The impossible early galaxy (continued)

ZF-COSMOS-20115

A dead galaxy, with 3 time more stars than the milky way. Just 1.65 Gy
after the supposed bang.

Star formation has shutted down there. And worst, that could be one of
the many galaxies that were missed at first, but now, with better
instrumentation, start to come out.

There is a whole population of those galaxies, and, as our scopes
improve, ... well I have said this many times here, and it is amazing
how clear the things start playing out.

How long will it be until astronomers realize that there wasn't any
"bang" 13.7 Gy ago?

Can the bang be "recalibrated" to 20 GY? That would agree with
observations but...

In any case a "bang" at 13.7 Gy is not compatible with the observation
of ZF-COSMOS-20115.

jacob

To the moderator: I know any post that argues against the "bang" theory
is supposed to be unscientific. But I think an alternative viewpoint to
current astronomical theory can't be simply censored.

[[Mod. note --
1. It would be very nice if you would provide references, e.g., to
just which observations of ZF-20115 you're referring to.
2. I don't see any reason why a high-redshift (= young) galaxy with
a very low star-formation rate would be inconsistent with big-bang
cosmology. In fact, I rather doubt that we understand star formation
well enough to make such a statement.
3. arXiv:1704.03868 suggests that ZF-20115 may in fact have lots of
ongoing star formation, but that this activity is heavily obscured
and thus invisible to optical surveys. In fact, the authors write
"We conclude that the ZF20015 system does not pose a
challenge to current models of galaxy formation [[...]]"
-- jt]]