times stronger than gravity, it makes sense that EM is the predominant force in the creation of galaxies, galactic clusters, or solar systems. Gravity will not magically pull together enough gas to create a star. Such would defy thermodynamics or entropy. One simple experiment to consider was done aboard the ISS. An astronaut shook up various powders in a plastic bag such as coffee, salt, or sugar. Very soon they clumped together again via static forces -- not gravity. Gravity comes into consideration once enough plasma has been pushed together via EM forces, otherwise we would wait a very long time for something to happen. Similarly, the idea that supernovas magically condense matter enough to form stars makes no sense. Such material must be concentrated from all directions as in a plasmoid -- not just from one side by a supernova.

Further, there are alternate explanations for Red-Shift. Webb has demonstrated that objects thought to be far apart are not. Light is affected not only by motion but by what medium the light passes through. The universe is primarily plasma. Light passing through this plasma loses energy with the wavelength being red shifted. Objects may not be moving away but are simply farther away with more intervening plasma causing a change in wavelength. Additional theories call on a variable speed of light first proposed by Einstein. A variable speed of light and a 'flat' universe is equally consistent with General Relativity.
See Paul-Marie Robeteille (Sky Scholar)Alexander Unzicker (Unzicker's Real Physics)

[recoilrob]

The 'Big Bang' theory is flawed in one critical way....if it actually did happen where a 'singularity' containing all the mass of the future universe exploded....where exactly WAS this 'singularity' if the universe had yet to be born? It HAD to be somewhere if it existed. I've wondered how they explain this but haven't found anyone willing to try to explain it to me.

[tomellman]

I’m pretty sure he’s not a professor of astrology as narrator said. The word you seek is “astronomy”.

[tedc]

"In the beginning...." Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,
Who gives breath to the people on it,
And spirit to those who walk on it:

[speenlmar]

If there were no Creator, I would agree with you, but HE knows how to run his universe.

[phk]

The universe is infinite and eternal. That which is infinite can't expand - it's already everywhere. That which is eternal had no beginning - it has always been. The human mind can't handle this - though the ramifications are truly mind-blowing and should be investigated by all. The quality of your life and happiness depend on it.

[jerzy]

The big bow and the big ring are OK. It would be worse if there were a big sickle and a hammer.

[TOM-C.]

There's some energy holding it all together other than gravity. My hypothesis has always been that the dark energy, and mass we cannot see is in fact God! I was was taught as a youth that God sees and hears everything which makes sense when we can't see 95 percent of what's supposedly out there. We now have a theory the universe has some form of intelligence which also makes sense in a biblical setting. I was raised as a Christian, but in my teens became agnostic due to the insaneness of the idea, but once in my adult years I realized there must be something behind our existence. Our existence, and that of the our planet, and the universe is so insanely impossible there must be more behind it.

[omarchavez]

WTF?!?!
JWST was launched December 25, 2021, not the "summer of 2022".
AI is not so intelligent after all, I find mistakes on a daily basis.

Another win for me versus AI.

[joseperez-cljk]

The problem is I the way we use color to make decisions about what is there from hot to cold so this new finding is that is contrary to the model that has been developed and excepted as true. So in hindsight everything comes into question as what is the correct understanding of the universe. The best explanation is that we only have the smallest possible understanding because the laws of physics have become wrong. Or in some way distorted by some physics theory we don’t know. The fact is we are looking into the vast universe using light and the speed of light to make decisions about everything before this telescope the universe was still the same we just didn’t know what was/is really out there much of what was may no longer exist and we have no understanding of the universe of the long ago where the light no longer shines at all. Where are all the great minds that hope to understand this. Or are you all holding your voice until some one speaks before you

[browznfor]

It would be totally shocking if Einstein or Hubble, both born in the later part of 19th century & dying long before we had anything resembling todays tools, computers, space telescopes, has gotten everything right. As our ability to explore, discover & analyze new data accelerates many hypotheses & theories will fall, change or be adapted. We have just 2 space telescopes & no human has traveled beyond the orbit of the moon. We should be learning new information about our Universe as technology advances for centuries or millennia. I’m intrigued about the mention of dark energy being intelligent? Intelligence on that vast a scale would be Godlike? Fascinating!

[PabloP]

A .5% difference is really minuscule in comparison to the scale of the universe that is available to examine.