Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

https://now.tufts.edu/articles/massive- ... y-universe

“What makes XMM-2599 so interesting, unusual, and surprising is that it is no longer forming stars, perhaps because it stopped getting fuel or its black hole began to turn on,” said Gillian Wilson, professor of physics and astronomy at University of California Riverside, who led the study in collaboration with Tufts and other institutions.

A galaxy that large would be expected produce stars for many more billions of years. Wilson notes that the unusual evolution of XMM-2599 will again force astrophysicists to “call for changes in how models turn off star formation in early galaxies.”

The whole "galaxy evolution" predictions of the LCDM cosmology model have been *ripped to shreds* by every new high redshift observation over the past fifteen years. The rationalizations and excuses are getting ever more bizarre and irrational as time goes by. Instead of galaxies showing a pattern of becoming more complex, larger and more mature over time, we're finding very "mature" and more "massive" galaxies at the highest redshifts that we can currently measure. This particular galaxy for instance is apparently 6 times the size of the Milky Way, and it's 'mature" beyond it's years as well, no longer producing stars at a prolific rate.

The JWST program, particularly the deep field images from that program will completely obliterate what little credibility is left of the BB model. Redshift is *not* caused by 'space expansion", it's caused by plasma redshift which has been routinely documented in the lab. The mainstream model is a complete predictive failure at higher redshifts, and it has been a complete predictive failure now for more than a decade. Every new high redshift observation is a total "surprise" to LCDM proponents. The LCDM model simply will not survive the JWST data sets, particularly the data from the highest redshifts. This decade will bring about the demise of the LCDM model of cosmology.

It's painfully obvious in 2020 that the LCDM cosmology model is a complete and utter failure when it comes to "predictive value". It has no predictive value whatsoever. All the key aspects of the LCDM model are not even 'predictions" to begin with, they are postdicted (usually metaphysical) elements which were added to the expansion model in a lame attempt to save the model from otherwise being falsified by observation.

For instance, the entire dark energy concept was an ad hoc "postdicted" component that was intended to deal with yet another *failed prediction* of the original expansion interpretation of redshift. Rather than 'slowing down' as was the original "prediction' of the expansion model, the SN!A data sets were "interpreted" as showing a pattern of acceleration (at least at that time). Newer, and more extensive SN1A datasets however demonstrate that original assumption from limited SN1A data was probably a misinterpretation of a limited data set, yet the LCDM model is now composed of almost 70 percent of a otherwise *useless* substance which serves exactly one purpose, specifically to "fix" what was considered (at the time) to be a broken expansion oriented cosmology model.

The other key assumption of a "bang" (expansion) model is the assumption that galaxies formed over time and became more "mature" and larger as the universe "aged" from a specific point in time.

That particular assumption has been falsified so many times over the past two decades that it's not even funny. The finding in the OP is another great example of yet another epic failure as it relates to the assumption of galaxy evolution over time. We keep finding *massive* and *mature* galaxies and massive quasars as far as our technology can measure, and we find no sign of any type of galaxy evolution. Quite the opposite in fact. At the limits of our technology we find galaxies that are many times the size of our own galaxy, and they are "mature" beyond any logical explanation in an expansion model.

Anyone being "intellectually honest" about these various problems would have to admit that the expansion interpretation of redshift has *zero* actual "predictive' value, and in fact it's actual predictions are completely at odds with the most recent data.

Nowhere else in science would this kind of epic failure be ignored and swept under the rug. Only in astronomy do we see this kind of blatant confirmation bias taking place. There is simply no way to actually "falsify" the expansion interpretation of redshift because all the data directly refutes it to begin with, and it's being modified on the fly when it's predictions bite the dust, and modified by adding more metaphysical constructs no less. Make no mistake about it: LCDM is a *bad religion* that is propped up by pure denial of the data, and sheltered from any public criticism by a small but vocal set of astronomers that simply ban anyone and everyone who even dares to question their metaphysical dogma, or dares to mention any alternatives.

Big bang theory is a scientific joke that cannot and does not hold up to any serious scientific scrutiny. It's headed for the trash bin of history as surely as Ptolemy. Astronomers have a long and proven track record of ignoring the more logical alternatives to their bizarre dogma. It's just a matter of time before the big bang model joins Ptolemy in the dust bin of history, and that time is now upon us. As soon as the JWST starts returning deep field images, the jig is up, and the evolutionary predictions of the LCMD model will finally bite the dust.

We already see a pattern in the data that is undeniable, and overwhelming. Nowhere do we see any real evidence of galaxy evolution, or any evidence of dark matter or dark energy. All we observe are epic and obvious failures of the LCDM model, over and over and over again.

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:39 pm Make no mistake about it: LCDM is a *bad religion* that is propped up by pure denial of the data, and sheltered from any public criticism by a small but vocal set of astronomers that simply ban anyone and everyone who even dares to question their metaphysical dogma, or dares to mention any alternatives.

I am thinking that there is no such thing as a good religion.
There is at least one goodish one i think (cant remember).

I really do believe that the "galaxy evolution" prediction of the LCDM model will be the straw that finally breaks the metaphysics camel's back. When we look at all the data over the past decade which directly refutes this issue already, it's pretty clear that the prediction of galaxy evolution over time has failed pretty much every recent "test" at higher redshifts. Contrary to the predictions of an evolutionary process, we observe massive quasars in the very distant universe which wouldn't have had the time to grow to such sizes. We also see "mature" and "massive" galaxies as far as Hubble and other equipment on Earth can see. They have to constantly keep trying to turn back the timetables on their evolutionary claims.

Based on this recent trend, it's quite obvious that the JWST program is going to blow the doors off of the whole concept of galaxy evolution, particularly as it starts to return deep field images which also show massive and mature structures even further back in time.

The JWST program is likely to be a bit like the Trojan horse that causes the eventual downfall of the dogma of the astronomy community.