UFOs and Sitcom Math

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

On 5/13/2022 at 4:08 PM, Foxx said:

Get back to me when there isn't a compromised shit show involved.

[Deranged Rhino]

"Toe the line or else."

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

"Toe the line or else."

 

 

 

Once again, I'm way ahead of the curve.  I've considered Michio a crackpot for at least 15 years.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

There are more galaxies than stars in that shot.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

 

There are more galaxies than stars in that shot.

This was a cool side by side:

 

(I know this isn’t the best thread for this but it’s kind of fitting. And neat.) 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This was a cool side by side:

 

(I know this isn’t the best thread for this but it’s kind of fitting. And neat.) 

 

I found the hi-res image online.  The detail is astounding.  

 

I was always fascinated by deep-sky like this when I was studying it - there's a lot of fascinating galactic stuff going on  in that shot, including at least three pairs of interacting galaxies (there's one pair near the right edge, just above center, that's very interesting.) 

 

But I can't wait to see what they get when they point Webb at a stellar nursery like the Eagle Nebula.  Particularly since, unlike Hubble, Webb is optimized for infrared observing, meaning it'll see though a lot of the dust that obscures details in stellar nurseries.

[Foxx]

More images from the Webb telescope.

 

...

 

[Nouseforaname]

4 hours ago, Foxx said:

More images from the Webb telescope.

 

...

 

Amazing! Too bad it’s all fake.

[snafu]

Those Webb images are nice to look at and all...

And yet I'm having a hard time figuring out why they are important.

Feels about as useful as taking a microscope to a dinosaur bone.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

12 minutes ago, snafu said:

Those Webb images are nice to look at and all...

And yet I'm having a hard time figuring out why they are important.

Feels about as useful as taking a microscope to a dinosaur bone.

 

 

They do actually do microscopic examinations of dinosaur bones now, you know.  Turns out, that's pretty important.

 

In this case...these specific images are not that important.  They're more proofs to show the calibration is finished successfully (which is non-trivial when you're calibrating your telescope remotely from a million miles away).  The capability they represent is vitally important, but despite being labeled "science images" by NASA, these are PR images with little scientific value.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

They do actually do microscopic examinations of dinosaur bones now, you know.  Turns out, that's pretty important.

 

In this case...these specific images are not that important.  They're more proofs to show the calibration is finished successfully (which is non-trivial when you're calibrating your telescope remotely from a million miles away).  The capability they represent is vitally important, but despite being labeled "science images" by NASA, these are PR images with little scientific value.

Aside from the unspeakably impressive engineering feat I’m not so sure we get anything useful out of Webb. Other, more useful, NASA projects have to fight, tooth and nail for funding.  Ten billion and twelve years could have gotten more Venus, or Sun, or Jupiter Moon studies.  Could have gotten us back to the Moon a long time ago.  Could have gotten more asteroid and comet samples.  Could have gotten NASA to overcome their fear of manned flights. 
 

Perhaps NASA hasn’t properly marketed Webb.  However, looking at 13 billion yer old galaxies is folly to me.

 

And nobody will sell me on the usefulness of studying dinosaurs beyond what we already know. Paleontologists can’t get past anyone asking them: “yeah, so what?”
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

And nobody will sell me on the usefulness of studying dinosaurs beyond what we already know. Paleontologists can’t get past anyone asking them: “yeah, so what?”
 

 

And neither will astronomers.  Astronomy is very much a "pure," not "applied" science.  

 

There's really no argument I can give in counter.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

And neither will astronomers.  Astronomy is very much a "pure," not "applied" science.  

 

There's really no argument I can give in counter.

Maybe the argument is that you can’t expand the usefulness of applied science without learning new things from pure science.
 

Actually, I thought about the difference before typing what I did.  I specifically excluded the astronomers.  I almost said “at least the astronomers can overcome that small hurdle”.  The difference is that we don’t need any more information from dinosaur study (at least in my opinion — though I can think of one tangential exception).  We are still learning things from Astronomy — and if I look at Webb like the instrument it is, that will satisfy me, I suppose.  
 

Just seems though they keep pushing one angle on us with regard to Webb.  I don’t think there’s anything useful in proving a theory of how old our universe is. Study how matter behaves and interacts in space, okay I get it.  Even then the usefulness is probably of negligible value to anyone. And with that I suppose you can easily tell which science I value more.

 

 

 

 

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

They do actually do microscopic examinations of dinosaur bones now, you know.  Turns out, that's pretty important.

 

In this case...these specific images are not that important.  They're more proofs to show the calibration is finished successfully (which is non-trivial when you're calibrating your telescope remotely from a million miles away).  The capability they represent is vitally important, but despite being labeled "science images" by NASA, these are PR images with little scientific value.

Maybe the next generation of the deep space telescope will be able to see little green men flying around(?).

👾

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

51 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Just seems though they keep pushing one angle on us with regard to Webb.  I don’t think there’s anything useful in proving a theory of how old our universe is. Study how matter behaves and interacts in space, okay I get it.  Even then the usefulness is probably of negligible value to anyone. And with that I suppose you can easily tell which science I value more.

 

 

 

 

 

The practical use of that actually comes into the physics of it.  Earlier in the universe = higher energies = unified theories that we can't yet achieve (string theory doesn't count, since string theory predicts everything, hence nothing).

 

Ultimately, we could get practical benefit out of that, though it's impossible to predict what.  (Just like 100 years ago, no one could have predicted quantum theory would allow us to converse on the internet now.)

 

Plus, modern cosmological theory is such an unmitigated mess right now ("dark energy" is one of the dumbest theories I've ever heard), that I'm looking forward to maybe seeing some of those problems resolved.

 

Plus, even though they focus on "Webb will see farther back in time than any other telescope."  Observing in the mid- and near-infrared bands will tell us a lot about stellar formation and the formation of solar systems around proto-stars.  For example, one of the observations already made detected water and atmospheric haze on an exoplanet (Wasp-96b).  You won't see or hear about it, because it wasn't a pretty picture - it was a spectroscopic analysis.  

 

But let's not lose sight of the REAL problem with Webb: it's named after someone who didn't employ enough black women at NASA.  [/progressives]

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, snafu said:

Maybe the argument is that you can’t expand the usefulness of applied science without learning new things from pure science.
 

Actually, I thought about the difference before typing what I did.  I specifically excluded the astronomers.  I almost said “at least the astronomers can overcome that small hurdle”.  The difference is that we don’t need any more information from dinosaur study (at least in my opinion — though I can think of one tangential exception).  We are still learning things from Astronomy — and if I look at Webb like the instrument it is, that will satisfy me, I suppose.  
 

Just seems though they keep pushing one angle on us with regard to Webb.  I don’t think there’s anything useful in proving a theory of how old our universe is. Study how matter behaves and interacts in space, okay I get it.  Even then the usefulness is probably of negligible value to anyone. And with that I suppose you can easily tell which science I value more.

 

 

 

 

Just my opinion, and to bring it back to the  original topic of the thread - the one thing Webb can do is find conclusive proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (assuming they’re above board on sharing all they discover). And while that seems to be an “obvious” finding based on the size of the universe, sitcom math aside, it would still be the single greatest discovery in human history. 
 

Outside of penicillin.  

[Nouseforaname]

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Just my opinion, and to bring it back to the  original topic of the thread - the one thing Webb can do is find conclusive proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (assuming they’re above board on sharing all they discover). And while that seems to be an “obvious” finding based on the size of the universe, sitcom math aside, it would still be the single greatest discovery in human history. 
 

Outside of penicillin.  

Can it really see that well?

[4merper4mer]

14 hours ago, Foxx said:

Maybe the next generation of the deep space telescope will be able to see little green men flying around(?).

👾

Technological advancements would seem to say yes.  Math still says:

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by 4merper4mer