Astronomers Excited about Failure

JWST and other instruments
continue falsifying prior dogmas

Astronomers and cosmologists are learning to hide their tears (see 23 Jan 2025). Is someone telling them to wash their faces, smile for the cameras and look excited about being wrong?

James Webb Space Telescope reveals unexpected complex chemistry in primordial galaxy (University of Arizona, 10 March 2025). Look at the big happy faces on all three astronomers in this press release. They are so excited about being wrong! The grins seem forced, after the Webb telescope (JWST) has revealed “unexpected complex chemistry” in what they call a “primordial” galaxy.

To whom was it unexpected? To them: the big bang cosmologists. Complex chemistry was not supposed to be detected in a “primordial” (meaning yold) galaxy. Biblical creationists would have predicted mature creation from the beginning.

No crybabies there at UofA: bring on the falsification! They love being wrong!

University of Arizona astronomers have learned more about a surprisingly mature galaxy that existed when the universe was just less than 300 million years old – about 2% of its current age.

Observed by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, the galaxy – designated JADES-GS-z14-0 – is unexpectedly bright and chemically complex for an object from this primordial era, the researchers said.

It’s “the most distant galaxy ever observed,” the press release says. But not to worry: evolutionary theory will explain it all. Despite its “unexpected brightness, the new research delves deeper into its chemical composition and evolutionary state.” Keep the funding coming, and eventually the secular wizards of scientism will understand the deep magic from the dawn of time.

Small, faint and ‘unexpected in a lot of different ways’: Dwarf galaxy discovery forces rethink of cosmic evolution (University of Michigan via Phys.org, 11 March 2025). The dwarf galaxy discovered at UMich “tugs at the seams of some key cosmic lessons we thought we had learned from our own galaxy.” Translation: the data don’t fit the consensus. But is that an excuse?

Although the discovery bears more questions than answers, that’s what happens when you’re investigating the universe, said Marcos Arias, the lead author of the report in The Astrophysical Journal Letters that details the discovery.

The universe still harbors many mysteries, he said, but this discovery helps correct what we do know and reveals more about what we don’t.

What is the ratio of knowledge vs ignorance? Marcos doesn’t say. If routine falsification goes with the territory, why are we trusting experts who keep coming up wrong? Could there be a deeper reason for the forced rethinks, like starting from the wrong philosophical foundation?

Webb wows with incredible detail in actively forming star system (European Space Agency, 7 March 2025). Take a moment to enjoy a beautiful photo from the JWST.

High-resolution near-infrared light captured by the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope shows extraordinary new detail and structure in Lynds 483 (L483). Two actively forming stars are responsible for the shimmering ejections of gas and dust that gleam in orange, blue, and purple in this representative color image.

Astronomer finds gas giant exoplanets formed earlier than previously thought (Ohio State News, 5 March 2025). Astronomy aficionados need to learn the word “upend” because it appears in the news with increasing frequency. It means to overturn or invalidate—essentially, to falsify. The subtitle in this press release says, “New study upends conventional planet formation models.” Those “conventional planet formation models” go way back to Laplace, who envisioned planets making themselves over Deep Time by slow, gradual accretion of dust.

Planets are formed from protoplanetary disks, spinning clouds of dust and gas that are the perfect ingredients for planet formation. This new study suggests the accretion takes place early, when disks are massive and much younger than researchers previously believed.

Who believed that? Secular astronomers. But now, the early formation of planets presents “a puzzle scientists are still aiming to solve.” But they told us for decades that accretion was slow and gradual. Why don’t they apologize first to the millions of students who were misled?

The “‘bottom-up” interpretation of planetary formation is called the “core accretion theory,” but another possible formation mechanism is when planets are formed through gravitational instability – when the clumps in a disk around a star are too massive to support themselves and collapse to form planets. Because a planet’s accretion history could be closely linked to these two compelling yet complementary formation mechanisms of evolution, Wang said, it’s important to determine which process is more often the case.

Gravitational instability was considered a heretical hypothesis when first put forth by Alan Boss (I heard him say that at JPL, 21 March 2006). Now it is being added to the dogma pile. Like everything else in evolutionary theories, it’s fast except when it’s slow. So now, determining which of the two evolutionary mechanisms is more often the case provides job security for Ji Lang and his smiling friends, who welcome the heretics as long as they are materialists.

Water might be older than we first thought, forming a key constituent of the first galaxies (Nature Publishing Group via Phys.org, 3 March 2025). In Tontological manner, this press release abuses the royal “we” to sweep the rest of us into their error: “water might be older than we first thought.” Who’s ‘we,’ paleface?

Water may have first formed 100–200 million years after the Big Bang, according to a modeling paper published in Nature Astronomy. The authors suggest that the formation of water may have occurred in the universe earlier than previously thought and may have been a key constituent of the first galaxies.

According to what they taught for decades, heavy elements (including the oxygen for H₂O) would have had to arrive in galaxies after the first generation of hydrogen stars (so-called Population III) exploded as supernovas. To rescue their beloved billions of years from data, these moyboys ramp up the perhapsimaybecouldness index.

The authors suggest that if water could survive the formation of the first galaxies, a potentially destructive process, it could have been incorporated into the formation of planets billions of years ago.

The universe’s water is billions of years older than scientists thought — and may be nearly as old as the Big Bang itself (Live Science, 11 March 2025). Joanna Thompson’s take on this early-water story says that water may have appeared nearly as early as the big bang itself. And what does that trigger for hydrobioscopists, also known as bio-astrologers? Only one thing: “life could have evolved billions of years earlier than previously thought.” Thought by whom, class?

If they keep up the trend of “earlier than thought” revelations, their new consensus will approach the Biblical view that God originated creation with waters over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters (Genesis 1:1-2). They might come closer to agreeing that “the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God” (II Peter 3:5). If secularists approach that view, though, it will be like climbing an asymptotic curve, coming ever closer to the Biblical account but never touching it, as Paul said, “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (II Timothy 3:7).