James Webb Space Telescope And The Search For Our Distant Past

[Bad Things]

Some new images from the James Webb Telescope.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/21/world/neptune-james-webb-space-telescope-new-images-scn/index.html

 

[BuffaloBill]

It’s wild to think how small we are on this little orb called earth.

[Bad Things]

Here's one of the latest.

I used to have a tie-dye shirt that looked kinda like this.

 

https://esawebb.org/images/comparisons/potm2209a/

[Nextmanup]

Soon they will be using the telescope to end the controversy forever.  

 

They are going to point the telescope at the ocean floor and finally confirm that UFOs either do or do not exist down there.

 

And it's about time!
 

 

[Tiberius]

 

[Doc]

He's right.  There's nothing out in space (that we can reasonably get to) that can reproduce what we have here on Earth.  Which is why I SMH at all the money being wasted trying to get to Mars.  Put that money into the Earth.

[TBBills]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

He's right.  There's nothing out in space (that we can reasonably get to) that can reproduce what we have here on Earth.  Which is why I SMH at all the money being wasted trying to get to Mars.  Put that money into the Earth.

It's too late for Earth, now Earth will do its own thing to clease the damage humans did.

[Tiberius]

 

[Bad Things]

https://us.cnn.com/2022/12/14/world/webb-telescope-galactic-diamonds-scn/index.html

 

https://webb.nasa.gov/

 

 

Quote

The James Webb Space Telescope has captured a unique perspective of the universe, including never-before-seen galaxies that glitter like diamonds in the cosmos.

The new image, shared on Wednesday as part of a study published in the Astronomical Journal, was taken as part of the Prime Extragalactic Areas for Reionization and Lensing Science observing program, called PEARLS.

It’s one of the first medium-deep-wide-field images of the universe, with “medium-deep” meaning the faintest objects visible, and “wide-field” referring to the region of the cosmos captured in the image.

“The stunning image quality of Webb is truly out of this world,” said study coauthor Anton Koekemoer, research astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, who assembled the PEARLS images into mosaics, in a statement. “To catch a glimpse of very rare galaxies at the dawn of cosmic time, we need deep imaging over a large area, which this PEARLS field provides.”

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Bad Things

[LeGOATski]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:55 PM, Doc said:

He's right.  There's nothing out in space (that we can reasonably get to) that can reproduce what we have here on Earth.  Which is why I SMH at all the money being wasted trying to get to Mars.  Put that money into the Earth.

It bugs me when people say stuff like this. Did you know we pay movie starts and athletes billions of dollars to entertain us, too? We also collectively waste billions of dollars buying junk during Christmas.

 

[4merper4mer]

On 10/9/2022 at 10:55 PM, Doc said:

He's right.  There's nothing out in space (that we can reasonably get to) that can reproduce what we have here on Earth.  Which is why I SMH at all the money being wasted trying to get to Mars.  Put that money into the Earth.

Space exploration can and has provided benefits that are used back here on Earth.  A broader understanding of what is around us, information gained that can be re-applied at home, Tang, etc…….

 

I’m not sure what specifically sending a manned mission to Mars will provide that sending robots cannot.  The physics required to get a person to Mars and back in a healthy manner are far more daunting than sending a robot.  Some say it is human nature to explore and I agree.  Where the limits to that render it counterproductive is up for debate.  Each mission carries risk and reward.  Manned missions cost more thus have more risk for similar potential reward.  The further we go, the more this is pronounced.

 

SETI and the like is where the real waste exists since intelligent life in the galaxy/universe has essentially been ruled out mathematically already.  Thankfully the percentage of money spent on that crap is actually pretty low, but every penny is a wasted penny.

 

If I were in charge of everything, I wouldn’t be too far off what we’re doing but probably nix any manned Mars stuff for the foreseeable future.  The ultimate goal would be to explore the galaxy and expand our domain, but not by transporting blobs of flesh around at enormous cost with little chance of success.  It would be small dna samples on small self replicating robots.  We don’t have that technology yet, but it will certainly be here before any Star Trek mumbo jumbo.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:47 AM, Tiberius said:

 

When you ask “Hey …how ya doin?”, sometimes people  answer honestly.  
 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[LeGOATski]

19 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Space exploration can and has provided benefits that are used back here on Earth.  A broader understanding of what is around us, information gained that can be re-applied at home, Tang, etc…….

 

I’m not sure what specifically sending a manned mission to Mars will provide that sending robots cannot.  The physics required to get a person to Mars and back in a healthy manner are far more daunting than sending a robot.  Some say it is human nature to explore and I agree.  Where the limits to that render it counterproductive is up for debate.  Each mission carries risk and reward.  Manned missions cost more thus have more risk for similar potential reward.  The further we go, the more this is pronounced.

 

SETI and the like is where the real waste exists since intelligent life in the galaxy/universe has essentially been ruled out mathematically already.  Thankfully the percentage of money spent on that crap is actually pretty low, but every penny is a wasted penny.

 

If I were in charge of everything, I wouldn’t be too far off what we’re doing but probably nix any manned Mars stuff for the foreseeable future.  The ultimate goal would be to explore the galaxy and expand our domain, but not by transporting blobs of flesh around at enormous cost with little chance of success.  It would be small dna samples on small self replicating robots.  We don’t have that technology yet, but it will certainly be here before any Star Trek mumbo jumbo.  

Same, never understood the fascination with sending humans to Mars. We already know humans can't survive there. Sending a human to the moon is different, as it is so close and there are more practical and cost effective goals for what can be done on the moon.

 

Now, theoretically, if they send a probe out and it lands on a planet with a breathable atmosphere and human living conditions, then yeah, send a bunch of humans who are okay with the idea of not coming back. To me that's akin to voyaging across the ocean to the New World back in the day.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

15 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

When you ask “Hey …how ya doin?”, sometimes people  answer honestly.  
 

 

Maybe Shat thought his role was going to be bigger?  When he said "Sensor readings, Mr. Boshuizen" all he got was a dirty look. 🤔

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

 

 

Now, theoretically, if they send a probe out and it lands on a planet with a breathable atmosphere and human living conditions, then yeah, send a bunch of humans who are okay with the idea of not coming back. To me that's akin to voyaging across the ocean to the New World back in the day.

I see what you’re saying but the analogy is off x10000000000000.  It was one thing to overcome fear, and get a boat to sail the ocean.  Daunting to be sure, but there really isn’t a comparison to the energy requirements of transporting a healthy human across lifetime years of space.  We are only marginally closer to having that ability than we were in 1492 when you really think about it.

[Nextmanup]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:47 AM, Tiberius said:

 

That's all very interesting, but I somehow can't believe William Shatner wrote that.

Maybe he's a lot smarter than I thought.

 

I think I have an idea of what he means.  I think outer space would feel very cold and hostile, which it literally is.

 

Regarding fears of the good life ending on Earth, why don't people do something about it?  People live in fear of nuclear holocaust.  When someone makes it clear they intend to piss in the global watering hole (see Vladimir Putin, and others) why doesn't the world collectively beat them over the head with a stick and throw their dead body in the watering hole instead?

 

When emperors of ancient Rome got out of control, many times their own Praetorian guards would kill them (they had the access) and literally throw their corpse in the Tiber. Then Constantine disbanded them @ 300 CE for fear they had too much power.  They were a lot smarter than us.

 

 

5 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Same, never understood the fascination with sending humans to Mars. We already know humans can't survive there. Sending a human to the moon is different, as it is so close and there are more practical and cost effective goals for what can be done on the moon.

 

Now, theoretically, if they send a probe out and it lands on a planet with a breathable atmosphere and human living conditions, then yeah, send a bunch of humans who are okay with the idea of not coming back. To me that's akin to voyaging across the ocean to the New World back in the day.

The idea isn't to find a place where humans can live off-planet.  The idea is to learn about the universe.

 

Mars is an interesting location because it is a strong contender for maybe once sustained life.  The discovery that life used to exist (or maybe still does) on Mars would be one of the major revelations of humankind, all time.

 

And the great Western religions of the Earth would immediately have to add a few new myths to the collective whole, so as to explain this new "problem."

 

 

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

I see what you’re saying but the analogy is off x10000000000000.  It was one thing to overcome fear, and get a boat to sail the ocean.  Daunting to be sure, but there really isn’t a comparison to the energy requirements of transporting a healthy human across lifetime years of space.  We are only marginally closer to having that ability than we were in 1492 when you really think about it.

There's no scale limit for analogies. Of course we're a long way from such a venture. That wasn't the point.

1 hour ago, Nextmanup said:

That's all very interesting, but I somehow can't believe William Shatner wrote that.

Maybe he's a lot smarter than I thought.

 

I think I have an idea of what he means.  I think outer space would feel very cold and hostile, which it literally is.

 

Regarding fears of the good life ending on Earth, why don't people do something about it?  People live in fear of nuclear holocaust.  When someone makes it clear they intend to piss in the global watering hole (see Vladimir Putin, and others) why doesn't the world collectively beat them over the head with a stick and throw their dead body in the watering hole instead?

 

When emperors of ancient Rome got out of control, many times their own Praetorian guards would kill them (they had the access) and literally throw their corpse in the Tiber. Then Constantine disbanded them @ 300 CE for fear they had too much power.  They were a lot smarter than us.

 

 

The idea isn't to find a place where humans can live off-planet.  The idea is to learn about the universe.

 

Mars is an interesting location because it is a strong contender for maybe once sustained life.  The discovery that life used to exist (or maybe still does) on Mars would be one of the major revelations of humankind, all time.

 

And the great Western religions of the Earth would immediately have to add a few new myths to the collective whole, so as to explain this new "problem."

 

 

I don't see why that requires humans to go.

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

There's no scale limit for analogies. Of course we're a long way from such a venture. That wasn't the point.

 

What I’m saying is that the scale does matter when the scale is likely infinite or extraordinarily close.  That is the case when discussing straightforward transportation of a human to another star system.  The laws of physics were never an enemy of Columbus.
 

I’m not dismissing the possibility of the unknown becoming reality such as creation of wormholes, inter dimensional leaps, etc., but getting on a ship and traveling to another star as if you’re driving across the USA or on the Santa Maria is simply never ever ever ever ever ever going to be practical/possible.  Ever.  Unmanned?  Absolutely.

[K-9]

4 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

What I’m saying is that the scale does matter when the scale is likely infinite or extraordinarily close.  That is the case when discussing straightforward transportation of a human to another star system.  The laws of physics were never an enemy of Columbus.
 

I’m not dismissing the possibility of the unknown becoming reality such as creation of wormholes, inter dimensional leaps, etc., but getting on a ship and traveling to another star as if you’re driving across the USA or on the Santa Maria is simply never ever ever ever ever ever going to be practical/possible.  Ever.  Unmanned?  Absolutely.

Columbus had a couple thousand years of sailing technology and ocean voyaging knowledge at his disposal before his voyage. We have a little over 60 years when it comes to space exploration by comparison. Barely a molecule, let alone a drop in the bucket by comparison.

[4merper4mer]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Columbus had a couple thousand years of sailing technology and ocean voyaging knowledge at his disposal before his voyage. We have a little over 60 years when it comes to space exploration by comparison. Barely a molecule, let alone a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Did Columbus defy the laws of physics that have 14 billion years under their belt?  2000 and 60 are roughly the same when compared to 14 billion.

[K-9]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Did Columbus defy the laws of physics that have 14 billion years under their belt?  2000 and 60 are roughly the same when compared to 14 billion.

Laws of physics? I have no idea where the idea of defying the laws of physics came in here. I was merely making the point that Columbus had a couple thousand years of tried and true sailing knowledge to draw from when doing his voyage whereas space exploration has virtually none by comparison. 
 

If you are arguing the defiance of the laws of physics with someone else, have at it, but I have no interest in that subject.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Aside from being a world changer, I think the recent Fusion net energy gainand continued work there will give us much new insight into our very distant past.  just a hunch...

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by redtail hawk

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

Laws of physics? I have no idea where the idea of defying the laws of physics came in here. I was merely making the point that Columbus had a couple thousand years of tried and true sailing knowledge to draw from when doing his voyage whereas space exploration has virtually none by comparison. 
 

If you are arguing the defiance of the laws of physics with someone else, have at it, but I have no interest in that subject.

The point I was making is that due to the laws of physics, we will some day be able to draw on 10 million years worth of tried and true space exploration and it will still not be practical to transport a person into interstellar space.

[Bad Things]

 

Webb Confirms Its First Exoplanet

 

"Researchers confirmed an exoplanet, a planet that orbits another star, using NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope for the first time. Formally classified as LHS 475 b, the planet is almost exactly the same size as our own, clocking in at 99% of Earth’s diameter."

 

 

[Tiberius]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/11/29/six-new-planets-found-nasa/

 

Astronomers have discovered a six-pack of planets, formed at least 4 billion years ago and remarkably unchanged since, orbiting a nearby sun-like star. The new planets, described in a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature, could provide a breakthrough in the understanding of how planets form and why there are so many between the sizes of Earth and Neptune, a class known as “sub Neptunes” that is astoundingly common in our galaxy.

These newfound worlds are hot, gassy and unlikely to be pleasant places to visit. Their cozy orbits around the parent star mean they are not in what astrobiologists consider the “habitable zone” of a planetary system. The hunt for Earth 2.0 goes on.

 

But what makes these planets unusual, in addition to their large number, is that they are locked into a resonance with one another as they orbit the star. One planet, for example, will make precisely three orbits while an adjacent planet makes two.

“These resonant chains are very rare in Nature,” lead author Rafael Luque of the University of Chicago said in a webinar Tuesday with reporters.

This striking reminder that mathematics governs the universe comes with another implication, which is that these six planets have been in a stable, predictable, two-by-three orbital pattern since they were formed at least 4 billion years ago. Most planetary systems, including our own, aren’t like that.

The resonant orbits of these planets are consistent with the idea that this system has been free of any major disturbance — say, a catastrophic impact, or the close passage of another star — for billions of years. In this scenario, the planets formed along with their parent star from a cloud of gas and dust and relatively quickly found their resonant orbits. And then nothing exciting happened to change that.

[sherpa]

James Webb Telescope keeps discovering:

 

It seems our universe is not expanding at a uniform speed.

The speed of expansion depends on where you look.

Previously, the Hubble telescope suggested this, but the difference was thought to be measurement errors.

No longer.

 

"James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe"

 

Previous Expansion Theory Upended

 

"February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe."