Some predictions for JWST.

[Michael Mozina]

When I was in college, and even up through the 1990's, the 'best' technology that we had at that time could only see up to a z factor of about 1, which in LCDM parlance works out to around 6 billion years after the supposed "bang". Here's a NASA diagram outlining the technological developments over the last three decades:

https://hubblesite.org/uploads/image_fi ... /print.jpg

Even way back then, lots of actual "predictions" were made based on the expansion interpretation of redshift about stellar evolution over time, galaxy evolution over time, black hole evolution and the value of the Hubble constant. So let's review the predictive track record of the LCDM model in terms of "evolutionary" concepts, shall we?

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-hubble-ea ... verse.html
https://scitechdaily.com/discovery-of-m ... on-models/
https://www.ibtimes.com/massive-quasars ... on-2537928
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-n ... -constant/

That's four major predictive failures of the LCDM model in just the last few years.

Even *after* adding a 70 percent metaphysical "fudge factor" in the form of 'dark energy' around the year 2000, astronomers *still* have a five sigma conflict between the Hubble Constant as it is predicted by the SN1A data, and the same constant as it is predicted by the Planck data, and LCDM proponents still have *no* consensus on how to fix that internal self conflict.

More damning to the expansion model however is the fact that their "predictive track record" with respect to stellar, galaxy and black hole evolution over time have all been a complete and dismal failures. There is no evidence to be found of any excess of original low metal Population III stars in the early universe as the LCDM model predicts. There's no evidence that galaxies evolve and grow over time, in fact we see direct evidence to the contrary in massive and mature galaxies in the distant universe. We also see *massive* quasars in the distant universe which defy every 'prediction' of the LCDM model.

When you really take a close, hard, "skeptical" look at the predictive track record of the LCDM model, it's a been a complete and total disaster for more than three decades! Not one key early prediction of the expansion model has proven to be correct, and in fact they were all demonstrated to be absolutely *incorrect*.

The current Hubble Ultra deep field images reveal a universe at Z~10 that looks almost exactly like our local universe. The JWST program will push that Z value out to around Z~20, about doubling our current capability and increasing the volume space dramatically.

So what would we 'predict' from both a static model and from an expansion model in JWST images?

Well, if the universe did begin with a "bang", we'd expect to see some evidence of it already, and we don't see any such thing, but let's humor them anyway. An LCDM model would predict a significant increase in Population III stars in the early universe, so JWST should find evidence of an excess abundance of low metal stars in the distant universe. An expansion model is also predicated on the concept of galaxy evolution over time, so at the most distant z values we should see a universe that looks dramatically different than our local universe in terms of galaxy sizes, and their "maturity". We should see some limit on quasars too since it takes a significant amount of time for "black holes' to grow and become supermassive. Again, we see *zero* evidence to support any of those assumptions with current data, but these are things that we would still tend to 'predict' to be observed in JWST deep field images.

A static universe model however doesn't "predict" an abundance of Population III stars at any particular redshift. It doesn't necessarily predict any obvious galaxy evolution over time either, nor does it place any limits on the sizes of distant quasars. There is no "expansion constant" in a static universe, so there's no self conflict with respect to the Hubble constant in a static universe model. To date, the static universe (tired light) interpretation of redshift has been 100 percent consistent with observation.

Based on *current* observation there's already a "clear winner" in terms of which redshift model has made the most accurate 'predictions' since 1990. It's no contest in fact. The LCDM (expansion) model has failed every observational "test" related to stellar, galaxy and quasar evolution. It's also still in five plus sigma *self* conflict with respect to the Hubble constant as predicted by SN1A data, and predicted based on Planck data.

There's certainly no reason to believe that the predictive track record of the LCDM model will "improve" at all with JWST data. In fact the trend that we've observed for the last 30 years is likely to continue as our ability to see further away improves over the next 30 years.

In a static universe model, the local universe is likely to look pretty much like the distant universe in every conceivable way. That's certainly the trend we've observed for the last 30 years, and that's the same trend we'd expect to observe in JWST images.

Now of course the observation of redshift over distance, whatever it's cause might be, precludes us from ever being able to see an 'infinite' static universe, but there are certainly predictions that we can make with respect to JWST imagery. We already see a distant universe that looks remarkably similar to our local universe and there is every reason to expect that trend to continue with JWST data.