The Surprising and unexpected discoveries the James Webb Space Telescope will likely make
based upon our research
By Forrest W. Noble
The Pantheory Research Organization
Los Angeles, California, USA
Copenhagen, Denmark
Quebec, Canada (6/10/22)
Acknowledgements and affiliates: Researchers who have contributed writings, equation reformulation, referenced sources, etc., to this study and text: Timothy M. Cooper and Joseph E. Mullat
Abstract: The following research study and assessments involve predictions of the future observations of the James Webb Space Telescope concerning its most distant observations and related cosmology theory. Our research began in 2014 and is based upon astronomical observations published by many groups starting from 2008, and ending in the spring of 2022. Observations involve the Hubble (HST), the ALMA radio telescope array, and a number of other telescopes including other infrared scopes. General conclusions and predictions of this research and paper are that the same kinds of galaxies and clusters observed at the furthest possible distances by the Hubble Space Telescope and other telescopes, will continue to be observed by the JWST at the farthest observable distances, and that none of the expected Big Bang related observations will be observable such as the dark ages, the epoch of Reionization, many population III stars, or a panorama of only young blue newly-forming galaxies, nor the first stars of the universe, etc. Although we expect that astronomers will initially claim that the most-distant JWST observations conform to predictions of mainstream cosmology, in time we predict it will become apparent to many that mainstream cosmology is being contradicted by the James Webb observations at the farthest distances. Based upon our research, this will be because the universe is many times older than what the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model and the Hubble distance formula could allow – and that the Perfect Cosmological Principle will eventually be realized concerning the observable universe and JWST observations.
1.0 Introduction
The James Webb Space Telescope will be referred to in this paper as the JWST, or sometimes the James Webb. The uses of the words “we” and “our,” and related plural pronouns in this paper refer to one or more research associates, plus the author, who agree with a particular statement, prediction, or conclusion of this paper. We use the word “prediction” meaning our assertion based upon the evidence presented. Sometimes we use the word “expect” instead which would have a similar meaning as a prediction but with less evidence presented.
Anyone can make predictions of astronomical observations, and sometimes they may come true, but predictions alone would have little merit without adequate justification and explanations for them. Even if such predictions turn out to be true, their justifications may in time be proven wrong.
Based upon our research and related insights, we are making a number of alternative predictions for the JWST, often involving alternative theory, equations, and related justifications. Since most expectations for the JWST observations are well known, we will explain our alternative predictions and their reasoning compared to mainstream predictions. Our predictions are based upon prior astronomical observation anomalies presented and discussed in this paper that we believe are pointing in the same theoretical direction as our predictions.
The basis for the title of this paper primarily concerns future observations of galaxies at the farthest observable distances of the JWST. Nearly all of the past observations explained in this paper, involve dilemmas concerning mainstream theory, where sometimes mainstream adjustment-of-theory are discussed and were considered by astronomers and theorists following their observations and publication. At the farthest observable distances at the time of their observation, a few large galaxies and galaxy clusters appear to be very old, overly red, and oversized with few new stars forming. And a few central galactic black holes at these greatest distances appear to be already oversized compared to the galaxy’s size, since for most galaxies their central black hole is generally proportional to the size of the galaxy. To be consistent with mainstream cosmology, a few of these entities would need to have formed almost instantaneously in situ to be consistent with their calculated redshift ages.
According to our research, the ratio of such contradicting, large red, old-appearing galaxies at the farthest distances remains consistent and has not changed with increasingly distant observations. Our research indicates that this trend has not subsided with seemingly never-ending galaxy formation theory contradictions, even as our telescopes continue to extend our observable horizons, which will be the case for the James Webb. We therefore predict that these same kinds and percentages of contradicting distant-galactic observations will continue with the JWST. If so, we expect that because of the many contradicting observations known and discovered new ones, there will come a time not too many years after the JWST is operational, that ad hoc adjustments to mainstream cosmology will no longer be easily proposed or made without many questioning the validity of mainstream cosmology and its foundation pillars.
2.0 Discussion
Nearly all astronomical observations are now interpreted based upon Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmology. Although most observations at the greatest observable distances have been interpreted to be in accord with mainstream cosmology, some of these observations have been interpreted as appearing contrary to mainstream cosmology.
Below we will be discussing some of these anomalies and inconsistencies which we predict will continue being observed by the JWST, even at distances believed to be at the beginnings of the universe. At that time we expect some mainstream cosmologists will suggest new ad hoc hypothesis to explain these anomalies, while others will look toward alternative theory – which we predict will eventually result in major changes to mainstream cosmology.
Prior to the James Webb, our most powerful space telescope was the Hubble. Astronomers’ prior use and experience with infrared telescopes is listed below.
There are many ground-based infrared telescopes around the world. Some of the largest of these are/ were:
There also have been a number of prior infrared space telescopes. Some of the more permanent ones are shown below, with their infrared frequencies compared to the James Webb.
Name and Launch Year Wavelength μm
Spacelab Infrared Telescope (IRT) 1985 1.7–118 μm
Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) 1995 2.5–240 μm
Hubble Space Telescope, infrared Spectrograph (STIS 1997
0.115–1.03 μm
Hubble Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer 1997
0.8–2.4 μm
(NICMOS)
James Webb Infrared Space Telescope 2022 0.6 -28 μm
It has been more than a decade since the last launching of an infrared space telescope before the James Webb, and almost two decades since a “permanent” infrared scope went up before the James Webb. Because of the size of its combined mirrors, its ultra-low temperature, and its placement at the second LaGrange point away from the reflected light of the Earth and moon, much more is expected of the JWST concerning observations of the most distant galaxies and universe.
Because of astronomer’s prior experience with infrared telescopes and because of its increased clarity and cloud penetrating ability, it will generally be easier for astronomers to interpret JWST observations of galaxies and distant entities. But it also would be just as easy to misinterpret JWST observation anomalies at the farthest distances if the related Big Bang (BB) cosmology is wrong.
The predictions being presented below were all completed before the James Webb went up, properly placed, shown to be fully operational, and before any pictures were returned. This research has simply been awaiting publication to disseminate this information and these predictions. Now that the James Webb is up and running, after several years directed toward the most distant observations, if the James Webb only sees the same types of galaxies and galaxy clusters as those observed by the Hubble at even greater distances, then we predict the age of the universe will come into question, and more than a few theorists will begin questioning the validity of the Hubble distance formula as well as the Big Bang model itself.
Based upon Big Bang cosmology (BB), if only small, young, blue-appearing galaxies (adjusted for redshifts) will be seen at the farthest possible distances, then all cosmological models proposing an older or infinite age universe would most likely be wrong.
On the other hand, if at the very farthest observable distances, some old appearing, very large, red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies are discovered, galaxy clusters, and galaxies with observably high metallicity like the Milky Way, then these observations would be in accord with cosmological models of a much older universe. This would be evidence that the present Big Bang model would likely be wrong, which is our expectation.
Other than some of the most distant galaxies appearing to be very large and as old as the Milky Way, as some galaxy observations will be described below, another expectation that we agree with is: “Many expect to be surprised by the discoveries of the JWST.”
The following is a list of present (BB) theory problems that we believe will be greatly magnified by James Webb observations, based upon our research and the observations explained below. The specific observations discussed are just a few of the more unusual observation anomalies, of the great many others we encountered in our research concerning the most distant observed galaxies in more than a decade.
3.0 The Anachronistic Galaxy Problem and related observations
We anticipate the following group of observations may be the most obvious single Big Bang problem that will be recognized and spotted by the JWST. There have been a great many observations by many different groups of astronomers that have come to the conclusion that some of the most distant galaxies appear to be very old, very large and mature, rather than young appearing. This is exemplified by the listing of some of these observations explained and referenced below.
It stands to reason that the most distant and therefore first-to-form galaxies, according to the Big Bang (BB) model, should be small, young blue galaxies with mostly first-generation stars within them. This does not appear to be what is being observed at the greatest distances. Instead there have been a few, very large, old-appearing galaxies at the farthest distances, observed by many different groups of astronomers. Some of these most-distant galaxies appear to be filled with old appearing red stars; others appear to be very large spiral and elliptical galaxies, like the Milky Way and even larger neighboring galaxies.
3.1 -Observation- Old-appearing galaxy at the greatest observable distances
This most distant and very recent observation exemplifies this problem: An international team of astronomers, including researchers at the Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian, have observed the most distant galaxy ever seen to date, with a redshift of z > 12. This discovery was published April 2022 in the Astrophysical Journal, with an accompanying paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters.
This large, believed to be fully formed galaxy was named HD1, which was calculated to be 13.5 billion light-years away. Scientists have just begun to speculate exactly what the galaxy might consist of and how such a large fully formed galaxy could exist at such an early time of the universe. According to their statement, the same team said they will soon observe HD1 with the James Webb Space Telescope to further clarify their observations and calculations.
The team has initially proposed two possible ideas concerning this galaxy’s excessive brightness. The first is that HD1 may be forming very large, bright first generation stars at a very high rate and could be home to many Population III stars. The second idea is that HD1 may contain a super-massive central black hole calculated as being more than 4 times more massive than the Milky Way’s central galactic black hole, Sagittarius A.
The lead author of this study said: “Answering questions about the nature of a source so far away, can be challenging,” says Fabio Pacucci, of the MNRAS study. Determining the causes of this galaxy’s appearance seems like it could ultimately become “a long game of analysis and exclusion of implausible scenarios,” regarding mainstream cosmology.
HD1 is also extremely bright in ultraviolet light, another observation anomaly for such a distant galaxy. To explain this, Pacussi said: “some (unexpected) energetic processes are occurring there or, better yet, did occur (many) billions of years ago.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-spot-most-distant-galaxy-yet-13-5-billion-light-years-from-earth/
At first, researchers thought HD1 was a large starburst galaxy, a galaxy that is creating stars at a very high rate. From their calculations of how many stars HD1 appears to be producing based upon the galaxy’s brightness, “HD1 would have to be forming more than 100 stars every single year. This rate is at least 10 times higher than what we expect for these galaxies” (1). If their interpretations are correct, they speculate that galaxies could have been different in the beginning universe. If not, this anomalous observation seems to contradict mainstream cosmology, as do many distant galaxies that have already been observed at the greatest distances, and the many more we expect will be observed by the James Webb.
3.2 –observation- Old appearing Galaxies Ten Billion Light Years Away, Hubble Ultra-Deep field Survey
The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field Survey (UDS) overview image, was an image containing over 100,000 galaxies, with an area four times the size of the full moon This single image search allowed “… astronomers to look back in time over 10 billion years, producing images of galaxies in the Universe’s infancy” (Massey, 2008). Doctor Foucaud, of the UDS project, said: “our ultra-deep (field) image allows us to look back and observe galaxies evolving at different stages in cosmic history, all the way back to just 1 billion years after the Big Bang,” but the big problem then turned out to be that “we see galaxies 10 times the mass of the Milky Way already in place at very early epochs.”
Further analysis of the UDS also had continuously surprising results according to astronomers, paraphrased below: The distant galaxies identified can be considered elderly because they appear to be rich in old, red appearing stars, not because of their redshifts which would make them less than 4 billion years old according to the Hubble distance formula. The presence of such fully-evolved red-appearing galaxies so early in the universe is hard to explain based upon present theory, and has been a major puzzle to astronomers studying how galaxies first formed and evolved. (University of Nottingham, 2008) (2).
Dark matter was proposed by some astronomers as a possibility to explain how such supposedly young galaxies could have evolved into modern-looking galaxies so quickly, but that still wouldn’t explain how some of them could have become so super-massive at the theorized beginnings of the universe and also appear to be so dormant and elderly.
3.3 –observation- Very Distant old-appearing Massive Galaxies Observed in the HST’s Ultra Deep Field
The Ultra Deep Field UDF survey were observations made by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) for the purpose of detecting the most distant galaxies with sometimes follow-up observations using the Spitzer Space Telescope, the European Southern Observatory Very Large (USO VLT), and other scopes. One of the galaxies they were observing, HUDF-JD2, has a redshift of z = 4.8, which according to mainstream theory was only about 800 million years old in the beginning universe (viewed by both Hubble and Spitzer 2005). One of the astronomers, Nahram Mobasher of the European Space Agency, said: “This galaxy made about eight times more mass in terms of stars than there are in the Milky Way, and then must have suddenly stopped forming stars appearing to have aged prematurely.”
A related article concerning this observation goes on to explain: The leading theory of galaxy formation holds that small galaxies merge to form larger ones. But the newfound galaxy is so large and massive at such an early stage of the universe that some astronomers and theorists have proposed that at least some galaxies must have formed more quickly in situ in a monolithic manner.(3)
- Galaxies more massive than the Milky Way should have been phenomenally large in the early stages of the universe, according to Big Bang cosmology. Such very large galaxies would have necessarily formed very rapidly in situ rather than coalescing from smaller galaxies over time. Even so, how could it be possible according to mainstream theory for such large galaxies to appear to be so old in the beginning universe? It would seem nearly impossible that such very large galaxies could have had time to form from scratch in less than a billion years, according to present galaxy formation theory.
We predict that the James Webb will see a great many such galaxies and even older appearing ones in the early universe, with some appearing to be the same as galaxies in our local neighborhood, which according to their observed stars, are calculated as being six to twelve billion years old – even more greatly compounding the cosmological problem.
3.4 –observation- Very Distant Red Galaxies would seem to strongly Challenge Theory
The following observations are now a well-known observation anomaly. Astronomers using The Spitzer Space Telescope discovered four extremely red galaxies in the distant universe, near each other with similar redshifts. Jiasheng Huang of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, lead author of the research and discovery in 2011, said “We’ve had to go to extremes to get the models (theory) to match our observations.” The authors here noted that “this is a dangerous statement to make since it is suggestive of having to force models to fit (mainstream) theory, often a sign of wrong theory.”
Galaxies can be very red for several reasons, they said. They might be very dusty. They might contain many old, red stars, and they can be very distant, but all three reasons combined together should not apply to galaxies at the beginning of the universe. All four galaxies appear to be relatively close to each other based upon their grouped appearance and similar redshifts. We see these galaxies as they were only about a billion years after the beginning of the universe, according to theory — an era when the first galaxies accordingly formed, and are supposed to have been young appearing, small, very active blue galaxies, the exact opposite of what we have observed concerning this group of four galaxies, (Aguilar, 2011) (4).
Does the forced data suggest that a new, presently un-known type of galaxy could have existed at the beginning of the universe, they speculated? In terms of probability, it seems very unlikely that these ultra-red galaxies should exist at all at these great distances and therefore not unsurprising that current computer models had to be forced to the data in an attempt to provide explanations related to mainstream theory. If more of these types of galaxies are observed in the most distant universe, as we predict they may be using the JWST, then such a grouping of galaxies would still be expectedly very rare as they are in our local universe, or any observable part of it at any age.
Concerning observations of 2.1 through 2.4 above, although they represent a small minority of galactic observations, we predict the same portion and kinds of very large, red, old appearing, quiescent galaxies will be observed by the James Webb at the farthest observable distances, with better clarity and certainty, as exemplified by 2.1 above.
3.5 Distant Galaxy Clusters seem to contradict theory
Not just old appearing galaxies, but large, old appearing galaxy clusters have been observed at the furthest observable distances.
3.5.1 -observation- A group of astronomers and scientists used several telescopes, the USO VLT, the XMM-Newton telescope, and the Chandra X-Ray observatory to analyze the CL J1449-0856 galaxy cluster and stated that its “properties imply that this structure could be the most distant, mature cluster known to date and that X-ray luminous, elliptical-dominated clusters are already forming at substantially earlier epochs than previously known” (Gobat, 2010).
They also said: “our results show that virialised clusters with detectable X-ray emission and a fully established early-type galaxy content were already in place at redshifts z > 2, when the Universe was only ~3 Gyr (billion years) old. While it took them several years of observations to confirm this structure, they said upcoming telescopes like the JWST and future X-ray observatories should be able of routinely find and study similar clusters, unveiling their thermodynamic and kinematic structure in detail. The census of z > 2 structures similar to CL J1449+0856 will subject the assumed Gaussianity of the primordial density field to a critical check“(5).
We predict continuously more of these mature looking galaxy clusters will be detected in a theoretically young universe—and, more importantly, if they are detected even much further away as could be detected by the JWST —then this would more strongly contradict BB cosmology, as we predict the JWST will do.
3.5.2 –observation- A research team and study led by Andrew Newman confirmed “that JKCS 041 is a rich cluster and derived an average redshift of z = 1.80 (~9.9 billion light years away) via the spectroscopic identification of 19 member galaxies, where more than 3/4rs of the galaxies observed were quiescent,” 15 of 19 galaxies are no longer producing stars (Newman, 2014). “This indicates a large, ancient (appearing) galactic cluster past the peak of its star-forming period” — which would seem to be totally contrary to mainstream cosmology.
Other possible theory contradictions they discovered:
They “constructed high-quality composite spectra of the quiescent cluster members that reveal prominent Balmer and metallic absorption lines.” Young, early-generation stars (as should be expected in young, early-generation galaxies) should not have notable metalicities as do these galaxies.
“We find no statistically significant difference in the mass/radius relation or in the radial mass profiles of the quiescent cluster members compared to their field counterparts.” Galaxies in clusters are expected to be larger than isolated galaxies due to their increased opportunity to coalesce. This does not seem to be the case here; both cluster and field galaxies appear to have similar sizes and have grown at the same rate. (6)
3.5.3 –observation- Young in theory, old in appearance
An international team of astronomers using instruments on the ESO’s Very Large Telescope to measure distances to a curious patch of faint red light began to see the hallmarks of a very distant galaxy cluster. Its distance was calculated based upon its average redshifts, which indicated that the galaxy cluster was no more than three billion years old according to the Hubble distance formula. This galaxy cluster grouping was named CL J1449+0856.
“They found evidence suggesting that most of the galaxies in this cluster were no longer forming stars, but were primarily composed of stars that already appear to be old and mature. The cluster was estimated to be similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster, the nearest rich galaxy cluster to the Milky Way.”(7). Because of their old appearance, older galaxies in the Virgo cluster that appear similar to those in this cluster are estimated to be between 8 and 12 billion years old – yet the age of the same appearing galaxies in this cluster are no more than 3 billion years old, according to their redshift and the Hubble distance formula redshift calculations.
4.0 The Universe Density Problem
Most studies in the past and present find it difficult to judge the density of the universe at any given redshift, or be able to compare the density of one cosmic era with another. Based upon the expanding space model, theory requires that the density of the universe was much greater in the distant past. This has never been corroborated by observation and published to the present day, according to our research. This statement can be verified by searching and finding little or no related studies comparing the changes in density of the universe over time. We think this absence is disturbing since the Big Bang model claims, via the expansion of space, a much denser universe in the past, but to the contrary, the opposite has been observed according to our research.
Based on the expanding space model, the Hubble distance formula and the volume of a sphere in a “flat” universe, when the observable universe was half its present age (and diameter) after the Inflation era, it would have been eight times denser with matter, primarily observable as galaxies. At a quarter its present age and diameter, it would have been 64 times more dense compared to now, based upon a relatively constant rate of expansion since hypothetical Inflation. An even larger difference in density would be observable if expansion were accelerating. These are not small differences. Since the HST has detected galaxies from calculated distances of ~13.2 billion years ago in a universe of ~13.8 billion year old, such great differences in densities should be readily observable if mainstream cosmology were valid. The Inflation hypotheses cannot change this since expansion has accordingly continued near the observed rates after the Inflation era ended. But deep-field studies have not observed greater densities. Instead we appear to see the opposite: observed galactic densities decrease the farther back in time we look. The general ideas as to why this is true are summarized in an excerpt from an astronomy website (Springbob, 2003), and related links.
The most common explanation for the recognized decreasing density of galaxies over time is that it’s harder to see details of things that are farther away. So while we can see almost all the galaxies nearby, we can only see the brighter galaxies further away. According to this explanation, this effect overwhelms everything else and is responsible for the density of galaxies in galaxy studies and density maps progressively dropping off at ever increasing distances. So accordingly if one looks at galaxy density maps, they can imagine that there are actually many more small galaxies surrounding the larger ones that we just can’t see.
Our answer to this: Of course the above is true, but the lack of smaller, less luminous galaxies cannot explain the comparative scarcity of galaxies in the universe, for instance seven billion years ago when, as stated above concerning expanding space, the universe should have been about eight times denser with matter and galaxies, as well as more galaxy mergers should be observable, which they’re not. Adjusting for estimates of the reduced visibility and clarity of the intergalactic space in those times, there still should have been many times the number of observable galaxies than what we can see now, as galaxies do not take many billions of years to form based upon present observations and theory. Observations instead indicate that the number of galaxies in the past falls simply off proportional to their distances from us; that the universe was relatively less dense in the past, rather than denser as required by mainstream theory.
Another mainstream answer to this problem is that astronomers cannot easily measure galactic densities with a single telescope. Angular separation inside telescopes cannot be used to measure the mass inside any significant volume. This used to be a good excuse, but now we have large arrays of telescopes that can be connected together by computers electronically. These combined arrays do not seem to have attempted such a density study as yet, even though they would seemingly be the best choice to discover a low density problem in past epochs, contrary to the expanding space proposal.
What do we expect the James Webb will find concerning the galactic density of the universe compared to what would be expected based upon the BB model? The James Webb has a large conjoined mirror that could see a large panorama of distant galaxies in one picture, even more so than the Hubble Deep Field could observe. But we predict such a James Webb density study will probably never be conducted or published since for those who might be interested, such a study could more accurately be conducted by large ground based telescopic arrays as described above, while probably being less costly.
5.0 Relative density, velocity, and mass studies and calculation formulas
Contrary to mainstream theory, we expect any universe-density study by the James Webb will observe that galactic densities will appear to fall off according to the equation in 5.1 below. Without observational support, claims of increased densities of the universe in the past would be based upon theory alone without justification in the face of contradicting evidence.
Our prediction from this research: The average distance between large galaxies in a cluster will generally fall off in past epochs of the universe, which would be comparable to the average density of the universe with matter in past epochs. Measurement will follow the simple formula d1 = (z +1)d, where d would be the average distance between galaxies in a local galaxy cluster like the Virgo cluster, and ‘d1’ would be the average comparative distance for more-distant galaxy clusters, and ‘z’ is the observed redshift. For instance if ‘z’ = 1, then the equation would calculate the increased average distances between galaxies in a cluster to 2. This means that average distances between galaxies in a cluster at a redshift distance of z =1, for instance, calculate to be 2 times greater than for a local galaxy cluster like Virgo. For a redshift of 10, this would calculate to being 11 times the average distances between galaxies in the Virgo Cluster (local universe), for instance. This might be a valuable calculation and consideration for the James Webb astronomers or other scopes peering at the greatest distances, to save time and focus effort when looking for the nearest galaxies to ones already being observed.
This and the other equations presented below were formulated based upon matter getting (relatively) smaller over time rather than space expanding. Of course this is not mainstream physics. The appearance of densities of the universe progressively decreasing in past epochs would also be contrary to mainstream cosmology (8).
Of course mainstream astronomy would assert that the beginning universe should be very dense with galaxies, but our research indicates that there is no exact age of the universe that this could be discovered if true. Steady State cosmology via the expansion of space concept might put the average past distances between galaxies at half the distance that we predict above, which would be d1 = (z +1)d/2, since the average expansion rate of space should have been half of what we presently observe now at such great distances due to the average rate of expansion between here and there.
One should note that these equation are linear, the greater the redshift and farther back in time we look, the greater the distances between galaxies should be and the less dense the universe would appear to be according to these equations. But as will be explained, photos by the James Webb will appear very similar to the Hubble Deep Field photo because the size of matter relative to the size of space it occupies would be the same then as it is today, according to the diminution of matter theory, a scale relativity theory (15).
The theory of an expanding universe has never been confirmed since the first analyses and estimates of galactic densities were conducted. Ever since then observations have been contrary to expanding space and a denser universe in the past. But this contradiction has never been acknowledged for the many reasons explained above. Many also could understand that there would be peer pressure against any galactic density study and its publication if its conclusions might be questionable or contrary to mainstream cosmology (8).
We instead believe that any such a density study should be conducted by ground arrays with a broader single perspective potential for any group interested in studying this potential problem. But we expect none will be published concerning James Webb observations or for any telescopes for the same reasons that such studies were never published before using other scopes. But the knowledge that lesser densities have always been observed in the past could be helpful to JWST astronomers that might consider such implications valuable to their own observations.
The basis of the above density equation is Scale Relativity theory (15) which asserts matter is getting smaller over time rather the space expanding. Both would produce the same observed redshifts. Such theories are also called scale-changing theories. They propose not only that matter and galaxies were relatively larger in the past, but that the measurement of densities would also appear to be less from our perspective. But when James Webb photos are taken, they should appear very similar to the Hubble Deep Field photo because galaxies and their densities should appear the same in all eras of the universe since relative proportions would have been the same. Only when measurements are taken, would densities appear to decrease.
Relatively speaking, this means that the sizes of matter and space were not really larger in the past, and the rate of time was not slower; they would just appear so from our perspective and measurements, optical illusions of sorts. While galactic photographs would appear the same, galaxy rotation rates will appear faster in the past, which we expect can be calculated by this formula, (1 + z)½. For instance, at a redshift of 1, the rotation rate of a spiral galaxy, if it could be measured, should appear to be 1.414 times faster at that redshift. At a redshift of 10, this would calculate to be a velocity of about 3.32 times faster than the rotation rate of the same size local spiral galaxy. All velocities in the past should appear to increase according to this same equation,(1 + z)½, and according to our expectation of how distances and velocities will be interpreted, perceived, measured, and calculated.
The relative mass of a galaxy we expect will follow this equation, MR =(1+z), where MR is the apparent (relative) mass. For instance, at a redshift of 13, a galaxy having the same mass as the Milky Way, would calculate to have a mass 14 times the mass of the Milky Way. To calculate the “correct” galactic mass, one would simply divide the mainstream calculated galactic-mass (multiple) by MR, which in this case would be equal to 1. The reduction of perceived energy levels can also be reduced by the same relative mass/every equation.
6.0 The Anachronistic Super massive galactic Black Hole Problem
According to decades of observations by astronomers, the central galactic black holes of galaxies appear to form from matter within a galaxy and grow in size in proportion to the galaxy. The bigger a galaxy gets, the bigger its central black hole usually gets. But finding central galactic black holes the size of the Milky Way’s central black hole, Sagittarius A, is an obvious theoretical problem when observed in galaxies near the theoretical beginnings of the universe, since our galaxy and central black hole has been estimated to be about 12 billion years old.
6.1 –observation- Examples of observed oversized distant black holes
Submillimeter Array observations of galaxy 4C60.07 “now suggest that such colossal black holes were common even 12 billion years ago, when the universe was only 1.7 billion years old and galaxies were just beginning to form” (Aguilar, 2008). Finding two such galaxies with very large central black holes relatively close to each other with similar redshifts, astronomers said: “…. one of the galaxies seems quiescent, and the other active; both are about the size of the Milky Way.” As can be realized, such observations contradict mainstream cosmology and add to the anachronistic huge galactic black hole problem (9). Of course mainstream cosmologists could speculate that for some galaxies, their central black hole could have formed first via dark matter, and later the galaxy could have formed around that dark matter. But if such hypotheses are often proffered without well-founded support, then galaxy formation theory could become questionable, and vulnerable to replacement over time.
6.2 Galaxy Formation-Theory Problems
The James Webb is expected to be able to look back to the beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang model and the universe age limit of ~13.8G years. Based upon our research, we predict that the James Webb will see the same kinds of galaxies and galaxy clusters observed by the Hubble Space Telescope and other scopes that have observed galaxies at the greatest distances. We predict the James Webb will not be able to better explain galaxy formation problems explained herein, but instead because of its accuracy, will just add to theoretical contradictions.
The anisotropies (non-uniformities) that hypothetically would have been produced by an expanding universe—either by inflation or by expansion alone— would not seem to be sufficient to allow enough time for such large galaxies to have formed so early in the beginning universe based upon mainstream theory. We predict an even bigger problem will be compounded by the JWST observations which will relate to finding galaxy clusters, webs of galaxies, as well as all of the observed large intergalactic anomalous structures that have already been observed toward the beginning universe, discovered at ever greater distances, and to have formed within the BB age limit of 13.8G years.
6.3 Galaxy formation contradictions
To explain this theoretical problem and related observations, theorists have modeled the theoretical period following hypothetical Inflation, forming new ever-changing hypothesis trying to explain the large observable galactic and intergalactic structures that have appeared so early in the universe, by one means or another. Since this is only theory with questionable supporting evidenced other than computer modeling, the weakness of validation-by-model is that if the model is incorrect, it can always be tweaked until it is “correct.” Even then, there is the risk that new observations—such as the Large Quasar Group four billion light-years across discovered using the HST in 2013 (Klotz, 2013)— which required fine-tuned model addendums, in a continuing process of fine-tuning and changes in fine tuning, but with continuous surprises rather than predictive power. (10)(11)
Since we expect that mainstream cosmology will continuously be contradicted by the JWST observations, our prediction is that in less than 4 years, much of mainstream cosmology will be in the process of change or replacement because of the barrage of contradictions that will be revealed by James Webb observations. The primary theme of these contradictions and our assertion is that some of the most distant observed galaxies, as well as the universe, are many times older than mainstream cosmology and the Hubble distance formula could allow. Maybe the best and most recent example of this is the most distant galaxy observed and discussed in section 2.1 above.
7.0 The Metallicity Problem and JWST observations
Nuclear elements heavier than hydrogen are created by nuclear fusion within stars. The simplest fused element is helium. The word Metals in astronomy is characterized by all elements heavier than helium. Latter-generation stars are made up of the ejecta from earlier generation stars that underwent nova or supernovae processes that expelled heavier elements into interstellar space. This means that early-generation stars should be metal poor, and that hypothetical Population III stars (first generation stars) should be metal-free, as would be expected concerning the first stars of the universe.
Stars should become more metallic for each subsequent stellar generation. Therefore, distant galaxies being part of a younger universe of early generation stars should have many stars of lower metallicity than galaxies of today, according to mainstream cosmology. But that’s not what has been observed, as explained below, or what we predict will be observed by the James Webb.
7.1 –observation- Metallicity of galaxies and quasars at great distances contradict theory
The quasar SDSS J1148+5251 is “hyper-luminous” and resides within “a high metallicity galaxy in the early universe” (Galliano). With a redshift of z = 6.42 makes this quasar about 13.4 billion light years away, according to the Hubble distance formula. This means that the quasar and its galaxy would be about 400 million years old based upon the Hubble distance formula, which is the average lifetime of the largest metal-producing stars. However, “various metal tracers, like the [FeIII], [MgII], and [CII] lines, as well as the large amount of CO and dust emission observed, indicate a nearly solar metallicity.” This is an indication of a much older galaxy. The Sun is a Population I star about 4.5 billion years old; its metallicity should not resemble that of a quasar and galaxy at almost the beginning of the universe.
The quasar’s dust content and metallicity might be explainable by mainstream theory by a huge population of super massive, short-lived stars with almost “instantaneous” recycling. But researchers also estimated that “previous studies overestimated the star formation rate of this galaxy by a factor of 3-4.” (12) Since all of this speculation is highly unlikely, no good explanations remain concerning the quasar’s observed metallicity contradicting mainstream cosmology.
We predict the James Webb will further contradict mainstream theory via its observations of galactic metallicity in the early universe, because of its much better cloud penetrating vision.
8.0 The Distance vs. Brightness Problem
The accepted method of calculating cosmological distances involves redshifts and is based upon the accuracy of the Hubble distance formula. Type 1a supernovae—generally considered standard candles concerning their brightness—were slightly dimmer (~10%) than expected at a redshift of z = .6 (about 6 billion light years distant) resulting in a parabolic curve of brightnesses vs. redshifts rather than a linear one. This unexpected result necessitated the proclamation of dark energy by mainstream theorists and the Nobel Prize granted to research astronomers.
But if the Hubble distance formula underestimates distances by about 10% at a redshift of z =.6 with even more error at greater distances, then astronomers could come to the wrong conclusions concerning the characteristics of distant galaxies. That the characteristics of galaxies were different in the past was one of the two conclusions that put the Big Bang model into prominence and acceptance over its rival the Steady-State theory (SS) of the time. The other conclusion was that the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and its uniformity could be best explained by the heat from a beginning Big Bang event; now theorized as being the heat from a hypothetical Epoch of Recombination. The Steady-State explanation of the time was that the heat from the CMBR resulted from the greatly redshifted radiation from the background field of forever-distant galaxies, although the CMBR’s uniformity was more difficult to explain via SS theory (13).
Based upon observations by the Hubble and other scopes, we predict the James Webb will continue seeing the same kinds of very large overly bright galaxies. If a few of these bright galaxies are also overly red, astronomers should consider the possibility that at least some of them are not starburst galaxies, but simply large old galaxies that should not exist at all at the farthest distances of the universe being observed.
8.1 Alternative distance, brightness, and time dilation equations
The Hubble distance formula above is one of the foundation equations of the Big Bang Theory. This formula is based on an expanding universe which was first formulated by the acknowledged founder of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître. Besides the Big Bang model, Hoyle’s et. al. Steady State model also proposed an expanding universe. But for all Steady State (SS) theories like Hoyle’s, the Hubble distance formula, with the Hubble constant, has a time and distance limit to it concerning the age of the universe, contrary to all SS theories. Find a justifiable reason to replace or alter the Hubble distance formula or constant, then the universe could be much older via the new theory.
All Steady State cosmologies propose a much older universe, and nearly all also propose an infinite age and size of the universe.
Very few theorists have proposed an alternative to the Hubble distance formula that can hold up under scrutiny. The author believes his formulation of 2014, shown below in 8.1, will pass the test over time. With this formula, dark energy does not exist. Type 1a supernovae can be observed at their calculated distances with no change in their expected brightness – where the Hubble distance formula underestimates distances of type 1a supernova, and therefore all cosmic entities, by about 10% at a redshift of z = .6 based upon our study of the time (8). This was the reason that mainstream cosmology claimed the existence of dark energy in the first place.
The question then arises as to what is more likely – that the Hubble formula is off by about 10% at a redshift of z -.6 (about 6 billion light years away), or that about 70% of the observable universe is made up of unseen energy that is pushing the universe apart? We believe the former choice is far more likely since both can explain what is being observed. (8) Comparing the Hubble distance formula with the Pan Distance formula below was done by our associate Joseph Mullat in his study, as well as testing his own distance formula calculations:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348973177_An_Experiment_comparing_Angular_Diameter_Distances_between_Pairs_of_Quasars
If the James Webb sees the same kinds of observations that the Hubble saw at even greater distances and clarity, we predict eventually it will be realized that something is wrong with mainstream cosmology. Instead the proposed alternative linear distance equation, 8.1 below, has no distance or age limit to it. It was derived based upon a Pan Theory premise, the diminution-of-matter rather than the expansion of space. It calculates distances and a universe many-times older than what the Hubble distance formula and constant could allow.
http://www.pantheory.org/hubble-formula/ (14)
8.2 Alternative distance equation:
Type 1A supernovae data was garnered in 2012 by the author of this paper, from published type 1a supernovae observations. This supernovae data and the Pan Theory were the basis to derive the alternative distance equation shown below. Based upon observations by the James Webb, If what has been predicted above is realized as a possible problem with mainstream cosmology, then the alternative distance formula below could be tested to calculate the furthest distances observed by the JWST, to determine if its calculations better fit with what is being observed.
r1 = 21.2946 log10 [.5((z +1).5 – 1) +1] (z +1).5 P0 Mpc (14)(8)
Where ‘r1’ is the distance in megaparsecs, ‘z’ is the observed redshift, and ‘P0’ is a constant related to distance = 1,958.3.
The above equation was derived by the author regarding a past study of supernovae, and based upon the Pan Theory (8).
This same equation formulated a “more elegant” form, can be expressed as r1 =
Mpc
This form of the equation was reformulated by Joseph Mullat, an acknowledged research associate of this paper.
These formulas are based upon the diminution of matter rather than the expansion of space. This formula is simply a function of the redshift input data, like the Hubble formula, and the link below performs its automatic calculations and compares distances to the Hubble formula.
http://www.pantheory.org/hubble-formula/ (14)
We expect an additional formula is needed to calculate brightnesses, since galaxies would appear to have been both larger and brighter in the past, according to our research and scale relativity theory (8). This formula calculates increased brightness which would be somewhat diminished by increased distances, but still resulting in the characteristic of “over-brightness” in comparison to Hubble calculated distances and the inverse square law of luminosity.
8.3 Alternative brightness formula:
The mainstream brightness formula in physics and cosmology is the inverse -square law of light. The light intensity l, is proportional to 1 divided by d2 ; 1/ d2
The alternative brightness formula involving cosmology which we are presenting is:
L = 2.512 log10 [[((z+1).5t -1)).5t + 1](z +1)] (8)
Where ‘L’ is the calculated brightness (luminosity),‘z’ is the observed redshift, and ‘t’ is the calculated timeframe involved. This formula is also based upon the diminution of matter rather than the expansion of space. (14) The diminution of matter asserts that matter and brightnesses from the past, will appear to be brighter than they really were in their own timeframe, because matter would have been larger, and EM radiation more intense, but also involve greater calculated distances.
The formula above calculates the changing rate of time over distance (8)(15). In mainstream physics the rate that time passes (time dilation) is not a function of cosmic distance. Only the lengthening of time as it relates to distant events such as supernovae. The lengthening of time concerning the observations of distant-evens increases according to the mainstream equation (1+ z), accordingly based upon the expansion of space. The alternative time equation is shown above which calculates based upon the diminution of matter instead (15), but both calculate similar results. Time is a function of relative motion and the influences of gravity. In the alternative distance and time relativity model(15) time is also a function of cosmic distances, and its rate also changes (“dilates”) from our perspective accordingly. The alternative cosmology is called The Pan Theory (14). It is based upon the diminution of matter (matter getting smaller) over time rather than the expansion of space, but any scale-changing theory could make similar predictions, equations aside.
Both the alternative distance and brightness equations above are linear. Increasing distances and brightnesses are directly proportional to the changes in redshifts. These combined equations produce a distance/brightness trend line resulting in a straight-line graph (8), as would be expected for supernovae events being standard candles when the “correct” distances are calculated, without the existence of dark energy (Noble, Cooper 2014). This does not require invoking any phenomena that cannot be either directly observed or immediately disproved: as the diminution of mater rate is constant and all mathematical operations in the model have explicit mechanical explanations (8)(14); it cannot be ‘tweaked’ to force flatness comparing brightness to redshifts.
We predict the James Webb will continuously be observing some large, old appearing, overly red, overly bright galaxies at the farthest distances of the universe, which will continuously contradict mainstream cosmology.
Note: As in the Note of section 3.1 above, the above equations in Section 8 involve scale changing theory, the relativity of timeframes to measurement scales, also called Scale Relativity theory (8), of which there are many; some of such theories are quite simple with only one scale-changing equation, but others require more complicated equations. All the equations above would accordingly calculate correctly based upon present-day measuring scales and “sticks.” But in the reality of their own timeframes in the distant past, distances and brightnesses would have been the same as measurements today, when using larger measuring sticks with larger scales – that would look exactly the same as our measuring sticks in their own timeframe (based upon relatively larger matter in the past).
9.0 The Dark Ages, Period of Reionization, and predicted observational contradictions
The James Webb Space Telescope is expected to be able to look back to the cosmic Dark Ages predicted by the Big Bang model. A primary mission of the James Webb Space Telescope is to search for the first light to supposedly shine in the universe. But our prediction, based upon our research, is that the JWST will not see the first light since the theory behind the expectation, mainstream cosmology, will eventually be proven wrong by JWST and other contradicting observations.
According to our prediction, there were no so-called cosmic dark ages or hypothetical transparent Period of Reionization believed to follow it. The “Dark Ages” era is believed to be the boundary between the old, dark obscured universe, and the newer, transparent one, according to the BB cosmology. But we predict the James Webb will not see such hypothetical eras of the universe, which must eventually be validated by observation or be discredited in time.
10.0 Brief summary of each above-pridicted problem as it relates to future observations of the James Webb Space Telescope
The Anachronistic Galaxy Problem: This asserted problem relates to some old-appearing large galaxies being seen at the farthest observable distances by the James Webb, which according to theory should appear very young. We predict that these most distant galaxies will likely be the most obvious theory-contradicting observations of the James Webb, exemplified by 2.1 above.
Distance and Brightness Problems: This asserted problem would exist for any expanding-universe model like the BB model, or any model that uses the Hubble distance formula and constant to calculate distances, and the inverse square law of light to calculate brightnesses. The problem will show up as unexpected galactic brightnesses and energy intensities in the distant past via the James Webb.
The Anachronistic Super massive central galactic Black Hole Problem: This past observation anomaly will be observed by the James Webb where, in time, we predict it will become another obvious problem of mainstream cosmology.
The Metallicity Problem concerning the JWST observations: We predict the JWST and other telescopes will observe the characteristic of metallicity in its most distant observations, similar to what has already been discovered in distant galaxies, and similar to what we find in our own galaxy, contrary to mainstream cosmology concerning the supposed beginning universe.
The Dark Ages and Period of Reionization: Although mainstream cosmology predicts the James Webb will likely be able to see the hypothetical Dark Ages and the Period of Reionization, we instead expect, based upon prior observations, that astronomers will not be able to see either, because they never existed.
10.1 Reasons for the above conclusions and predictions for the James Webb Space Telescope
Based upon our research of the many telescopic observations that we have presented and others and the alternative theory presented, we have concluded that:
The universe is many times older than what mainstream cosmology can allow.
For the farthest observable galaxies and entities, the distances, the size of galaxies (matter), and the excessive brightnesses, will be many times greater than what mainstream theory could allow, the alternative theory and equations are presented above.
11.0 The basis of the alternative theory and general conclusions
Using the alternative theory (8) and the observations presented, we predict galaxies in the most distant universe will have the same variations of size, form, and brightnesses that we observe in the local universe. If so, we realize that the observations by the JWST will be interpreted based upon mainstream cosmology and therefore we expect that some of the most distant observations will be very difficult to understand based upon mainstream cosmology, if it is wrong.
Very distant observations have been presented along with Scale Relativity explanations with its unique equations, as support for our predictions (13). But all static universe (13) and steady-state theories of an older or infinite age universe could have made the same (non-quantitative) predictions that we have made, using the same observation references for their support. On the other hand, observations unambiguously showing a young universe at the farthest distances, such as future JWST broad-scope deep field pictures showing only small, young-appearing “blue,” non-metallic active galaxies close together, would be very strong evidence against all steady-state models including our proposal.
But if continuously contradicting observations are recognized in time as a theoretical problems by James Webb astronomers, we would hope that a few that might become aware of this proposal, will investigate, test, and consider, in their own studies, whether the Pan Distance and Brightness formulas (15) and other theoretical equations presented better match JWST observation anomalies than mainstream cosmology (8)(14). The Pan Distance and Brightness formulas, link below, is programmed to make distance and brightness calculations solely as a function of redshift input data, while automatically comparing calculated results with distances calculated by the Hubble distance formula, and brightnesses calculated by the inverse square law of light.
http://www.pantheory.org/hubble-formula/ (8)(14)
Responses
Please contact the author Forrest Noble at pantheory.org@gmail.com, tel. (562) 331-8334, or (562 924-3313, for any questions, for consideration of corrections, or to make comments. If you are interested in testing the new equations, have new or different insights, or need additional explanations concerning this paper or alternative theory, the author will discuss all upon request.
Postal Address: Forrest Noble, 19401A Diamond Ct., Cerritos, California 90703 USA
References
(1)Yuichi Harikane et. al. Astrophysical Journal April 2022,, A Search for H-Dropout Lyman Break Galaxies
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220407101043.htm
(2) HDF team astronomers, Hubble Deep Field observations, Jan. 1998, most distant galaxies.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/1996/news-1996-01.html
(3) Mobashert of European Space Agency, Hubble and Spitzer Telescopes 2005, most distant galaxy
https://phys.org/news/2005-09-big-baby-galaxy-newborn-universe.html
(4) Aguilar, David A. (1 Dec 2011) “Strange New ‘Species’ of Ultra-Red Galaxy Discovered.” Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2011-33 .
(5) Gobat, R., et al. (16 Nov 2010) “A mature cluster with X-ray emission at z=2.07.” Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal. March 2011, Article A133.
(6) Newman, Andrew B., et al. (13 May 2014) “Spectroscopic Confirmation of the Rich z=1.80 Galaxy Cluster JKCS 041 Using the WFC3 Grism: Environmental Trends in the Ages and Structure of Quiescent Galaxies.” Cornell University Library arXiv. [astro-ph.CO]. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
(7) Gobat, Raphael (CEA, Paris); Most Distant Mature Galaxy Cluster to date, March 2011.
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1108/
(8) Noble, Cooper, March 2014 ; An Alternative Universe-Scale Analytic Metrology
(9) Aguilar, David A. (16 Oct 2008) “Colossal Black Holes Common in the Early Universe.” Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2008-21
(10) Trefil; “Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist” (April 2010), yet they do. Plasma physics and galaxy formation
https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Plasma_Astronomy_ZPE/text.html
(11) Stephen Battersby, NewScientist; Largest Cosmic Structures are ‘too big’ for theories
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20597-largest-cosmic-structures-too-big-for-theories/
(12) S. Gallerani, Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society, quasar and surrounding galaxy. Excessive metallicity related to distance. June 2017
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/467/3/3590/3051666
(13) Static Universe theory definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603
Noble, The Pantheory distance and brightness programmed formulas and calculations; from the above research study
http://www.pantheory.org/hubble-formula/
(15) HandWiki8, definition Scale Relativity Theory
https://handwiki.org/wiki/Physics:Scale_relativity