New JWST data analysis shows the early universe wasnt as pristine as the BBT predicts.

Ive just read an article on a recently published paper “Early metal-enriched baryon cycling before the midpoint of cosmic reionization. Yongda Zhu, 2026” 

Up till now it has been predicted that there could only be first generation young stars surrounded by pristine gas at 500 million years after the “beginning” of the Big Bang. Yet now, thanks to JWST, new data analysis has shown us that not only are there no new young early BBT stars visible at all and instead only impossibly mature galaxies. But there is also no pristine gas observable at this early epoch either. What this recent JWST data analysis found in this ‘early’ epoch was impossible to explain complex chemical and element signatures. Elements and chemical signatures not expected to be able to occur at such early times so soon after creation in a Big Bang universe. In fact these complex chemicals and these mature galaxies are only predicted to occur much later in the Big Bang model. Essentially JWST shows us that the Big Bang at 500 million years of age looks no different from our nearby mature local universe.

So now we have not one but two failed fundamentally important predictions for the Big Bang model. Without confirmation of these predictions one would reasonably expect the Big Bang model to be considered a complete scientific failure.

However as usual, rather than admit the BBT has failed once again, theorists ignore these failures and pretend instead that yes once again this is another amazing success story for the BBT! How is this possible?

A simple theoretical sleight of hand is all that’s necessary for Big Bang theorists to rescue their preferred model: The reason why all those predicted young stars of the ‘early’ universe can’t be found in JWST deep field images is because the newly discovered chemically complex gases, that incidentally were also not predicted to exist at all in an early Big Bang model, were covering up the evidence of the existence of these imaginary young stars. 

So the story now is that yes, there were a generation of young stars in the early universe as predicted by the BBT. But we can’t see them because they are covered up by complex chemical gases in the same early universe. Chemical gases which up until now were not only unpredicted but also considered impossible under the very same Big Bang model.

In other words instead of finding only new young stars and pristine gaseous environments in the early BBT universe, JWST has discovered that the early universe looks virtually identical to our current mature universe. 

Unfortunately this incredible failure of Big Bang theory once again hasn’t deterred the supporters of the Big Bang model. Because rather accepting that the data contradicts the fundamental basics of Big bang theory, this new unexpected analysis of JWST data is considered to be a confirmation of and a massive success for the BBT!

As always a failure of prediction, so endemic to BB theory, can easily be turned to an advantage. 

Because in Big Bang La-la land:

two failed old predictions = one successful newly minted prediction.

Pseudoscience at its best thanks to brilliant maths.

Photon from GRB travelled 2 billion light years, impossible under current theory.

In a recent article apparently an impossibly high energy photon was “observed” to have travelled 2 billion light years before being observed here on earth. Currently theory has GRB’s as massive cosmic explosions. Yet since the 90’s this model has consistently failed to predict each new set of GRB observations.  The reason for this consistent record of failure of GRB theory lies as usual with relativity theory. The theoretical backbone of all faked current and past GRB models.

However this problem does not occur if one assumes (the well observed fact) that light is wave only and travels at c only relative to its source then all of the last 100 or so years of failed predictions from black hole, Big Bang  and gammaray bursts theories can be avoided. As pointed out numerous times here on this blog.

Because if one ignores the false assumptions of relativity and its misguided progeny the Big Bang theory, then a GRB can be explained, not as an explosion, but rather as a rapidly red shifting stellar source in a non expanding universe from great cosmological distances being observed here on earth. An optical illusion rather than a real explosion. An “explosion” model which incidentally  has consistently failed to model each new set of observed data on GRB’s year on year since the early 90’s when theorists thought they must be either nuclear tests by Russians or at best supernovae like explosions from within our own galaxy. When at the same time in the early nineties the red shifting optical illusion model described in this blog which predicted, among other consistently successful predictions, that they would appear to be isotropic in the sky and have self similar light curves extending to highest ( and lowest) energies possible. These latest “impossibly high” energies have been predicted for 35 years. And for two decades here on this blog. 

The big question is: How much longer will it be before the scientific community wakes up and realises that relativity and the Big Bang theory are pseudoscience at best.

For more details on a GRB Theory that for decades has successfully predicted all known GRB observations to date please read the following and other posts from this blog:

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

Little red dot in distant universe

 Little red dot in distant universe

Recent images from JWST have shown up little red dots ,LRD’s, which under the current standard BBT model defIies explanation. In a paper cited in this article a claim is made that these “dots” are avsort of early stage galaxy from the early universe which when redshifted to earth observer’s only show the central core due to a new unpredicted galaxy formation type peculiar only to the fantasy of a Big Bang expanding universe. As seen in Webb images. 

However I prefer the possibility that these dots are images of much more distant galaxies in a non expanding non BBT universe, coming from much greater redshifts than JWST’ s limit of z>15. Galaxies whose central core ultraviolet to X-ray part of their electromagnetic emissions have been redshifted to the visible part of the spectra and appear to us as little red dots. This possibility fits the other observation of LRD images which is they appear to have no emission in X-ray. That’s because the x ray part of the distant galaxies emission spectra of these very distant galaxies is now redshifted to ultraviolet and thev UV part of their emission spectra to visible. Appearing in Webb as “little red dots” with no apparent observable X-ray emission. And unusual UV profiles in earth based observations of these LRD’s.

However these purported redshifts attributed to these LRD images are usually only assumed and using these assumptions various data fitting models give an assumed redshift of between z = 4-15. On the face of it this isn’t enough of a high redshift to accommodate the alternative model based on a non expanding universe that I describe above. However in a 2023 paper on the spectral analysis of LRD’s it is admitted that these proposed z= 4-15 redshift values are only possible estimates and spectral fits based on various assumptions only. Including the assumption that the universe is expanding. 

Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

 Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models

Seifert et al. 2024

https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/537/1/L55/7926647?login=false

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-dark-energy-doesnt-lumpy-universe.html

Another article on imaginary dark energy. Looks like theorists are finally admitting it is imaginary after all. But now fortunately we have new improved Timescape. Astrophysics has its latest excuse for the continued failure of the BBT to explain any of the data since the priest LeMaitre recycled the creation myth as an expanding universe. His attempt to explain why Hubbles observed redshifted light over distance was not consistent with Einsteins’ photon model. A photon model which incidentally, predicts that photons cannot change frequency over distance. 

It’s worth pointing out the fact that Hubble himself didn’t believe in expansion. Being a good scientist he knew that cosmological redshift must just be EMR changing frequency over distance rather than an imaginary divine event at the beginning of time. Because the fact is that the Sn1a data that led the BBT community to scratch their collective heads in 1998, is not showing any expansion at all let alone acceleration. 

Best chi fits of SN1a data to z=0 here show that the SN1a data best fits a non expanding model. 

And this contradiction between no observed time dilation in any data and imaginary dilation predicted by the BBT expansion was starting to look really bad for the BBT.

The best way out of this conundrum is to change the data to make it look like there’s a Big Bang, even when the JWST and other data shows there isn’t.

And now thanks to Timescape, a new improved better excuse has been invented and the BBT is safe again for a while. To account for observed non dilated lightcurves and various other BBT predictions recently refuted by the JWST data, Timescape offers the BBT a way out of its self induced mess. By saying that yes the universe is expanding, but it’s just that imaginary effects due to general relativity mean that it just doesn’t look like it’s expanding!! Which is why the data shows no expansion. 

All you need is faith.

Detailed study of a rare hyperluminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago

A new paper titled “Detailed study of a rare hyper luminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago” has come to my attention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02296-7

This paper is a good example of how the more pages of theory based on assumptions only, increasingly byzantine maths and a good load of devious data crunching the paper has, the more fantastical and pseudoscientific its conclusions will probably be. 

As usual the BBT theory consistently fails to explain why predictions of (the lack of) star and galaxy formation in the early universe don’t match the observations. A serious problem now for BBT theorists with the new JWST data. However the fantastical BBT can still be saved by pretending even more imaginary dark matter exists in the early universe than previously predicted. (As Narayanan et al postulated in 2015) These sort of very mature old galaxies have been recently observed in hi redshift surveys and cause a serious existential problem for the BBT. They shouldn’t exist! There’s not enough time for them to form after the beginining of time in the BBT fantasy universe. One get out for supporters of this failed theory has been that there were multiple fast occuring mergers of early galaxies. However the authors of this paper admit...no such evidence of any mergers is observed in this particular hi redshift mature galaxy studied in this paper. 

But the authors of this 2024 paper now cite Narayanan and pretend even larger than expected, or allowed, imaginary dark matter existed in the early universe and fortunately can be invoked to save the continually failing BBT. Thank heavens for brilliant mathematicians. They can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And it is this pseudoscientific sleight of hand of that is used to save their cherished BBT. The rule seems to be: If the observation contradicts your preferred theory, then make up imaginary observations of imaginary new never before observed particles and your theory will be saved. For a few weeks at least until JWST comes up with new data that contradicts your theory once again.

When will supporters of the BBT theory admit that their favourite theory has never yet made a successful prediction. Starting with Gamows 1940’s prediction of a ridiculous 50k temp for the CMBR. (when a CMBR of 2.8K was measured in the 60’s, suddenly everyone forgot how wrong Gamow, LeMaitre or Apher and Herman’s predictions actually were) And JWST in particular has been a trying time for Big Bang fantasists. Every week some new JWST early universe data contradicts the Big Bang theory. Yet rather than admit the BBT is a quasi religious fantasy devised by a catholic priest desperate to reconcile his faith with a science that wouldn’t conform to his religion (LeMaitre) the theorists can always rely on Dark Matter. The phlogiston of the 21st C.