A little mind game, if you wish. ;-) Let me bring back an excerpt from the James Webb Space Telescope:
"Webb will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang…" However, IMO, there appears to be a huge paradox for which I suspect most of us have been oblivious to when we attempt to comprehend certain subtle ramifications when attempting to peer back oh so many billions of years ago - to the alleged existence of those "first galaxies". When the Hubble Space Telescope was tasked with trying to discover what might have existed within what appeared to have been a completely black patch of space (through the use of very long exposure that too many days to complete), the telescope returned an image filled with a huge count of very distant galaxies. These imaged galaxies were tiny and significantly red-shifted because they were so far away. They were the earliest galaxies for which the Hubble was capable of imaging. It was at tremendous eye-popping technological event, even though I suspect most of us probably didn't grasp the implications of what we were actually seeing I'd now like to introduce what seems to me to be rather huge paradox for which most of us tend to gloss over when we look at these photos: The photograph implies we will detect countless more of these early far-away galaxies IN EVERY DIRECTION WE POINT THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE IN. Now, consider what the significantly smaller diameter of the early universe must have been way back when ALL of these galaxies were doing their baby forming thing. Does anyone see a contradiction here? Just try to calculate how many of these early galaxies must have existed way back then - 10 billion years ago or more. Do this by first counting up the number of galaxies imaged from the photo taken by the Hubble image, and then multiply that estimate over the entire 3-D sphere that makes up our universe. Now, I'd imagine that is likely to turn out to be a LOT of early galaxies! …Now, consider the fact that All of these very early galaxies were supposed to have been snuggled in next to each other very cozy-like into our early 3-D universe - a "much younger" universe that was a mere fraction of the size it currently is calculated to be. How could they have all fit in a universe that was a mere fraction of the current volumetric size of the universe? Another thing. Other than the fact that they were significantly red shifted, they all looked pretty much like contemporary galaxies. Perhaps I'll eventually be proven wrong on this point, but these days I do harbor a few doubts about the BB theory,. Steven Johnson - DA Wisconsin Department of Transportation Document Imaging Systems Support 608 264-7601 Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
