Rethinking the Universe: Astronomers Disturbed by the Unexpected Scale of James Webb’s Galaxies

James Webb Space Telescope Galaxy Cluster SMACS 0723

James Webb in front of the galaxy cluster SMACS 0723, the first field of galaxies to be revealed from the telescope. Early results from the James Webb Space Telescope have revealed surprisingly large early galaxies that challenge current cosmic models. Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI

The first results from the James Webb Space Telescope have hinted at galaxies so early and so massive that they are in tension with our understanding of the formation of structure in the Universe. Various explanations have been proposed that may alleviate this tension. But now a new study from the Cosmic Dawn Center suggests an effect that has never before been studied at such early epochs, indicating that the galaxies may be even more massive.

If you have been following the first results from the James Webb Space Telescope, you have probably heard about the paramount issue with the observations of the earliest galaxies:

They are too big.

From a few days after the release of the first images, and repeatedly through the coming months, new reports of ever-more distant galaxies appeared. Disturbingly, several of the galaxies seemed to be “too massive.”

From our currently accepted concordance model of the structure and evolution of the Universe, the so-called Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model, they simply shouldn’t have had the time to form so many stars.

Lambda-CDM Accelerated Expansion of the Universe

Lambda-CDM, accelerated expansion of the universe. The time-line in this schematic diagram extends from the Big Bang/inflation era 13.7 Byr ago to the present cosmological time. The ΛCDM model is a parameterization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains three major components: first, a cosmological constant denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ) associated with dark energy; second, the postulated cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM); and third, ordinary matter. It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology. Credit: Alex Mittelmann, Coldcreation

Although ΛCDM is not a holy indestructible grail, there are many reasons to wait before claiming a paradigm shift: The measured epochs at which we see the galaxies could be underestimated.

Their stellar masses could be overestimated. Or we could just have been lucky and somehow discovered the most massive of the galaxies at that time.

A closer look

But now Clara Giménez Arteaga, Ph.D. student at the Cosmic Dawn Center, proposes an effect that could further increase the tension:

In essence, a galaxy’s stellar mass is estimated by measuring the amount of light emitted by the galaxy, and calculating how many stars are needed to emit this amount. The usual approach is to consider the combined light from the whole galaxy.

However, taking a closer look at a sample of five galaxies, observed with James Webb, Giménez Arteaga found that if the galaxy is regarded not as one big blob of stars, but as an entity build up of multiple clumps, a different picture emerges.

Galaxy Cluster SMACS 0723 Surroundings

Galaxy cluster SMACS This image of galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 and its surroundings was the first image released from the James Webb Space Telescope in July 2022. The five zoom-ins are each roughly 19,000 lightyears across, and show galaxies seen some 13 billion years back in time. Careful analysis of these galaxies reveals that if we cannot resolve a galaxy, we may severely underestimate the total mass of its stars. Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI / Giménez-Arteaga et al. (2023), Peter Laursen (Cosmic Dawn Center).

“We used the standard procedure to calculate stellar masses from the images that James Webb has taken, but on a pixel-by-pixel basis rather than looking at the whole galaxy,” describes Giménez Arteaga.

“In principle, one might expect the results to be the same: Adding the light from all pixels and finding the total stellar mass, versus calculating the mass of each pixel and adding all individual stellar masses. But they’re not.”

In fact, the inferred stellar masses now turned out to be up to ten times larger.

The figure below shows the five galaxies with their stellar masses determined by both ways. If the two different approaches agreed, all galaxies would lie along the slanted line named “The same.” But they all lie above this line.

Outshined

So what is the reason that the stellar masses turn out to be so much larger?

Giménez Arteaga explains: “Stellar populations are a mixture of small and faint stars on one hand, and bright, massive stars on the other hand. If we just look at the combined light, the bright stars will tend to completely outshine the faint stars, leaving them unnoticed. Our analysis shows that bright, star-forming clumps may dominate the total light, but the bulk of the mass is found in smaller stars.”

Stellar mass is one of the main properties used to characterize a galaxy, and Giménez-Arteaga’s result highlights the importance of being able to resolve the galaxies.

But for the most distant and faint ones, this is not always possible. The effect has been studied before, but only at much later epochs in the history of the Universe.

The next step is therefore to look for signatures that does not require the high resolution, and which correlate with the “true” stellar mass.

“Other studies at much later epochs have also found this discrepancy. If we can determine how common and severe the effect is at earlier epochs, and quantify it, we will be closer to inferring robust stellar masses of distant galaxies, which is one of the main current challenges of studying galaxies in the early Universe,” concludes Clara Giménez Arteaga.

The study has just been published in the Astrophysical Journal.

Reference: “Spatially Resolved Properties of Galaxies at 5 < z < 9 in the SMACS 0723 JWST ERO Field” by Clara Giménez-Arteaga, Pascal A. Oesch, Gabriel B. Brammer, Francesco Valentino, Charlotte A. Mason, Andrea Weibel, Laia Barrufet, Seiji Fujimoto, Kasper E. Heintz, Erica J. Nelson, Victoria B. Strait, Katherine A. Suess and Justus Gibson, 16 May 2023, Astrophysical Journal.
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc5ea

71 Comments on "Rethinking the Universe: Astronomers Disturbed by the Unexpected Scale of James Webb’s Galaxies"

  1. Suresh Bansidhar Jariwala | May 18, 2023 at 2:41 pm | Reply

    Is it possible to understand by child 👧
    Who read or right alphabets a to Z & numbers 1 to 100
    Most complex phenomena when put in genetic sequence as simple as possible

  2. We have not study or learn what we have here on earth and if we don’t know about us how can we understand the universe.

  3. It’s simple. The Big Bang didn’t happen. The Universe is NOT expanding. Red Shift assumed no dust in space to dim the light, rendering distance assumptions erroneous and thus all “Dark” Matter and & Energy don’t exist. It’s far more likely the Universe renews itself through black holes converting matter back into elementary particles and energy until it unleashes miniature effects here and there (explaining some of the massive explosions recent discovered) or even the Universe bumping into another one at times causing huge releases of energy. The point is by limiting one’s almost religion-like “belief” system onto just ONE THEORY, we are creating our own obstacles to trip over (like Dark Matter and Dark Energy which are math kludges to explain why the observations don’t match and are wasting SO MUCH TIME of students studying bologna.

    • Peter Soupstock | May 18, 2023 at 8:14 pm | Reply

      Good show, Albert. Most reviewers will hasten past not stopping to think.

    • Except red shift does take space dust into account, and doesn’t even have the effect you’re implying to begin with. Your argument falls apart in the 4th sentence.

      • Do you know for sure? or you just… think? 🤔 only aliens really GAF, I THINK, aww give me a break I’m just tryna lighten it up around here,I know ,I know, not even close to funny, but perhaps a bit punny. Ok head full of more stuff idg, gn all.

    • “black holes converting matter back into elementary particles and energy until it unleashes miniature effects here and there”

      What you have there is an assertion. What you lack is any proof or math to back it up. Between your storytelling on the one hand, and hypotheses that fit most of the data we’ve observed on the other, I’ll take the latter. The fact our knowledge is not yet complete, and gets updated when we learn new facts, does not mean we throw out what we have learned and start over with a bunch of hand-waving word salad.

    • Stalker6Recon | May 20, 2023 at 4:57 pm | Reply

      Seriously? You really think that the same people who have come up with the incredible mathematics that allow humans to create, build, launch and support satellites and telescopes, using a series of honeycomb mirrors that use nanosecond stabilization technology so precise, it’s turns 20 mirrors into one. Yet they are so dumb, they have literally been measuring distances of other stars using bad red/blue shift mathematics, and N9BODY has sorted it out?

      You have what’s know as confirmation bias. You want a specific outcome, so you latch on to any affirming data, totally ignore contradiction data, and where possible, make up ridiculous theories to muddy the waters so badly, it’s impossible to sort through it.

      I get it. This stuff doesn’t jive with your previous beliefs, so it scares you. That’s OK, we are not meant to ever fully comprehend the wonders of existence, including creation. The stories regarding such matters, are overly simplified so every person can grasp the beginning, because there is no mind large enough and free enough to ever grasp the size and contents of our universe. Those who get close, are barely sane or downright crazy, but in a productive way. Just the burden of such understanding is enough to make any person a bit nutty.

      Open your mind and enjoy the journey, it’s far better than holding on to false assumptions to protect your feelings.

      • Isn’t the entire concept of Dark Matter and especially Dark Energy confirmation bias? The Standard Model keeps getting holes blown in it, but to deal with the pesky observations and facts modern science has dreamed up matter and energy we can’t detect but must be there because otherwise their theory doesn’t work. It’s time for mainstream scientist to open their minds and abandon their group think that started when we assumed redshifts were a Doppler effect. They are not. Period. They are quantized. They are digital, not analog. There are specific steps or jumps in them. The confirmation bias explanation, that there are “shells” of galaxies around us, is as ridiculous as the Big Bang pausing just long enough for the temperature to equalize creating the uniform CMB. Something is truly off with the Standard Model.

    • What if we just don’t know wtf we’re looking at? Maybe this is light coming at us from a different universe or time?

    • The Pricil Love | May 21, 2023 at 1:37 pm | Reply

      That tree is taller because of(?). A lot of tall trees but they aren’t the same kind.
      That there star group or exoplanet is bigger then that one because (?). The academic pool is polluted with all manner of postulate and theory. It is a very competitive field I’m not just speaking of space.
      They usually don’t know why this is the way it is. Even Einstein guessed on occasion . It’s going to be a long time before they can come up with something they all believe and further may be true. Give ’em a while. Let them go and see,come back and tell us what’s it all about alfi….oh sorry. They should hurry we may have destroyed ourselves by then

    • Hal Thornhill | May 23, 2023 at 9:27 am | Reply

      Plasma universe is the only real theory. It has some parts wrong, but it’s the best we got to really explain most of the cosmic stuff so far. Without abstract math.

    • It’s spelled “baloney”, genius.

  4. The heavens declare..

  5. If they overestimate the distance they overestimate the brightness. If they overestimate the mass. The only way they have to estimate distance is red shift. If gravity is slowing the light and causing a red shift I instead of velocity the whole scheme collapses.
    If those objects are 15 billion light years away, and travelling at near light speed, we are looking at them where they were 15 billion years ago. Where are they now?
    They have no effect on us and there is nothing we can do about it. Why do we care?

    • Brian McIsaac | May 18, 2023 at 5:54 pm | Reply

      “Why do we care?”

      Because nurturing a healthy curiousity is the best defense against developing dementia later in life.

  6. If they overestimate the distance they overestimate the brightness. If they overestimate the brightness, they overestimate the mass. The only way they have to estimate distance is red shift. If gravity is slowing the light and causing a red shift I instead of velocity the whole scheme collapses.
    If those objects are 15 billion light years away, and travelling at near light speed, we are looking at them where they were 15 billion years ago. Where are they now?
    They have no effect on us and there is nothing we can do about it. Why do we care?

  7. Quite interesting, obviously at that scale of distance theres quite a few inaccurate points of measure at play perhaps, but based on their actual published paper, the variances were also run through extensive low and high estimate models to see if congruent “bigger than intended” results held true – which they did. Highly suggest reading the actual article the team wrote.

    • William seeking to understand | May 20, 2023 at 11:54 am | Reply

      Perhaps our perspectives of physical obsevations of images are limited by our own mental limitations of understanding where the photons originated… like when we look at ourselves in a mirror but another person sees something different than in our eyes and describes the image differently?

  8. Lt L M Castle | May 18, 2023 at 7:48 pm | Reply

    Because of expansion we are going progressively faster than objects increasingly ‘behind us’. Guessing wrong about the assumed center of the universe will mean that we will instead be looking at a point that is on the border of receding behind us at dV=>c…. SO unable to see further into the past…SO we have NO IDEA how big..therefore Old the universe really is. Height of arrogance to think we near to center of universe
    We may be living in a VERY old cosmos and have no idea of how old

    • “Guessing wrong about the assumed center of the universe …”

      When all matter begins compressed to a single point, every place is the “center” during expansion. Believing the universe is a bound system like a galaxy is a kind of dimensional thinking that does not help you understand the structure of this instantiation of the universe.

  9. Marilyn Snootboop | May 19, 2023 at 5:22 am | Reply

    I thik all of us may be overlooking the most significant revelation of this article: “Galaxy cluster SMACS This image of galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 and its surroundings was the first image released from the James Webb Space Telescope in July 2023.”

  10. Caption: “…first image released from the James Webb Space Telescope in July 2023.” Time travel? Or incompetence?

  11. Give up on Big Bang already. Plasma Redshift and Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology are the only way forward and the sooner you accept that the better.

    • Absolutely correct! Modern science has no realistic idea how far away these objects are because they ASSUMED the redshift was due to expansion when the Zero Point Energy is a much better explanation of the data.

  12. No matter how far away these galaxies are from us they are existing at the same time as are own galaxy,but from there preventive there looking in to the past,something to think about.

  13. Juha Silvola | May 19, 2023 at 9:21 am | Reply

    Can i point out there is an eror in the article July 2023 has not been as yet, article should say 7/2022 come on its, complicated already!!!.

  14. mintas lanxor | May 19, 2023 at 9:59 am | Reply

    Why have a comments section when most comments are ludicrous ravings of dilettantes and wanna-be geniuses?

  15. I can lay no claim to a science background…don’t have one. But I’m an avid reader, I’m 72, and always interested in our existence here on this orb of ours. The idea that the entire universe is only +/- 15 billion years old seems silly, we don’t even know if there’s an end. Even sillier is the idea that earth is almost a third as old as everything! It strikes me as hubris on an epic scale.

    I suspect, without scientific proof, hat the universe of universes is old beyond out comphrension and for sure we are not at the center. Just an old guys opinion.

    • I agree that a “timeless” universe seems more consoling than one that’s a mere 3 times as old our little spec of dust here. On the other hand, 15 billion years is a rather long time indeed. Would you prefer it to be 15 trillion?

    • Raymond Takashi Swenson, Lt. Colonel, USAF JAG Corps (Retired) | May 21, 2023 at 1:27 pm | Reply

      I’m 73 with a math BA and worked in writing the software used to track satellites. I have been reading a lot of books about physics, astronomy, cosmology, general relativity, etc. And watching courses taught by scientists like Sean Carroll and Alex Filipenko offered by The Great Courses. The expansion of the universe is an effect that was predicted by General Relativity, and the red shift correlation to observed distance is solidly observed. The cosmic microwave background radiation is direct confirmation of the Big Bang. Dark Matter is concluded from measurements of galactic rotation as well as gravitational lensing. The theories of general relativity and special relativity are confirmed by the clocks in GPS satellites, which are slowed.by travelling at orbital speeds but sped up by being further out in earth’s gravity well. How you “feel” about billions of years for the observed universe and the age of the earth has no scientific relevance. It is in your mind. Geologists have measured the age of rocks in the earth and on the moon directly, including measuring radioactive decay of uranium and other naturally fissionable elements. They have measured the plate tectonic movements of the crust and the actual movements, such as the expansion of the Atlantic seafloor. All of the timeframes fit together. And general relativity was confirmed again with the detection of gravitational waves starting in 2015, including detection of the merger of two neutron stars that was then also detected in x-rays, light, and infra-red and radio waves.

      I have a personal hypothesis that Dark Matter is ordinary matter separated in a 4th spatial dimension that does not transmit electromagnetic energy. A confirmation of my hypothesis would be a gravitational wave detection of a neutron star merger that was NOT detectable with electromagnetic photons.

  16. If you take the true account that is found in the Bible about God creating the universe it all makes a lot more sense.

    • Agree!

    • If you’re going to rely on superstitions as a source of knowledge, why study anything? Just make up a story.

    • The Goatherders Guide to the Universe (bible), is not an accurate historical or scientific document. It’s a cobbled together collection of fictional stories (many plagiarized from earlier works) solely to control the weak minded and uneducated people of the time.

    • Raymond Takashi Swenson, Lt. Colonel, USAF JAG Corps (Retired) | May 21, 2023 at 1:39 pm | Reply

      Genesis does not specify precise time periods for phases of creation, but what is clear from the actual words is that Genesis 1 describes creation of planet earth. It does not describe the creation of the stars, and does not refer to the planets, which were known anciently. With that framework, Genesis 1 actually tracks the table of contents for a modern high school earth sciences textbook. Genesis 1 is very distinct from almost every other myth about creation, which anthropomorphize natural forces. Genesis 1 starts with the term “tohu wa bofu”, meaning there was disorganized matter to start with, that was then formed into a planet. Trying to assign a specific time unit to “days” is not justified, since even modern English meanings of “day” include extended time periods way beyond a 24 hour cycle. Ancient Christians and Jews never assumed they were 24 hour “days”. That notion is a modern innovation less than 200 years old, and is not doctrinal in Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches, nor among any varieties of Jewish rabbis.

    • I totally agree. GENESIS 1:1 states that He created the HEAVENS and the Earth.

  17. Let’s simplify a little.

    First, we have no defined point of reference for scale. So assume everything.

    Secondly, lets imagine a swimming pool, or better yet, an entire ocean of tiny soap bubbles. Each tiny bubble is a scale equally to perhaps 16 billion light years as we know it. And represents an entire cycle of the big bang, to the end of all light [dark matter] and energy.
    Once the bubble pops, other adjacent bubbles move to take its space, encroaching on all [dark matter] supplying energy into unused space. Thus, our entire scope of awareness is based on ebb and flow of matter of trillions+ of man-years. Time can also become meaningless, as there is only one universal rule: The condensation of matter [gravity]. Einstein’s equation may hold untold truths yet to be discovered. but as a whole, humanity will not grasp the entirety of this scope as it is beyond any form of tangible reference.

    See you in the next world ;]

  18. Let’s simplify a little.

    First, we have no defined point of reference for scale. So assume everything.

    Secondly, lets imagine a swimming pool, or better yet, an entire ocean of tiny soap bubbles. Each tiny bubble is a scale equally to perhaps 16 billion light years as we know it. And represents an entire cycle of the big bang, to the end of all light [dark matter] and energy.
    Once the bubble pops, other adjacent bubbles move to take its space, encroaching on all [dark matter] supplying energy into unused space. Thus, our entire scope of awareness is based on ebb and flow of matter of trillions+ of man-years. Time can also become meaningless, as there is only one universal rule: The condensation of matter [gravity]. Einstein’s equation may hold untold truths yet to be discovered. but as a whole, humanity will not grasp the entirety of this scope as it is beyond any form of tangible reference.

    See you in the next world ;]

  19. When you base your entire assumptions of the size and age of the universe on Red Shift alone, you’re asking for trouble. All it takes is a single reason why the shift is less than assumed and your distance/size is off. If it’s off, assumptions about gravity based on the shape of large distant galaxies can all be wrong and Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ALL predicated on that ASSUMPTION.

    Too bad if it’s wrong because there is ZERO evidence for Dark Matter or Dark Energy to this point and billions are wasted trying to find something that is a math correction. The notion of inflation/expansion going faster than the speed of light is absurd in some respects as well, yet it must be since are seeing light just reaching us now from almost as old as the universe supposedly is. But we were much closer together back then.

    Succinctly, how did we get 12+ billion light years away from the center of the Big Bang (such that we can see galaxies starting from it unless we were moving as fast or faster than the speed of light? Space time moves matter with it??? So how are these early galaxies reaching us unless we moved faster than light as the universe expanded or else those early years after the Big Bang would have passed us a long time ago when we were closer together. There’d be nothing to see from that period. We’d be seeing well after it. So either we moved WAY faster than light during this inflation period (and moved with the space) or it’s all nonsense. You can’t see back 12 billion years if 12 billion years ago we were all in much closer proximity at the time. This inflating universe concept seems to violate FTL travel.

    • Excellent point. I was wondering why nobody had ever thought about or noticed that before. If fact, if all speeds, such as light, velocity of galaxies through space and expansion have remained constant after the Big Bang/Big Inflation, it should have taken our galaxy, traveling at around 1.3 million miles an hour, about six trillion years to be twelve billion light years away from the Big Bang/Big Inflation Inflation. And since light is traveling at about 515 times faster than our galaxy, and is that far ahead of us that should mean that the Universe is three quadrillion years old, give or take a few months. The only logical way that we can be seeing the Big Bang era is because this Universe is in it’s contraction phase and we’re running into the light from the very beginning of this Universe. That is, unless something else is going on, and we’re not being told everything, which I have no reason to doubt. But, if my math etc is wrong, please let me know.

    • Sorry about the typos, repeat words, grammar etc. I’m typing this out on an old android, and I don’t I’m going to do it again.

  20. Steve shafer | May 19, 2023 at 9:14 pm | Reply

    No matter big or small the universes are always going to change and move and we evolve and with the help of God and scientists and of course Elon Musk we will at some point reach the point where we can get to know all these other places and see what’s really going on

  21. Yeah but what if we really aren’t wrong about the series of evolution? What if the galaxies we are “finding” is what our galaxy would eventually evolve to? We are a young galaxy. ;p We’re in training!

  22. Steve shafer | May 19, 2023 at 9:20 pm | Reply

    One has to accept that with each discovery we get closer to understanding what,how,when,where and maybe even why. We need to do way more research and exploration and get a drive that can generate the power needed to get to space travel real exploration to other galaxies light speed baby

  23. All the changes to the model based on new info to back up the big bang remind me of the complex models of rotation of planets around the earth. Then there was the revelation that the sun was the center of the solar systems, and it was much simpler. Then we realized that the earth spun around in a corkscrew shaping as the sun goes around the black hole at the center of the galaxy. So it may turn out there is a less complex situation such as its a static universe, and then more complex at a greater scale. There’s so many more questions for us to discover. Why is all energy travel at the same speed? etc. I’m sure I am right and wrong about various things, and then turn out to be wrong and right later. But I am curious and open to it turning out to be different than I thought.

  24. Leon Vermeulen | May 20, 2023 at 4:38 am | Reply

    I am not a scientist, I am a lawyer. I believe and argue logically. Common sense persuades me that there must be a super natural intelligence that had and still has the ability to create, and more particularly, create something or anything out of nothing! He must also be the creator of space big enough to contain the whole of His creation and more. He must also be omnipresent in order to maintain His creation. As Omnipresent the speed of light cannot not be applicable to Him. Unlimited space without light is darkness, therefore light will be essential to make the creation visible. Suddenly distance between all things created became apparent………. Need I have to say anymore. The conclusion is now a matter of simple logic.

    • James Hikins | May 20, 2023 at 6:56 am | Reply

      I hope I’ve not posted this twice–my apologies if that occurred. Comment: Yikes, if that’s “lawyer logic,” then remind me to act pro se if I’m ever sued! Mr. Vermeulen must have missed the lecture in Logic 101 on non sequitur…

  25. Jerry robinson | May 20, 2023 at 5:27 am | Reply

    .. in the beginning there was darkness, then there was light. That light is why we exist. With
    out it everything will disappear.

  26. Ralph Johnson | May 20, 2023 at 9:24 am | Reply

    Some of the difference could be explained as gravitational lensing interfering the observation. Could it be that galaxy has a larger reflective makeup. the sheer size of our universe will for the rest of time show baffling scenarios and change our scientific rules. One lesson I have learned very very well is there are exceptions to every rule.

  27. Just admit it. Your scientists don’t really know anything. They are pompous gasbags who endlessly and without genuine knowledge continue spout their dogma. Scientists are the highest IQ morons in our Galaxy.

  28. Vincent A. Ettari, P.E. | May 20, 2023 at 1:35 pm | Reply

    This is all best explained by “The God Effect”. It goes “in the beginning, God created…”

  29. As long as you can add 1 it will never end.

  30. I agree the universe is so large and organized as Job mentioned in the Scriptures (Job 38:33)no wonder God tell’s us we can have eternity to continue to discover these amazing things and still we will never be bored or find out everything. (Ecclesiastes 3.11)

  31. Vincent A. Ettari, P.E. | May 21, 2023 at 11:20 am | Reply

    Thus says the LORD…
    “I am the LORD,
    who has made all things,
    who alone stretched out the heavens, who, by Myself, spread out the earth …
    Isaiah – Chapter 44 – Verse 24

  32. These far, large, early galaxies, in fact all other galaxies, are seperate universes in a multiverse.

  33. In fact, since we are in a quatum universe, when we ‘see’ a distant galaxie we are probaly looking at magnified sub-atomic particles as well as another universe.

  34. Becky R Stacey | May 21, 2023 at 5:27 pm | Reply

    Why don’t we ask the The creatures that walked the forest that take portals from the other planet because it’s dying. Why don’t we ask them? I’m sure they’ll be able to tell us what’s going on out there and maybe it’ll stop your nattering. Have a beautiful day!

  35. We don’t even know for sure a bunch of basics that we rely on: we use a “standard candle” of light from supernovas to “measure” (guess?) distances of stars, but are we certain about the standard candle? We assume the speed of light has always been constant, but do we KNOW for sure? We posit a Big Bang from a singularity and then create mathematics/physics that allow for everything from @nothing,” but cannot suggest any ideas that explain the singularity or why the Big Bang took place. We theorize “inflation” to explain the temperature constants and allow for energy (which is an alternate expression on matter in E=MC sq’d) to move faster than the speed of light soon after the Big Bang…. But do cosmologists agree on the Big Bang? No, many don’t.
    What bothers me most of all is how most if not all cosmologists talk like they know; they tell our kids our universe is this old, it started from nothing, galaxies formed this way, our planets formed this way, water on earth is here bc of this or that way, when, in fact, these know-it-alls know NOTHING for sure. They should start every sentence with , “Well, we really don’t know much of anything for sure, but at this point in our thinking, we estimate that….” And then let’s have them finish with, “But in time, all these theories may turn out to be totally wrong.” At least our kids would be given a better sense of how little we actually know….

  36. Why can’t galaxies just be thought of like humans? No human is a like. And all kids grow at different sizes and at different speeds. Some children are taller than their parents by the time their 12 or 13. And some kids are the shortest kids in class until they hit puberty which for some come late into their teen years then they shoot up like a red wood forest tree. Then some people remain the same height since they were in 7th grade. 5″3 1/2. Size cannot justify age. And brightness… it wouldn’t surpass me if that has nothing to do with the age of a galaxy either.

  37. Does the Bible say that God made earth first and then made the heavens or firmament. It also states that the earth was placed on pillars and does not move.?? A lot can be lost in translation
    I’m

Leave a Reply to Al Anon Cancel reply

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.