+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Technology and Advancements (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=77)
+--- Forum: Science and Space...the Other Final Frontiers (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=79)
+--- Thread: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time (/showthread.php?tid=2709)
James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - gortex - 04-18-2025
12.8 billion years ago a Spiral Galaxy much like our own shone its light which has been now been seen by the James Webb telescope , the Galaxy has been named Zhúlóng taken from Chinese mythology.
Zhúlóng is similar to our Galaxy in size , mass and shape but existed just 1 billion years after the "Big Bang" making it the oldest Galaxy we have seen and another thorn in the side of the supposed Big Bang.
![[Image: g9WF2M2svLRGtxBTqAyWWC-970-80.png.webp]](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/g9WF2M2svLRGtxBTqAyWWC-970-80.png.webp)
Quote:Previously, it was believed that galaxies like ours would take billions of years to form distinct features like spiral arms , vast star-forming disks, and central bulges of densely packed stars. Yet, rather than being the expected chaotic galactic blob, those well-ordered features appear to be present in this galaxy, which is so distant that its light has taken 12.8 billion years to reach us.
"We named this galaxy Zhúlóng, meaning 'Torch Dragon' in Chinese mythology. In the myth, Zhúlóng is a powerful red solar dragon that creates day and night by opening and closing its eyes, symbolizing light and cosmic time," team leader Mengyuan Xiao of the University of Geneva (UNIGE) said in a statement. "What makes Zhúlóng stand out is just how much it resembles the Milky Way in shape, size, and stellar mass."
https://www.space.com/the-universe/james-webb-space-telescope-discovers-most-distant-and-earliest-milky-way-twin-ever-seen-meet-dragon-galaxy-zhulong-image
The further we look the more we see.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - gortex - 05-21-2025
A composite picture using data from both JWST and ALMA has been released showing more detail of our twin at the dawn of time.
![[Image: j0107a.jpg]](https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2025/05/j0107a.jpg)
Quote:In 2023, Huang and his colleagues described a galaxy called J0107a based on data from JWST, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and ALMA. This thing is a beast. It's a beautifully formed grand design spiral galaxy with 450 billion solar masses' worth of stars, positively bursting with star formation at a rate of 500 solar masses per year.
Huang's team wanted to understand the evolution of J0107a, so they used JWST and ALMA observations to try to map the movements of the gas therein. What they found was a shock: the galaxy's bar is shunting gas to the galaxy's center at a rate of around 600 solar masses per year, fueling the high rate of star formation found there.
This star gas flow is occurring in J0107a around 10 to 100 times faster than it does in galaxies we see around us in the local Universe, including the Milky Way. It feeds into the galactic center, increasing in density as it accumulates there. Since stars form from dense knots in thick clouds of gas and dust, the flows do indeed facilitate star birth. This suggests that bars may have been an important driver of galactic growth and evolution earlier than we had thought possible.
https://www.sciencealert.com/early-universes-milky-way-twin-looked-surprisingly-like-our-galaxy
Maybe it is the early Milky Way.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - HaarFager - 05-21-2025
(04-18-2025, 09:05 PM)gortex Wrote: another thorn in the side of the supposed Big Bang.
How so? I don't understand what you're saying here.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - Ninurta - 05-21-2025
(05-21-2025, 09:00 PM)HaarFager Wrote:(04-18-2025, 09:05 PM)gortex Wrote: another thorn in the side of the supposed Big Bang.
How so? I don't understand what you're saying here.
Conventional theory dictates that spiral galaxies cannot emerge fully-formed in a mere billion years. Therefore, a fully-formed spiral galaxy within a billion years of the alleged "Big Bang" is an anomaly that cannot be explained by the "Big Bang" theory.
The Milky way galaxy, our galaxy, rotates about once every 250 million years, so, 4 rotations in a billion years, which is not enough to organize a galaxy of our mass into a fully-formed spiral.
Personally, I have always considered the "Big Bang" theory to be inherently flawed, and not real "science". I see it as being no different from a magical or religious explanation of the origin of the universe. Religion says "there was a god, and that god made everything from nothing". Magic simply states that things come from nothings via some mysterious power. The "Big Bang" theory essentially states that "there was nothing, then suddenly there was everything" without invoking any explanation for that astounding claim. So, no more than magic or religion. Probably inferior to those, since they at least attempt to provide some explanation for how something came from nothing.
.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - FCD - 05-22-2025
Well, you're both right (in a way). And the explanation is...we have not sufficiently quantified the absolute size of the Universe at this point. So, we "assume" we understand where the boundary of the Universe is, and then do time calculations backwards from there. If the Universe is far larger than the assumed threshold, then you can explain galaxies like this new find.
I personally think there is a 'horizon' of sorts in our Universe which we cannot "see" beyond ('see' being a relative term). This would fit with Einstein's theory that the Universe is actually curved (in 3 dimensions, which is hard to wrap your head around until you research multi-dimensional geometry (i.e. more than 3)).
I also firmly believe that one day we will discover that our Universe is just a subset of something larger. Much like an atom is a subset of a molecule, and a molecule is a subset of a cell, and a cell is a subset of an organism, etc. Our Universe is just an atom in this example, and what we are seeing with deep space exploration is other 'atoms'...of a much larger cell, and ultimately organism.
And...Just a brain-bender to contemplate. ...
People talk about the Big Bang, but conceptually in order for the Big Bang to have occurred something had to exist (i.e. a piece of dust, or an electron, or whatever). What, exactly, this 'something' was is not the point here. The point is (and this is the brain-bender part), in order for that 'particle' / 'thing' to exist it had to exist inside of a space, a nominally three dimensional space. We know this because the Universe, post Big Bang had to have something to expand "into". Much of the science around the Big Bang says this 'space' could not exist, but it had to. Even in a perfect vacuum there is still a void, else there is nothing to contract into a vacuum. There's a hundred ways to describe this, but the bottom line is...we're missing something.
When I was in college (in Physics) I had many discussions around this concept, and I've debated with countless professors who have initially tried to explain this away as some primordial stew of electrical energy. Ultimately, after going along with but continually questioning the science behind these explanations, they would acquiesce and acknowledge that we just don't know, AND (at present anyway) we don't have any way to find out.
So, your brain-bender for today is...what existed BEFORE the Big Bang? And no, there is no 'easy answer' to this question.
BTW...in order to adequately describe the boundaries or "edge" of the Universe, and therefore calculate times forward or backward from there, we have to be able to adequately describe the events which led up to the Big Bang. Until we can do this, discretely, we cannot fully describe the size of the Universe.
edit - I honestly hope I live long enough to learn even some of these answers.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - F2d5thCav - 05-22-2025
re: "before the Big Bang"
Yep. "Big Bang" doesn't answer the "Big Question".
The cosmos are far stranger than we'll ever know IMO.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - Ninurta - 05-22-2025
Back when I was a kid, the universe was infinite. it had no edge, no end. That was back before there was a Big Bang to give it a limit, and to give physicists something to debate and pat one another on the back about. I remember, as a kid, trying to imagine infinity, limitlessness, no end to everything, ever. It made my brain hurt. It probably made other kids' brains hurt, too, so when they grew up, they became physicists and invented the Big Bang so that the universe had an end, and their brains would no longer hurt.
I'm told that light has a finite speed, around 186,282 miles per second, or something like that. We are told that light from the edge of the universe takes 13.8 billion years or so to get to us from there, and that is a 13.8 billion year radius in all directions. That would place us at the exact center of the universe, the point of the Big Bang... sort of.
But what about the light going in the exact opposite direction of the edge of the universe from us? Where does it go if there is nowhere for it to go? Does it bounce off the edge and come right back at us anyhow? OR - is there more universe for it to expand out into in that opposite direction? How would we know? We can only "see" for 13.8 billion light years - beyond that is unknown, because of course we cannot see what is there.
So, while there is a "horizon" beyond which we cannot see, we only call that the edge of the universe. There is no way we can actually KNOW that it IS the edge of the universe.
Can a civilization sitting at that "edge" also see 13.8 billion light years in all directions from there? If so, then we are just inside a sphere with a 13.8 billion light year radius, but there would also have to be a larger sphere beyond that, in all directions, that has a 13.8 billion light year LARGER radius (27.6 billion light years, if extended in all directions).
How long does that go on? Infinitely? Does the universe rally even have an edge, just because we say it does because that's as far as we can see?
=====================================================================
What was, before the Big Bang? I'm told that everything that is was packed into a super dense "singularity" which suddenly exploded... but if there was no space for it to explode into, how then could it possibly explode? "Space" was allegedly created by this big bang, but it would necessarily only exist inside the limits of the explosion... so what did the explosion expand IN TO? There was no space there for it to explode into, so how does that work?
Anf if this "super dense singularity" existed before the big bang with everything in the universe squished up into a pin point, then of course the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe - the universe merely changed form after the alleged explosion. We don't say that water is "created" when an ice cube melts... it just changes state, it's not "created". So, the Big Bang still does not explain the origin of the universe. Where did the "super dense singularity" come from?
So, really, the Big Bang doesn't actually explain anything. It just kicks the questions down the road, and it does it not much differently to any religion or voodoo explanation of "how the universe began".
I don't have the answers, only questions. We may never have the answers, because what we can "see" is limited to that artificial horizon which we cannot see beyond. we don't know what is beyond it, if anything. it could be anything... or nothing. we may never know.
Science itself may never know. The scientific method requires observation. When our observation reaches a limit, science ends. Science requires repeatability and falsifiability. If we cannot show something to exist, or not to exist, we can't "science" it up. we cannot run experiments on what we can not, in any way, physically or visually, reach.
Life is a mystery. Perhaps an unsolvable one.
Maybe one day we'll discuss the Methuselah Star. Why try to see beyond the veil of the edge of the universe when we can see a star potentially older than the universe in our own back yard? But either way you go with it, the Methuselah Star promotes questions itself, whether it is or is not older than the universe.
.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - Michigan Swamp Buck - 05-22-2025
The cosmological theories, open, closed, saddle-shaped, expanding, contracting, pulsating, and my latest favorite, a closed universe inside of a supermassive black hole in a much larger super universe full of other black hole universes, and on, and on.
The Native Americans were right all along. It's turtles all the way down.
Quote:The mythological idea of a turtle world is often used as an illustration of infinite regresses. An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor.[11] The main interest in infinite regresses is due to their role in infinite regress arguments. An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - gortex - 05-22-2025
Quote: Posted by Michigan Swamp Buck
and my latest favorite, a closed universe inside of a supermassive black hole in a much larger super universe full of other black hole universes
James Webb seems to be hinting that is the case mate , if we can see fully formed Galaxies that couldn't / shouldn't exist that close to the beginning perhaps they are beyond our Universe in a Universe itself existing in a Super Super Massive Black Hole , a Russian doll multiverse perhaps with many Universes contained within.
The more we learn from instruments like Webb the more I feel nothing would surprise me in regard to "reality" and the workings of it .
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - FCD - 05-22-2025
(05-22-2025, 10:57 AM)Ninurta Wrote: ...
Maybe one day we'll discuss the Methuselah Star. Why try to see beyond the veil of the edge of the universe when we can see a star potentially older than the universe in our own back yard? But either way you go with it, the Methuselah Star promotes questions itself, whether it is or is not older than the universe.
I'm not sure how much stock I put into the aging of HD 140283 (the Methuselah Star). It's age calculation is based on a quantum mechanics calculations used for stellar evolution. So, it's a calculation based on an unproven theory describing a general concept which is then being used to describe the age of a specific object. So, it's a calculation, based on a theory, which itself is based on a theory as if it were proven fact.
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - F2d5thCav - 05-22-2025
At FCD,
FFS man. Just follow the science.
At Ninurta--
And all of these dam' "alien entity" encounters and none of those people think to ask the entity for answers about questions like these!
RE: James Webb Spots Our Twin at the Dawn of Time - Ninurta - 05-22-2025
(05-22-2025, 05:21 PM)FCD Wrote:(05-22-2025, 10:57 AM)Ninurta Wrote: ...
Maybe one day we'll discuss the Methuselah Star. Why try to see beyond the veil of the edge of the universe when we can see a star potentially older than the universe in our own back yard? But either way you go with it, the Methuselah Star promotes questions itself, whether it is or is not older than the universe.
I'm not sure how much stock I put into the aging of HD 140283 (the Methuselah Star). It's age calculation is based on a quantum mechanics calculations used for stellar evolution. So, it's a calculation based on an unproven theory describing a general concept which is then being used to describe the age of a specific object. So, it's a calculation, based on a theory, which itself is based on a theory as if it were proven fact.,
Well, to be fair, the ages of ALL stars are estimates based upon theoretical observations. usually involving their "metallicity", or their proportion of elements heavier than helium ("metals").
The reason the Methuselah Star has such a tortured and derived age calculation is because clearly it cannot be older than the universe, and when it was thought that it was, then they had to re-calculate by jumping through hoops and creating a reason that it COULDN'T be older than the (theoretical) age of the universe. Since the Big Bang theory and cosmic background radiation sets the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, they had to torture the calculations until the star was younger than that.
What they had to do was introduce the notion that the star's fuel was somehow "burning" faster than all other stars in the universe in order to make it younger.
In that effort, they have been only partly successful. The most recent age estimates I'm aware of (and I admit they are constantly changing as the physicists cast around trying to find reasons to push it lower) is 14.3 billion years, +/- 800,000 years. So the median age is still a half-billion years older than the universe, but in the lower 300,000 years of the age range, it could be the same age, or slightly younger, than the age of the universe as calculated from observations of the cosmic background radiation.
Currently, they are hanging their hats on that 300k year overlap, and ignoring the other 1.3 billion years of the range that do not overlap.
However, HD 140283 is apparently a Population II star, meaning that it is within the second generation of stars ever formed (for comparison, our Sun is a Population III star, the third generation, and is 4.5 billion years old by normal calculations), which means that there was an entire generation of stars before it which produced the few metals it contains. Is 300,000 years from the beginning of the universe really enough time for that first generation of stars to have been born and died, contributing the "metals" needed for the formation of the Population II stars?
The search for answers is ongoing.
I still believe that it's every bit as likely for a physicist to say "God spoke, and everything was" as it is for one to say "a tiny something exploded for no particular reason in nothing, and then everything was". Both solutions require a kind of magic.
ETA: Huh. YouTube has blocked me again over ad blockers which I don't have - my browser itself is blocking ads, so in order to see ads, I have to not browse the internet, which of course will prevent me from seeing the ads anyhow. Still, I can get to the videos in order for YouTube to admonish me over not wanting to get swarmed with ads for mail order brides and ED pills that I don't need either of, and I can then grab the URL of the video and post the URL here, and then I can watch the video ad-free.
The Big Bang theory is not the only thing in the world that makes no sense, apparently.
.