This is the picture released from NASA. Supposedly closer in time to the Big Bang than ever seen before. Looks pretty organized with fully formed galaxies to me.
My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang
It would have been nice to meet the Creator in the Galilee region around AD 30, after having the scientific knowledge that we now have.
SDB: the story has it, that the co creator ( with all the total scientific knowledge) was present in the region at that time and/but showed an astonishing ignorance of the true nature of the cosmos, natural laws and of this planet and its history. Try a better method.
As to the pretty picture above, we have to wait for the expert to sort that out. the only organisation shown in that melee is the obvious and huge "einstein ring" of background spirals aligned in a circle, shining through gravity-distorted space in the foreground.
Imagine when the images will be gathered that deal with the surface gravity of an even smaller, earlier, more dense universe, of which 3/4 we will never see anyway, because it has expanded the other way, beyond our 12 billion year horizon.
As to the pretty picture above, we have to wait for the expert to sort that out.
I don't know about that. I think using a little common sense works a lot of the time. Imagine getting a Starbucks Cappicino. The barista makes a cute little spiral formation in your foam by giving it a twist or two. But imagine if she kept turning it. The spiral design would get all messed up.
Spiraling Problems with Galaxies
Galaxies are rotating, and the outer parts rotate more slowly than the inside. They commonly show a spiral structure, which is supposed to be the result of this rotation, starting from a simple bar structure. But this means that after a few rotations, galaxies will ‘wind themselves up’ so as to destroy the spiral structure.A unique galaxy pair known as NGC 3314, located about 140 million light-years from earth. In this alignment a face-on spiral galaxy lies exactly in front of another larger spiral galaxy.
Both the nearby and the far away galaxy show the same sort of spiral structure.
The materialist-naturalism believing astronomer is thus ‘caught’ in several ways:
- The nearby galaxies should not be spirals anymore, because in the time that is supposed to have elapsed, they should have wound themselves up long ago, blurring the spiral appearance.
- These recently-observed galaxies are ultra-young (according to ‘big bang’ belief) because they are so far away. So they should not have had time to develop even the beginnings of a spiral.
- The BB model claims that stars and Galaxies have all burned up and reconstituted 3 times already. So surely we should see galaxies at every possible stage right?
‘… in contrast to the galaxies at similar redshifts (and hence, at this early epoch) found most commonly in surveys at optical wavelengths, most of the “infrared-selected”? galaxies show relatively little visible star-forming activity. They appear in fact to have already formed most of their stars [italics added] and in quantities sufficient to account for at least half the total luminous mass of the Universe at that time.
Given the time to reach this state they must clearly have formed even earlier in the life of the Universe and are thus probably amongst the ‘oldest’ galaxies now known.’
The results seem consistent with the notion that the Lord, who spoke the stars into existence, made the galaxies pretty much ‘as is’. He may well have had some unwound, a few clouds and loose gasses here and there, and some not and some fully formed just to show the variety that would ‘declare the glory of God’ (Psalm 19:1).
In an instant, He spread out the heavens (Isaiah 48:13) and on Day 4 of Creation Week, just as He says in His Word, ‘He made the stars also’ (Gen. 1:16).
We have an eye-witness account as to what happened.
" BB model claims that stars and Galaxies have all burned up and reconstituted 3 times already. So surely we should see galaxies at every possible stage right?"
That's exactly what we see. There are a number of different shapes of galaxies.
Thousands of Galaxies were in that first image released by NASA. They don't look "young".
Hubble had the same "problem" :
In 2005 a cover story Science News stated, "Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos....
The new findings raise the question: Did the universe have enough time during its first 800 million years for infant galaxies to have merged into mature-looking behemoths?
The theory can accommodate a few rare instances of such precocious growth by assuming that the jumbo galaxies reside in a few regions that have an unusually high density of dark matter. There, gravity would have pulled together objects faster than usual, accelerating galaxy growth.
But over the past 18 months, several teams have found so many massive galaxies from this early epoch that the theory is being stretched to its breaking point, several astronomers say."
the outer parts rotate more slowly than the inside.
The natural laws dictate that. any particles not having the right energy, potential or dynamic, will exit, fall until it finds the correct distance. look at the fast inner, and slow, outer planets here.
The arms in galaxies are not rotating but are standing waves through which the material flows, rotates. More stars are born in star nurseries in the the denser arms,
Big stars die young, small stars live longer. if only the sun were smaller, everlasting life on an everlasting planet under an everlasting sun would be longer. As it is, we are half done.
The arms in galaxies are not rotating but are standing waves through which the material flows, rotates.
Waton, that is an interesting "just so" story to try and account for why spiral galaxies appear young.
Astronomy.com explains differently than you do:
In a spiral galaxy, everything orbits at the same speed, meaning stars and gas near the center of the galaxy complete an orbit in less time than objects farther out. This effect is referred to as differential rotation. So, in the time it takes an inner star to complete one revolution around its galaxy, an outer star might have only finished half a revolution.
Differential rotation naturally generates spirals as the galaxy rotates. Galaxies like the Milky Way have rotated a few dozen times — it typically takes 200 million years for the entire galaxy to complete a revolution.
So if the universe we see today shows stars (and galaxies) on their third life cycle (another "just so story" which attempts to account for their documented heavy elements) , and it takes 200 million years for a galaxy to rotate even one time; How can we account for the existence of spiral galaxies anywhere in the universe.
When we look at the spiral galaxies that are supposedly within 3-5% of the age of the universe as the recent deep space image provided by the new Webb telescope, the "problem" (and naturalistic attempts at explanation) become even more ludicrous.
To summarize other problems with the BB model:
– Mature galaxies exist where the Big Bang predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.2Bly-away EGS8p7)
– An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts the most fundamental BB prediction (Dark matter is an ad hoc rescue device not predicted by the BB)
– Observations show that spiral galaxies are missing millions of years of BB-model predicted collisions
– Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the big bang model predicts they should not exist
– Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn’t form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
– A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars that the failed search has implied simply never existed
– It is “philosophy”, not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
– Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
– Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
– The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected
– Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
– Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
Waton, that is an interesting "just so" story to try and account for why spiral galaxies appear young.
SB, I was just commenting, adding to your conflating the "voice of god" with the science "hand of god".
Standing waves can be an acoustic phenomenon, shaking matter into distinct, targeted areas. google "Chladni plate". Every entity has a basic frequency resulting from its size, possibly affecting the structure. I believe that even our solar system has a basic frequency of 5 minutes, with a wavelength of .3 AU. or think of
the ~28 day cycle of the rotation of the sun, the orbit of the moon and our reproductive cycle.The earth rotates in a cosmic standing wave of fertility, ha ha.anyway,
the oldest stars are in global star clusters, or elliptical galaxies, that have no organized rotation, but must have correctly orbiting individual, perhaps dead suns, that have given up on colliding.
There was a curtain, shroud, as the size and with it the "Eigenschwingung" of the cosmos changed during the early stages of the Big Beginning event . ALMA is already peering deeper, Webb might see details at the fringes. in the meantime,
it is good to hear the hum, see the waves in the universe. , HMM. enJoy.
In an letter signed by 35 astrophysicists and physicists –famous scientists who made major contributions to astrophysics and astronomy, such as Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Jayant Narlikar–saying that the Big Bang theory had not been proven and that its predictions were contradicted by astronomical evidence.
“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,” observes the Open Letter, “things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
“But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation....
In an Nov 12, 2020 interview with Jonathan Tennenbaum for Asia Times, Eric Lerner says “I’ve just submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, we look at 18 large, independent data sets of observations, and in 17 of these, the predictions of the Big Bang theory are clearly contradicted by the data.
Lerner starts his book “The Big Bang Never Happened” with the “errors” that he thinks invalidate the Big Bang. These are:
“The existence of superclusters of galaxies and structures like the “Great Wall” which would take too long to form from the “perfectly homogeneous” Big Bang; The need for dark matter and observations showing no dark matter; the FIRAS CMB spectrum is a “too perfect” blackbody –a physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.
“For example, the universe contains objects that are 10 times older than when the Big Bang was supposed to have happened. The Big Bang’s predictions of the distribution of the light elements in the Universe are completely wrong – orders of magnitude wrong....
“So what I’m saying,” concludes Lerner,” is that the crisis in cosmology has reached a point where the alternative to the Big Bang is, quite simply, no Big Bang – no Bang at all.”
The reason that materialist-naturalism scientists keep adding rescue devices is because the BB is the ONLY theory they have. The feel compelled to provide an alternative story in which to believe regardless of how much the scientific data contradicts their official story. Few people will sift though the narratives and get to the provable/observable facts... sorta like what happened to us with Watchtower.
I saw the same thing in 2005 when dinosaur soft tissue was discovered. Did the religion of secularism doubt their deep ages for one second? Of course not, they simply stated how amazing it was that stinking rotting soft tissue could last for 68 million years in pourous limestone.., and the other members of their church yawned and moved on.
We saw the same thing with DNA, deleterious gene mutation which makes evolution insanely impossible, etc.
John Mather, a senior project scientist for the JWST maintains a blog where he sometimes addresses questions about the telescope and big bang theory.
Mather has pointed out more than once that WMAP, COBE and Planck have all "looked" back farther than the JWST is capable of.
The definitive work on Einstein and God/Religion was written in 1999 by Max Jammer, who was one of his closest acquaintances. Jammer exhaustively compiles Einstein's written statements on the subject, both public and private.