On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 1:03:49 AM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
{snip}
Nobody objected to my previous post, so I can assume that there are no
big errors in those calculations.

This is, I submit, a fallacy (the "X, so Y" part).

First, I'm sure many members were like me in spending a lot of time
over the past ~couple of weeks or so on IRL matters ... so it's
likely your previous post was not read by many.

Second, I skimmed that (rather long) post of yours, and just that
quick skim triggered quite a few questions; some of the answers to
those questions may point to "big errors in those calculations".
I'll try to get a chance in the next week or so to read your post
carefully, and write up some of the most pertinent questions I have.

For now, just one comment on what you wrote in this new thread:

The discovery of any galaxy at z=3D11.8 or higher would definitely
disprove the big bang hypothesis. Is that correct?

No, it is not correct.

For starters, we are in the domain of science, not mathematics;
"proof" has no place in science (outside its use of mathematics).
Of course, "disprove" is quicker and easier to write than something
like "robustly shown, quantitatively, to be extremely inconsistent
with all relevant observations and experiments"!

Second, the physical processes which turned a fairly homogeneous
soup of (mostly) dark matter, protons, electrons, hydrogen atoms,
and helium atoms (at z~1100) into a gravitationally bound system
of dark matter, stars, gas, and dust (at z~10) are not yet well
understood, much less accurately modeled.

From my own reading of the relevant literature, I get the impression
that one curious thing is the many possible ways the fairly homogeneous
state at z~1100 could become very inhomogeneous by z~10.