Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive 'universe breaker' galaxies

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/23/scientists-mind-blown-after-james-webb-telescope-finds-massive-universe-breaker-galaxies

Massive, 600 million years "old" galaxies found, bigger than the Milky Way.

They SHOULDN'T BE THERE, they shouldn't be SO MATURE, they shouldn't exist.

The imbecility of the BBT in the strongest support for an infinite, eternal universe.

The deeper in the space we look, the more evidence is collected supporting
an eternal, infinite pseudo-static universe.

What did they expect?

El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 10:37:11 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive 'universe breaker' galaxies
>
> https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/23/scientists-mind-blown-after-james-webb-telescope-finds-massive-universe-breaker-galaxies
>
> Massive, 600 million years "old" galaxies found, bigger than the Milky Way.
>
> They SHOULDN'T BE THERE, they shouldn't be SO MATURE, they shouldn't exist.
>
> The imbecility of the BBT in the strongest support for an infinite, eternal universe.
>
> The deeper in the space we look, the more evidence is collected supporting
> an eternal, infinite pseudo-static universe.
>
> What did they expect?

You should learn how to read before spouting your nonsense. The actual wording is:

"Astronomers have detected what appear to be six massive and very ancient galaxies, a discovery they say could upend our understanding of how galaxies formed at the very beginning of the universe.

While the new James Webb Space Telescope has already spotted even older galaxies, it’s the size and maturity of these six apparent mega-galaxies that have stunned scientists.

The latest objects, which appear to date back to roughly 600 million years after the Big Bang, are far bigger than was believed to be possible for galaxies so soon after the dawn of the universe".

So those galaxies are over 12 billion years old!!!

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:37:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> My imbecility , what did they expect?

Exactly what you posted about yourself. Good to see that you came to grips with your imbecility.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:26:14 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 10:37:11 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive 'universe breaker' galaxies
> >
> > https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/23/scientists-mind-blown-after-james-webb-telescope-finds-massive-universe-breaker-galaxies
> >
> > Massive, 600 million years "old" galaxies found, bigger than the Milky Way.
> >
> > They SHOULDN'T BE THERE, they shouldn't be SO MATURE, they shouldn't exist.
> >
> > The imbecility of the BBT in the strongest support for an infinite, eternal universe.
> >
> > The deeper in the space we look, the more evidence is collected supporting
> > an eternal, infinite pseudo-static universe.
> >
> > What did they expect?
> You should learn how to read before spouting your nonsense. The actual wording is:
>
> "Astronomers have detected what appear to be six massive and very ancient galaxies, a discovery they say could upend our understanding of how galaxies formed at the very beginning of the universe.
>
> While the new James Webb Space Telescope has already spotted even older galaxies, it’s the size and maturity of these six apparent mega-galaxies that have stunned scientists.
>
> The latest objects, which appear to date back to roughly 600 million years after the Big Bang, are far bigger than was believed to be possible for galaxies so soon after the dawn of the universe".
>
> So those galaxies are over 12 billion years old!!!

Si, Miguelito. I understood it clearly, without relativistic doctrines festering my mind.

I just wanted to see how many assholes, like you, replied. I've got two by now.

BUT the JWT will be a shot in the foot of imbecile relativists, if the truth comes out.

Such "galaxies" SHOULDN'T EXIST, as per BBT. Read it better, using other sources, idiot.

You'll find that such galaxies MATURITY breaks down the BBT.

Enjoy reading deeper articles on this 5 days old news. Don't cry foul.

El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 13:20:54 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:26:14 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

> > So those galaxies are over 12 billion years old!!!
> Si, Miguelito. I understood it clearly, without relativistic doctrines festering my mind.
>
> I just wanted to see how many assholes, like you, replied. I've got two by now.
>
> BUT the JWT will be a shot in the foot of imbecile relativists, if the truth comes out.
>
> Such "galaxies" SHOULDN'T EXIST, as per BBT. Read it better, using other sources, idiot.
>
> You'll find that such galaxies MATURITY breaks down the BBT.
>
> Enjoy reading deeper articles on this 5 days old news. Don't cry foul.

As usual you are pure noise, with no content.

The Big Bang is just a model (inferred from actual astronomical measurements).
Within the first second after the Big Bang, physics laws were complete different of the physics after 370000 years of the BB.
For example, according to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 10^26 in each of the three dimensions). This would be equivalent to expanding an object of 1 nanometer (10^−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one object of approximately 10.6 light years (about 10^17 m or 62 trillion miles) long.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:46:21 AM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 13:20:54 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:26:14 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > So those galaxies are over 12 billion years old!!!
> > Si, Miguelito. I understood it clearly, without relativistic doctrines festering my mind.
> >
> > I just wanted to see how many assholes, like you, replied. I've got two by now.
> >
> > BUT the JWT will be a shot in the foot of imbecile relativists, if the truth comes out.
> >
> > Such "galaxies" SHOULDN'T EXIST, as per BBT. Read it better, using other sources, idiot.
> >
> > You'll find that such galaxies MATURITY breaks down the BBT.
> >
> > Enjoy reading deeper articles on this 5 days old news. Don't cry foul.
> As usual you are pure noise, with no content.
>
> The Big Bang is just a model (inferred from actual astronomical measurements).
> Within the first second after the Big Bang, physics laws were complete different of the physics after 370000 years of the BB.
> For example, according to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 10^26 in each of the three dimensions). This would be equivalent to expanding an object of 1 nanometer (10^−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one object of approximately 10.6 light years (about 10^17 m or 62 trillion miles) long.

You need to stop throwing pearls before THE pig. Actually comparing pigs to Richard Hertz is an insult. To the pigs.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 1:46:21 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 13:20:54 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:26:14 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > So those galaxies are over 12 billion years old!!!
> > Si, Miguelito. I understood it clearly, without relativistic doctrines festering my mind.
> >
> > I just wanted to see how many assholes, like you, replied. I've got two by now.
> >
> > BUT the JWT will be a shot in the foot of imbecile relativists, if the truth comes out.
> >
> > Such "galaxies" SHOULDN'T EXIST, as per BBT. Read it better, using other sources, idiot.
> >
> > You'll find that such galaxies MATURITY breaks down the BBT.
> >
> > Enjoy reading deeper articles on this 5 days old news. Don't cry foul.
> As usual you are pure noise, with no content.
>
> The Big Bang is just a model (inferred from actual astronomical measurements).
> Within the first second after the Big Bang, physics laws were complete different of the physics after 370000 years of the BB.
> For example, according to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 10^26 in each of the three dimensions). This would be equivalent to expanding an object of 1 nanometer (10^−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one object of approximately 10.6 light years (about 10^17 m or 62 trillion miles) long.

Yeah, sure, Miguelito.

They groomed you very well. Alan Guth send to you his best regards.

Meanwhile, as an expert in DiffServ, maybe you can enlighten us about how the inflationary theory, and how
to VALIDATE a time duration of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds (don't worry, "0" count is correct).

Also, maybe you may want to write something about the "speed of light" in the first SECOND of the fucking Big Bang.
If the "universe" was a BLOB of 10,000 Km radius, was c = 10,000 Km/sec? Or light APPEARED AFTER the first second?

But if that is what cretins like Guth assert, what kind of energy replaced light in the first second? Maybe Dark Energy?

Really, this shit is to laught at, if it wasn't that 25,000 cretins (like you) believe this SHIT. And 10,000 of them have an
UNDESERVED PhD in astronomy, astrophysics, etc. With your PhD in Aloha System, I can't position you within that herd.

But, to live and let live, isn't it?

On 2/27/2023 10:20 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:26:14 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>> El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 10:37:11 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
>>> Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive 'universe breaker' galaxies
>>>
>>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/23/scientists-mind-blown-after-james-webb-telescope-finds-massive-universe-breaker-galaxies
>>>
>>> Massive, 600 million years "old" galaxies found, bigger than the Milky Way.
>>>
>>> They SHOULDN'T BE THERE, they shouldn't be SO MATURE, they shouldn't exist.
>>>
>>> The imbecility of the BBT in the strongest support for an infinite, eternal universe.
>>>
>>> The deeper in the space we look, the more evidence is collected supporting
>>> an eternal, infinite pseudo-static universe.
>>>
>>> What did they expect?
>> You should learn how to read before spouting your nonsense. The actual wording is:
>>
>> "Astronomers have detected what appear to be six massive and very ancient galaxies, a discovery they say could upend our understanding of how galaxies formed at the very beginning of the universe.
>>
>> While the new James Webb Space Telescope has already spotted even older galaxies, it’s the size and maturity of these six apparent mega-galaxies that have stunned scientists.
>>
>> The latest objects, which appear to date back to roughly 600 million years after the Big Bang, are far bigger than was believed to be possible for galaxies so soon after the dawn of the universe".
>>
>> So those galaxies are over 12 billion years old!!!
>
> Si, Miguelito. I understood it clearly, without relativistic doctrines festering my mind.
>
> I just wanted to see how many assholes, like you, replied. I've got two by now.
>
> BUT the JWT will be a shot in the foot of imbecile relativists, if the truth comes out.
>
> Such "galaxies" SHOULDN'T EXIST, as per BBT. Read it better, using other sources, idiot.
>
> You'll find that such galaxies MATURITY breaks down the BBT.

I can't predict what the future holds, but consider that new discoveries
may impact the BBT as we presently know it. Every advance in science
updates then current understandings. I am satisfied with progress and
personally don't demand the complete destruction or replacement of any
current theories. Replacement of the geocentric model of the universe
was a major shift that I hope was unlike any fut advances.

> Enjoy reading deeper articles on this 5 days old news. Don't cry foul.

El lunes, 27 de febrero de 2023 a las 14:06:40 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 1:46:21 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

> > As usual you are pure noise, with no content.
> >
> > The Big Bang is just a model (inferred from actual astronomical measurements).
> > Within the first second after the Big Bang, physics laws were complete different of the physics after 370000 years of the BB.
> > For example, according to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 10^26 in each of the three dimensions). This would be equivalent to expanding an object of 1 nanometer (10^−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one object of approximately 10.6 light years (about 10^17 m or 62 trillion miles) long.

> Yeah, sure, Miguelito.
>
> They groomed you very well. Alan Guth send to you his best regards.
>
> Meanwhile, as an expert in DiffServ, maybe you can enlighten us about how the inflationary theory, and how
> to VALIDATE a time duration of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds (don't worry, "0" count is correct).
>

Sure, in the first second, before 10^-32 seconds after the BB, the model implies the inflationary epoch.
At that time, there was no light, which only appears around 375000 years afeter the BB.

> Also, maybe you may want to write something about the "speed of light" in the first SECOND of the fucking Big Bang.
> If the "universe" was a BLOB of 10,000 Km radius, was c = 10,000 Km/sec? Or light APPEARED AFTER the first second?
>

Again, you have not read any of this and, therefore, your comments are pure nonsense.

> But if that is what cretins like Guth assert, what kind of energy replaced light in the first second? Maybe Dark Energy?
>
> Really, this shit is to laught at, if it wasn't that 25,000 cretins (like you) believe this SHIT. And 10,000 of them have an
> UNDESERVED PhD in astronomy, astrophysics, etc. With your PhD in Aloha System, I can't position you within that herd.
>
> But, to live and let live, isn't it?

Physicists don not believe. They built physics models and test their consequences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe for further details on the timing of the BB.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:00:07 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> Sure, in the first second, before 10^-32 seconds after the BB, the model implies the inflationary epoch.
> At that time, there was no light, which only appears around 375000 years afeter the BB.

And, of course, light just appeared being c = 299792458 m/s since the very instant it came to existence, isn't it?

And has been so for about 14 billion years.

How do you PRETEND that any rational, not relativist person can ACCEPT THIS SHIT?

Cretins are adjusting the size of the universe, postulating its fate and INVENTING CRAZY SHIT about its origin,
because they became DEGENERATES WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY since early '30s.

And all of this crazy Godless stupidity was developed to PUT EINSTEIN AT THE CENTER OF THE SCENE.

You are a partner in the crime of physics, since einstenian relativity appeared. And, for worse, an IGNORANT PARROT partner.

Are you happy with your "scientific" beliefs, Miguelito?

Or are you ashamed to contradict your astrophysicist friends at Chile?

Maybe you DON'T BELIEVE, but you are just A FUCKING COWARD. You prefer to OBEY AND BELONG.

I pity you.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:37:11 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive 'universe breaker' galaxies
> The imbecility of the BBT in the strongest support for an infinite, eternal universe.
>
> The deeper in the space we look, the more evidence is collected supporting
> an eternal, infinite pseudo-static universe.
>
> What did they expect?
There is no evidence of a finite universe. That has always been an assumption desired by people with agendas such as employing entropy which only applies to closed systems.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:37:11 PM UTC+7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive 'universe breaker' galaxies
> https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/23/scientists-mind-blown-after-james-webb-telescope-finds-massive-universe-breaker-galaxies Massive, 600 million years "old" galaxies found, bigger than the Milky Way.
They SHOULDN'T BE THERE, they shouldn't be SO MATURE, they shouldn't exist.
The imbecility of the BBT in the strongest support for an infinite, eternal universe.
The deeper in the space we look, the more evidence is collected supporting
an eternal, infinite pseudo-static universe.
What did they expect?
=================What I predicted in 2020, though knew the answer decades ago. There was NO big BANG. If they did discover galaxies older than 14 billion light years, you wouldn't be informed, but 600 million ordinary years still blows the theory. Richard, you're on the right track. How's your algebra? How did you do in Freshman calculus? Did you see my later videos? You could drop a note to cusanusnicolas at yahoo.com and I'll send you a PDF which should improve your understanding. I can't put the entire PDF online. Or you could preview the first twenty pages or so on Amazon which focuses on the PR experiment, not that the experiment itself is needed but it helps get the point. Meanwhile, don't expect you'll get anywhere on this site. Al