@NASASpaceNewsagency ????? ? 6:00 the picture of the distant Galaxy at about 6 minutes into the video what are the blue dots to the left of the image? it looks like there are about four them the first one's bright and they sort of fade Out after each other if anyone knows it would be a great help thank you very much
I have maintained, personally, from the outset that there are galaxies beyond the observable. I have no academic credentials but I believe the universe had no beginning, at least a big bang beginning. To see a galaxy 150 million years old fully formed so close to the "big bang" cannot be explain the big bang by some other fanciful explanation. We're making all this up based on observations and changing theory every time observation doesn't agree with the theory.
Population 3 stars must have been very massive carrying enormous gravity wells to form galaxies so quickly with SMBH's dominating the galaxial mass overall...it stands to reason. So now we re-evaluate our early universe theories and recognise our mistakes. Otherwise we may as well be donkeys.
Чем дальше от нас находится галактика, тем она старше. Галактика находящаяся на расстоянии 13 миллиардов световых лет. Старше нашей галактики на те же самые 13 миллиардов лет. Если опубликуют данные спектрального анализа самых удалённых галактик, то будет известно, что звёзды удалённых галактик являются звёздами второго поколения и содержат в себе большое количество тяжёлых элементов. Они имеют такую же среднюю металличность, что и звёзды нашей галактики. То есть эти удалённые галактики находятся на том же уровне развития что и наша - Млечный путь. Точнее сказать, находились на том же уровне развития 13 миллиардов лет назад, когда наша Галактика только зарождалась. Это элементы вечной Вселенной. Вечной и неизменной. Где вращение пространства по замкнутому кругу, за счёт его искривления воспринимается как расширение.
I found it difficult to understand that researchers continue to believe that there is a beginning to the universe, the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large, and continue to believe that researchers can explain the universe with equations and with time and spacetime that humans themselves have invented does not work to explain how the universe is connected
I'm certainly finding it harder to believe it is the generally accepted age. If galaxies shouldn't be able to evolve so quickly as this, at such an early age after the Big bang, then something is definitely wrong somewhere. Still, it is better at this stage to make do with what we have as an 'approximation' to keep physicists and astronomers grounded, rather than let them run around being paid to waste their time inventing all manner of whacky theories and beliefs. I suspect that with each new advance in telescopes, we are going to see galaxies that formed even earlier than these 2 featured here, very probably predating the age of the Universe. Then astronomers need to consider an age change, or whether they are looking from one Universe into another, or whether the expansion of 'our' part of the Universe is just a local phenomenon, or that we may be a fractal Universe budding off of a larger, older one (since fractal patterns are so common in Nature, no reason not to believe that the Universe is simply a fractal of a larger object).
For the sake of greater knowledge and better data, science continually develops and refines hypotheses reflecting the apparent natural order. Hypotheses were developed by Einstein, but not fully realized until almost a century later, since only new data can advance theory..
In the next few decades We are going to have a “Coming to Jesus “ moment. And I don’t mean an evangelical moment. I mean a scientific moment. We are going to learn things about the universe that will rip our head from our scientific shoulders. We are going to discover things that will practically bring us “back to Jesus “. Our lack of understanding will basically take us back to a primitive level of our view of the universe.
Because all the evidence supports the big bang theory, and steady-state models were ruled out decades ago. Due to the evidence contradicting them. Simple.
What youre trying to say is that there will be a day when things are unexplainable and we can only resort to believe in the spiritual, right?@@thecaptainsarse
The level of assumption required to make these deductions is a waste of time in my opinion. It's a house of cards that hasn't fallen yet, but it will. The Strong force was invented to keep from second-guessing the constant concept of electric charge. So, if charge changes when crammed into a nucleus and there is no Strong force, gravity is now misunderstood, and dark matter is the next invention to go. It will certainly take longer than it should, because modern science does not question constants.
From a layman's point of view,the pictures, videos created by those advanced telescopes are spectacular than any scenic beauties and natural beauty.I wonder how come Buddha gathered information on cosmos without any scientific instruments? As there is not even remotely possibility of instruments available during that period. Was it through deep meditation? Everything is so obscure and ambitious when it comes to meditation and it's aspects.
As there is not a remote possibility of availability of any scientific instruments. Was it through deep meditation? Everything is so obscure and ambitious when it comes to the meditation and it's aspects.
Riddle me this....If the cosmic web is swirling around and there are various galaxy cluster "attractors" how are we determining expansion, or blueshift and redshift are just temporary and there is no "candle" then we could use or anything to determine the direction or rate of expansion of the whole, within a swirling cosmic web....I'm just saying....
@@undertow2142 The larger scale that is expanding, despite the inner swirls, may infact be swirling too and may be in the same position for millions of years. If its all the same then even the farthest scales will be swirling inward/outward too and the cosmic web appears to be just that. We can get an average idea of lights stretching but that candle will be coming back at us one day so expansion just ain't what it used to be.
All my calculations don't add up! How can a fully grown, normal-sized galaxy (which takes 2 - 5 billion years to reach this size) be where it was found just 200 million years after the alleged Big Bang? The entire initial pattern (cosmic dawn) no longer works, we have to rewrite textbooks! But with what? I have some good ideas, but I am not from Nostradamus` family... 😆
_"How can a fully grown, normal-sized galaxy (which takes 2 - 5 billion years to reach this size) be where it was found just 200 million years after the alleged Big Bang? "_ No such galaxies exist. The earliest ones observed are all low mass.
I think the "light speed" theory may just be wrong. And the light gets here faster than previously thought. I witnessed a star implode and shoot out beams like solid lasers through space. But heard nothing about it from any astronomer.
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s one of the most studied things there is. Modern society is literally built upon our theories regarding relativity and the speed of light.
Multi firework galaxies not universes. bound up tension high energy density wholistic fabric folds, creases releases e=mc emerging f=ma values decay return to the greater system at large rinse repeat. Young metaless galaxies didn't sit idly by billions of years without collapse while surrounded by neighbors fully seeded heavy elements and mature did throughout as far as throughout and up close to milkyway. Great attractor tells us newtons bucket is winning vs a real machian mass influence where in einstein death bed he worked on curvature releases on going gas when wholistic universes bends in arteries we see mirrored in cmb noise of large events of stars coming online. Everything would math and explain why scales have cause to explain feedback loop influence of larger scale on smaller despite undeniable micro to macro emerging energetic values and actors. Why only biology & cosmology and biology mirror the same grand unified stress's and fails despite being very much separate
![Everything NASA Discovered with JWST's Year 2. Closest to Farthest [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wh4G1Wh79Ck/mqdefault.jpg)
![Everything NASA Discovered with JWST's Year 2. Closest to Farthest [4K]](/img/tr.png)
Great to hear the exploration of our distant univeerse. We need to get out there.
@NASASpaceNewsagency ????? ? 6:00 the picture of the distant Galaxy at about 6 minutes into the video what are the blue dots to the left of the image? it looks like there are about four them the first one's bright and they sort of fade Out after each other if anyone knows it would be a great help thank you very much
I have maintained, personally, from the outset that there are galaxies beyond the observable. I have no academic credentials but I believe the universe had no beginning, at least a big bang beginning. To see a galaxy 150 million years old fully formed so close to the "big bang" cannot be explain the big bang by some other fanciful explanation. We're making all this up based on observations and changing theory every time observation doesn't agree with the theory.
All the evidence supports the big bang. You might want to deal with that evidence.
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there!
As time goes on will we be able to see further out in the universe? Because the light hasn't had time to reach us.
Population 3 stars must have been very massive carrying enormous gravity wells to form galaxies so quickly with SMBH's dominating the galaxial mass overall...it stands to reason.
So now we re-evaluate our early universe theories and recognise our mistakes. Otherwise we may as well be donkeys.
Чем дальше от нас находится галактика, тем она старше. Галактика находящаяся на расстоянии 13 миллиардов световых лет. Старше нашей галактики на те же самые 13 миллиардов лет. Если опубликуют данные спектрального анализа самых удалённых галактик, то будет известно, что звёзды удалённых галактик являются звёздами второго поколения и содержат в себе большое количество тяжёлых элементов. Они имеют такую же среднюю металличность, что и звёзды нашей галактики. То есть эти удалённые галактики находятся на том же уровне развития что и наша - Млечный путь. Точнее сказать, находились на том же уровне развития 13 миллиардов лет назад, когда наша Галактика только зарождалась. Это элементы вечной Вселенной. Вечной и неизменной. Где вращение пространства по замкнутому кругу, за счёт его искривления воспринимается как расширение.
our incredible Universe never Ceases to amaze💙🌻💙
Stunning pictures ❤ Hi from Ireland.
Anything before the Big Bang yet? ????
They can't even explain what the universe is expanding into.
I found it difficult to understand that researchers continue to believe that there is a beginning to the universe, the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large, and continue to believe that researchers can explain the universe with equations and with time and spacetime that humans themselves have invented does not work to explain how the universe is connected
I'm certainly finding it harder to believe it is the generally accepted age. If galaxies shouldn't be able to evolve so quickly as this, at such an early age after the Big bang, then something is definitely wrong somewhere.
Still, it is better at this stage to make do with what we have as an 'approximation' to keep physicists and astronomers grounded, rather than let them run around being paid to waste their time inventing all manner of whacky theories and beliefs.
I suspect that with each new advance in telescopes, we are going to see galaxies that formed even earlier than these 2 featured here, very probably predating the age of the Universe.
Then astronomers need to consider an age change, or whether they are looking from one Universe into another, or whether the expansion of 'our' part of the Universe is just a local phenomenon, or that we may be a fractal Universe budding off of a larger, older one (since fractal patterns are so common in Nature, no reason not to believe that the Universe is simply a fractal of a larger object).
For the sake of greater knowledge and better data, science continually develops and refines hypotheses reflecting the apparent natural order. Hypotheses were developed by Einstein, but not fully realized until almost a century later, since only new data can advance theory..
In the next few decades We are going to have a “Coming to Jesus “ moment.
And I don’t mean an evangelical moment.
I mean a scientific moment.
We are going to learn things about the universe that will rip our head from our scientific shoulders.
We are going to discover things that will practically bring us “back to Jesus “.
Our lack of understanding will basically take us back to a primitive level of our view of the universe.
Because all the evidence supports the big bang theory, and steady-state models were ruled out decades ago. Due to the evidence contradicting them. Simple.
What youre trying to say is that there will be a day when things are unexplainable and we can only resort to believe in the spiritual, right?@@thecaptainsarse
The level of assumption required to make these deductions is a waste of time in my opinion. It's a house of cards that hasn't fallen yet, but it will. The Strong force was invented to keep from second-guessing the constant concept of electric charge. So, if charge changes when crammed into a nucleus and there is no Strong force, gravity is now misunderstood, and dark matter is the next invention to go. It will certainly take longer than it should, because modern science does not question constants.
Word salad. Care to deal with all the evidence that says that dark matter does exist?
From a layman's point of view,the pictures, videos created by those advanced telescopes are spectacular than any scenic beauties and natural beauty.I wonder how come Buddha gathered information on cosmos without any scientific instruments? As there is not even remotely possibility of instruments available during that period. Was it through deep meditation? Everything is so obscure and ambitious when it comes to meditation and it's aspects.
As there is not a remote possibility of availability of any scientific instruments. Was it through deep meditation? Everything is so obscure and ambitious when it comes to the meditation and it's aspects.
Ambiguous*
He didn't. At least show some respect to those that know about such things.
@@samuelgarrod8327 Are you democrate who believes in everythings?
Riddle me this....If the cosmic web is swirling around and there are various galaxy cluster "attractors" how are we determining expansion, or blueshift and redshift are just temporary and there is no "candle" then we could use or anything to determine the direction or rate of expansion of the whole, within a swirling cosmic web....I'm just saying....
Things can move in more than one direction at the same time and light doesn’t care what happens to the source after it is emitted.
@@undertow2142 The larger scale that is expanding, despite the inner swirls, may infact be swirling too and may be in the same position for millions of years. If its all the same then even the farthest scales will be swirling inward/outward too and the cosmic web appears to be just that. We can get an average idea of lights stretching but that candle will be coming back at us one day so expansion just ain't what it used to be.
The sometimes random pictures do confuse things for me.
Wasn’t matter denser in the early universe?
They still have not explained what the universe is expanding into.
All my calculations don't add up!
How can a fully grown, normal-sized galaxy (which takes 2 - 5 billion years to reach this size) be where it was found just 200 million years after the alleged Big Bang?
The entire initial pattern (cosmic dawn) no longer works, we have to rewrite textbooks!
But with what? I have some good ideas, but I am not from Nostradamus` family... 😆
_"How can a fully grown, normal-sized galaxy (which takes 2 - 5 billion years to reach this size) be where it was found just 200 million years after the alleged Big Bang? "_
No such galaxies exist. The earliest ones observed are all low mass.
Hi how much planets they found in of around this galaxy maybe there is somthing intersted goodnight to you all universe humans
science mean science mean explaing real world , real world in science . mean from human perspectiv 2024 .
🔋
It doesn''t really matter. Our intelligence is way to innept to do anything but look through a telescope.
I think the "light speed" theory may just be wrong. And the light gets here faster than previously thought. I witnessed a star implode and shoot out beams like solid lasers through space. But heard nothing about it from any astronomer.
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s one of the most studied things there is. Modern society is literally built upon our theories regarding relativity and the speed of light.
Ok JerryTrolley. Of course you did.
Multi firework galaxies not universes. bound up tension high energy density wholistic fabric folds, creases releases e=mc emerging f=ma values decay return to the greater system at large rinse repeat.
Young metaless galaxies didn't sit idly by billions of years without collapse while surrounded by neighbors fully seeded heavy elements and mature did throughout as far as throughout and up close to milkyway. Great attractor tells us newtons bucket is winning vs a real machian mass influence where in einstein death bed he worked on curvature releases on going gas when wholistic universes bends in arteries we see mirrored in cmb noise of large events of stars coming online.
Everything would math and explain why scales have cause to explain feedback loop influence of larger scale on smaller despite undeniable micro to macro emerging energetic values and actors.
Why only biology & cosmology and biology mirror the same grand unified stress's and fails despite being very much separate
James Webb is finding Cracks in the Universe....
if the train went faster than 28 km/h, the air would be sucked out of the cabin and people would suffocate. It's science. 😎
yay..
there was no beginning to the universe. next
The evidence says otherwise. Deal with it.
Assalamualaikum saya tidak pernah melihat almarhum bapak saya selama hidup nya menangis hanya waktu ibu saya meninggal