Thus spake Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
ax.de
In article , jacob navia
writes:

And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
10, even much farther away.

In fact they say that stars must have formed at redshift 10, which may
not be too difficult.

The quantity of interest here is the time between various redshifts, not
some measure of distance.

Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,

Rather than saying "a galaxy can't form in 500 million years" (which, to
carry on you analogy, sounds like "humans couldn't evolve from
monkey-like ancestors"---just a statement with no proof), do you have
any reference to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO WAY that a
galaxy could form in the time available, rather than that it is just
"difficult" within a scenario which is not completely understood anyway?

Actually I think the equations of motion leading to formation of stars
and galaxies are well understood. It is, after all, just a classical
process, and there is no particular reason to think that computer models
would be wildly inaccurate in modelling such a process.

On the other hand the equations for unification with quantum mechanics
and general relativity are not understood at all (unless, of course, rqg
is right, in which case they are only understood by me).

It seems to me somewhat bizarre therefore to insist that we know the
age-redshift relation when a quantum process (transfer of light) is
involved, when there is no empirical evidence for this relation, and
quite a bit of empirical evidence that it is wrong, and at the same time
it insist that we do not understand classical processes for which the
equations have been empirically established for quite some time.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net