My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze 140 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Astrophysicist Jason Lisle made virtually the same prediction as I did, with one key difference - my prediction predates his by two weeks !

    Kuddos to Dr. Jason Lisle! Nice explanation of the JWST and his predictions here:

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @Sea Breeze: why do people always want to promote their own YouTube vids or those of their particular denomination of crazies?

    I am not interested in seeing an hour long video on why the Bible cannot be challenged, the WTBTS has plenty of content. Can someone on your side write a scientific paper or summary based on the data which they don’t immediately have to retract (like the one you pointed at previously) from their own websites (not even getting to pre-print).

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    It's a great time to be a Creationist!

    Look at this quote from this recent article:

    "The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) appears to be finding multiple galaxies that grew too massive too soon after the Big Bang, if the standard model of cosmology is to be believed."


    James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved

    April 13, 2023
    University of Texas at Austin
    Astronomers find that six of the earliest and most massive galaxy candidates observed by the James Webb Space Telescope so far appear to have converted nearly 100% of their available gas into stars, a finding at odds with the reigning model of cosmology.
    But it is not at odds with the eyewitness testimony presented in Genesis!
    And this from Scientific American:

    Astronomers Grapple with JWST’s Discovery of Early Galaxies

    QUOTE: "candidate galaxies in the early universe are popping up in numbers that defy predictions, with dozens found so far. Explaining this excess may require substantial revisions to prevailing cosmological models, changes that could involve the first galaxies forming sooner... than previously thought."

    All exactly as I predicted on page one of this thread.
    It's almost like all these "first" galaxies appeared at virtually the same time as all the rest of them....including our own, fully formed. WOW. Who woulda thunk?
  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    A) you didn’t predict anything, you made a bad assumption based on a poorly written news article. Predicting something would mean you said something before the article was published.

    B) if you kept up with the actual science, you would’ve seen that JWST did not dispute anything, as a matter of fact, it confirms simulations of the Big Bang, what was unexpected is that we could actually see them with JWST. Now that at least 3 objects have been confirmed to be dark stars, the early reporting (which every serious science article said was preliminary data and needed to be reviewed) was just bad reporting.

    C) Genesis claims an 8000 year old universe where light, the earth and vegetation was created before the sun and stars, it also claims the moon emits light.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Anony Mous,

    I realize how personally difficult this must be for you. But, secular predictions for the JWST shows just how devastating recent data is to secualr cosmology:

    The standard secularist model predicts:

    1. Fewer galaxies at great distances. None beyond redshift 14 (which supposedly corresponds to 300 million years after the Big Bang)

    2. Farthest/Earliest galaxies would be low mass, clumpy and irregular

    3. Farthest/Earliest galaxies would have only Population III (first generation stars) having no heavy metals/elements, and only containing hydrogen, helium and possibly a tiny amount of Lithium

    All three predictions by secularists have failed.

    1. Galaxies have been observed as high as redshift 20 (supposedly 180 million years from the BB

    2. Earliest galaxies are as large as nearby galaxies. They display fully formed disc symetry, spirals, etc.

    3. Astronomers have discovered metal-rich galaxies in the early universe although the BB model claims this is impossible. Or, as they claim it takes three generations of stars to get heavy metals (slow star formation, burn-out after hundreds of millions/billions of years (supernova), then repeat, then repeat again)

    The standard cosomological model is in crisis right now.

    The Creation model in Genesis is riding high.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    This article accurately ‘predicts’ the composition of galaxies at redshift 20 which is exactly what JWST is seeing:

    written in 2012 - your information is wrong. - 2015 - it is likely that Population III stars were much more massive than present-day stars

    A general description of structure formation in the early Universe may be found in Barkana and Loeb (2001), Loeb (2008), and Wiklind et al. (2013). The high-redshift IGM is discussed in Barkana and Loeb (2007) and Meiksin (2009), and the effects of the relative velocity offset between DM and baryons may be found in Fialkov (2014). The formation of the first stars in minihalos is reviewed in Bromm and Larson (2004), Glover (2005, 2013), and Bromm (2013), while the properties of the first galaxies are described in Bromm and Yoshida (2011), Johnson (2013), and Loeb and Furlanetto (2013). Less focused reviews of star formation at high redshifts may be found in Bromm et al. (2009) and Loeb (2010). Finally, feedback by Population III is summarized in Ciardi and Ferrara (2005).

    although simplistic calculations go back to 1967 (the quantum physics is extremely difficult), all the objections you regurgitate have been debunked starting in the 1970s. JWST is simply confirming these hypotheses. See, accurate predictions, confirmed with accurate data. Science reporting in the media is junk these days, stop reading the briefs on CNN and thinking you have an understanding.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    You are gaslighting Anonymous.

    The BB model does not predict fully formed stars and galaxies at only a couple hundred million years after the supposed BB. It does not predict third generation stars at the dawn of the universe.

    Yet, the many reputable university links and science journals links I provided show that to the astonishment of astronomers, this is what they found.

    You are being very dishonest.

    So, in your opinion... how did all these fully formed third generation stars and fully formed galaxies that look just like our own get there in only 180 to 200 million years after the BB?

  • peacefulpete

    From the Cornell article you posted:

    Most surprising about these galaxies, considering their age and mass, was their mature metallicity – amounts of elements heavier than helium and hydrogen, such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen – which the team estimated to be similar to our sun. Compared to the sun, which is about 4 billion years old and inherited most of its metals from previous generations of stars that had roughly 8 billion years to build them up, we are observing these galaxies at a time when the universe was less than 1.5 billion years old.
    “We are seeing the leftovers of at least a couple of generations of stars having lived and died within the first billion years of the universe’s existence, which is not what we typically see,” Vishwas said. “We speculate that the process of forming stars in these galaxies must have been very efficient and started very early in the universe, particularly to explain the measured abundance of nitrogen relative to oxygen, as this ratio is a reliable measure of how many generations of stars have lived and died.”

    It's so tiresome to unpack the misrepresentations and half truths of creationists.

    We sent the telescope out to learn and we are learning. It would be more than suspicious, and pretty boring, if we saw only what we predicted to see.

  • peacefulpete
  • nicolaou

    Sea Breeze, a legend in his own lunchtime.

Share this