"But some bright, massive, and early galaxies continue to confound theorists, suggesting that our understanding could shift in the coming years."
Article The James Webb Space Telescope prompts a rethink of how galaxies form
Ravi Madanayake,
JWST has indeed presented interesting results. They donot fit with the expectations of BIG BANG.
I have in a series of books given a completly different explanation of the creation of the universe. You can find them in my profile. The last one, "Born:A universe V" gives a summary where my findings are confronted with recent observations. The agreement is quite nice.
It all starts with the creation of the elementary particles though a quantum mechanical process. As a biproduct massive objects (black holes) are created. These objects accrete debris and form the galaxies. Just in a few million years. This is in line with the JWST observations.
A typical mass of such an object comes out to order of 10^37 kg.
Preston Guynn,
I in fact see very recent articles basing themself on GR and Big Bang just as you obviously have.
In my first book, 2015, I noted that there are problems with GR. In my fourth book, 2022, I explained that the CMB is generated when the galaxies build up, quite different from the Big Bang. I also discussed the problems with BIG Bang.
I just mention that JWST already have presented results that fit very well with my predictions, my last book, 2023. Especially interesting is the very young galaxies but still with massive cores. Big Bang cannot predict them as I can.
Thank you sirs for your input. The Big Bang I think was supported by the Catholic Church because it fit the creation in Religion. The only thing missing is a God.
I suspect that they are eagerly waiting for the day that they can put God (or a God substitute) into the equation (if they have not done so already).