Thanks for your answer.
I reply below

Le 03/01/2017 à 19:56, a écrit :
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.


Yeah, I did not think about Christmas/New year stuff. Sorry.

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.


Thank you. It would be interesting to see where those calculations could
be wrong. I used standard formulas, that can't be "as such" wrong, but
maybe I can't use them in this context, I do not know. Those
calculations look correct "to me" of course.

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

The discovery of any galaxy at z=11.8 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"!


If a galaxy is found at t262 My it would mean that galaxy formation was
extremely quick, so extremely quick that it is impossible to believe,
excuse me. If a galaxy is found at t=262 My, then star formation must be
pushed even earlier, at a CMB temperature that doesn't allow for star
formation!

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.


Sure, but you will agree that we can derive the CMB temperature from the
"z" parameter, and arrive at a conclusion about when the gas would be
cold enough to condense into stars. Note that we are NOT in the realm of
"unknown physics" when the universe had only a few planck times age...

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.


Sure but that TAKES TIME. Time to cool down the searing hot big bang
gases and time to let the expansion cool the universe to allow star
formation.

My thesis here since several years is that there is NO TIME to build
galaxies in just 137 million years.

Again, thanks for your post.