The James Webb space telescope.

[bfcjg]

Some absolutely amazing images and discoveries being made. Makes us seem quite insignificant really.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-publishe ... 27749.html

[Bosscat]

5782245c02aeff359d58e0a1b303d894.jpg (175.26 KiB) Viewed 2003 times

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I had an enjoyable conversation with my 7yr old earlier, she saw me reading the BBC news report earlier about this and was asking where these images were from.

[Bosscat]

It is sort of humbling thinking these inages photographed recently are actually 5 Billion years old

[Buxtonclaret]

It is sort of humbling thinking these inages photographed recently are actually 5 Billion years old

And what sort of cheese is it?

[Bosscat]

And what sort of cheese is it?

Probably a tad ripe by now

[1968claret]

It is quite mind bending when you think about it. Those stars and galaxies probably no longer exist but the images are still travelling to us.
It also makes you think, when they showed the aftermath of the star exploding. What’s to say that the star we are on could just do the same? Without the human race doing it first.

And on that bombshell…..

[Bosscat]

It is quite mind bending when you think about it. Those stars and galaxies probably no longer exist but the images are still travelling to us.
It also makes you think, when they showed the aftermath of the star exploding. What’s to say that the star we are on could just do the same? Without the human race doing it first.

And on that bombshell…..

We aren't on a Star ...

[1968claret]

I know, but that’s only a technicality isn’t it .
In the great scheme of things we are just a tiny rock in a vast vast universe. What’s to say that there weren’t people on a message board in a star in a galaxy far far away saying just that when ………..boom

[Spiral]

The life cycle of all types of star can be reduced to and described mathematically. Our Sun doesn't carry enough mass to supernovae (go kablam!!!). It's physically impossible. We're safe from that!

These images are unreal. The first image revealed, the one that's absolutely everywhere, is a deep-field image of a section of the night sky about as big as if you were to hold a grain of sand at your arm's length. This light can't be perceived by human eyes — this is an infra-red composite based on a 12.5-hour exposure. Every point of light that isn't a big white-blue bright shining light (those are stars in our own galaxy photobombing the deep-field image) is an entire galaxy containing hundreds of billions of stars.

[1968claret]

The life cycle of all types of star can be reduced to and described mathematically. Our Sun doesn't carry enough mass to supernovae (go kablam!!!). It's physically impossible. We're safe from that!

You say that but we can’t be 100% certain can we. As humans, we have created lots of mathematical formulae to confirm our hypothesis, but this is just beyond our human comprehension isn’t it?
I know I probably sound like flat earther but I don’t see how we can possibly say that we know for certain that this couldn’t happen to earth?

[ClaretAndJew]

In 5 billion years our Sun will die taking with it the entire solar system.

In 5 billion years our solar system won't be anywhere near where it is today.

Eventually the entire Milky Way will be gone.

We are just dust. We are nothing but vibrations waiting to stop vibrating.

[Coeus]

“We are just dust. We are nothing but vibrations waiting to stop vibrating.”

Don’t worry, be happy!

[ClaretAndJew]

“We are just dust. We are nothing but vibrations waiting to stop vibrating.”

Don’t worry, be happy!

That's what makes me happy mate. The realisation that we're all just temporary. This is a gift from the Cosmos. Embrace it all.

[Coeus]

And this is why in my humble opinion, it’s a complete waste of time and billions of pounds taking, what is in essence, photos of things that don’t exist. Let’s help this planet, even for the short term.

[1968claret]

And this is why in my humble opinion, it’s a complete waste of time and billions of pounds taking, what is in essence, photos of things that don’t exist. Let’s help this planet, even for the short term.

I suppose it depends whether we learn anything useful to help this planet?
That being said, how do we even know the photos are real. Someone could have just created those images and who is going to prove otherwise

[Spiral]

You say that but we can’t be 100% certain can we. As humans, we have created lots of mathematical formulae to confirm our hypothesis, but this is just beyond our human comprehension isn’t it?
I know I probably sound like flat earther but I don’t see how we can possibly say that we know for certain that this couldn’t happen to earth?

We know it with the certainty that we know water boils at 99.97 degrees C at a pressure of 1atm. That is to say, science never claims certainty, but rather aspires to it. That theories have been disproven in the past is no justification to reject those which describe the world reliably well. Proceed on the basis that all theories are vulnerable to being subsumed or outright replaced by more precise theories if you so wish. This doesn't mean formulae and theories have no value to us.

And this is why in my humble opinion, it’s a complete waste of time and billions of pounds taking, what is in essence, photos of things that don’t exist. Let’s help this planet, even for the short term.

Lots of scientifically valuable data can, already has been, and will be harvested by this mission. Knowledge is not only survival; knowledge allows humans to thrive. Imagine telling Einstein his research was too expensive.

[martin_p]

Believe they’re going to reveal the final destination of that Gifton Noel-Williams penalty at a press conference tomorrow.

[box_of_frogs]

In 5 billion years our Sun will die taking with it the entire solar system.

In 5 billion years our solar system won't be anywhere near where it is today.

Eventually the entire Milky Way will be gone.

We are just dust. We are nothing but vibrations waiting to stop vibrating.

What will a twix cost in 5 billion years?

[1968claret]

Thanks Spiral. I suppose that is where I struggle though.
We know that water boils at 99.97 degrees because we can see that and measure it.
But we can’t possibly know whether any planet, our planet, or the sun could or could not explode.
We can give a balance of probabilities I guess based on our mathematical formulas but as we have no experience of this ( that is we haven’t yet exploded) how we can say how accurate our calculations are?
Not trying to be argumentative, I just don’t understand!
I am a data scientist by trade, so deal in facts/figures.

[Spiral]

Thanks Spiral. I suppose that is where I struggle though.
We know that water boils at 99.97 degrees because we can see that and measure it.
But we can’t possibly know whether any planet, our planet, or the sun could or could not explode.
We can give a balance of probabilities I guess based on our mathematical formulas but as we have no experience of this ( that is we haven’t yet exploded) how we can say how accurate our calculations are?
Not trying to be argumentative, I just don’t understand!
I am a data scientist by trade, so deal in facts/figures.

No, that's okay, I know you're not being argumentative. What you're saying sounds like a radical form of positivism, the idea that the only things of value are those which can be directly measured. People have been arguing about this for centuries, some going so far in the 18th century to (incorrectly) reject the existence of causality. But let me try to sell you on the value and use of a theory, or any mathematical description of physical forces, and the conclusions which are drawn from them.

Gravity: we can't positively prove the existence of gravity. We can't see it, we can't handle it, we can't cut it up or put it in a box. It is a force whose laws bind objects. It, like all physical forces, is not a 'thing' as we usually conceive of things. We prove the theory of gravity by making predictions based on the formula which describes it, by observing the motion of objects, then by seeing how results match to the predictions. It is proven indirectly. With precision we describe the motion of objects through space and time in ways that are accounted for by the mathematical formula we invented to describe gravity. Physical laws are observed indirectly by their effect on things, and these physical laws are described mathematically.

We can describe mathematically the physical forces whose laws make water boil at 99.97 degrees at 1 atmosphere of pressure. We don't merely know that water boils at 99.97 degrees because someone measured it. The physical laws of the universe which enable the process of boiling to happen are, in technical terms, a priori, meaning, they are deductible independent of knowledge or experience. Quite why the universe works this way no one knows. It's probable that this is unknowable. It's even possible that our very conceptions of 'knowing' and 'not-knowing' are muddled and unclear and actually are a clumsy product of an underdeveloped language. Were there no human beings to describe the process of water boiling, the physical forces allowing it to happen would exist in spite of us, though this trust is itself a philosophical digression which I won't go into here.

It so happens that a lot of the time a mathematical description is discovered which describes phenomena after scientific experimentation conducted by its discoverer. Prod about, see what happens etc. But you must understand that a lot of the time in particle physics, in astrophysics and in other sciences, theories are arrived at by inference or deduction; then does a scientific experiment prove the theory.

The law precedes physical matter: matter is bound by physical law — law which can be described mathematically, and its effects predicted with precision and reliability if the formula is accurate. And if you remember what I said about gravity, which we can't touch, see, directly perceive with our senses or instruments, but observe indirectly and describe mathematically — this same principle can be applied to the theories which describe the physical forces at work in the creation, life and death of stars; theories which describe universal laws; universal laws which are described mathematically; mathematical formulae which can be tested experimentally, the confirmed results of which prove the law; the law from which conclusions can be drawn, models built and predictions made, including the categorisation of stars based on our observations of them, and descriptions of their life cycles. The instruments we have at our disposal are capable of measuring the composition and mass of our sun and other stars. The theories we have about the interaction of force and matter allows us to create a model of the inside of a star without ever directly observing one. Models of stellar evolution can be created from the conclusions drawn from the formulae describing universal laws.

To say, "we can't know the sun won't explode because it hasn't happened," is unscientific. Our knowledge that the sun is physically incapable of going supernova (to the extent we can actually know anything, and strictly speaking a supernova event is an implosion) is based on a theoretical model deduced from experimentally verified, universal physical and material laws which we describe in the language of mathematics.

[Rileybobs]

I was about to say pretty much exactly the same as Spiral, almost word for word. But that post has saved me the effort.

[fidelcastro]

I was about to say pretty much exactly the same as Spiral, almost word for word. But that post has saved me the effort.

Yeah, me too.

It's obvious when you think about it.

[Vino blanco]

Fair enough Spiral, but if the almighty God, creator of the universe, decides that our sun is going to explode, then surely it’s going to happen. Have you taken this into account in your mathematical calculations?

[1968claret]

Thanks Spiral, a quite brilliant explanation that make sense in my mind.
In very basic terms, we have our own ‘knowns’ we can then use the data and calculations we obtain from these to theorise. As we learn more, those theories will either become fact, or will change.
I suppose it is all a matter of how much we trust the maths and trust those theories.
In many respects these would have been the similar discussions around whether the earth was flat or not, many centuries ago. As time has progressed, the original theories have become fact (at least for the majority ). The advances in travel, measuring instruments and imagery helping to prove the theory.

In many ways it is similar to our work in data science fields, using data to build algorithms that can predict outcomes. The difference in my mind was that is still using known outcomes to predict future ones.
However, what you say about our current knowledge of matter and how we can extrapolate this to theorise makes sense to me.
Fascinating stuff!

[1968claret]

Fair enough Spiral, but if the almighty God, creator of the universe, decides that our sun is going to explode, then surely it’s going to happen. Have you taken this into account in your mathematical calculations?

Vino, let’s not even go there! I get the whole Big Bang theory. But for there to be a Big Bang, someone or something must have first created the materials that went bang?

Head explodes! Off to bed

[Bordeaux]

Gravity isn't a force, it describes the effect of mass disturbing the space/time continuum thus given acceleration...isn't it?

[Spiral]

Gravity isn't a force, it describes the effect of mass disturbing the space/time continuum thus given acceleration...isn't it?

I've heard it described as a pseudoforce, much like how there's no centrifugal force acting on inert objects but becomes apparent to certain observers when objects move in certain ways (or something like that — I'm not a physicist!) I think the common parlance of describing gravity as a force is a hangover from Newtonian mechanics, which was obviously supplanted by relativity, but in mitigation my analogy was chosen to illustrate how we conceive of and describe universal law in a way that I hoped was more intuitive to the layman than using as an example the strong nuclear force, for instance, which is a force in the true sense, and vital to a model of stellar evolution, but a force some may not be as familiar with, and so not as strong a way of illustrating my point. I think, "it's complicated," sums it up well!

[Venkys4eva]

Fair enough Spiral, but if the almighty God, creator of the universe, decides that our sun is going to explode, then surely it’s going to happen. Have you taken this into account in your mathematical calculations?

Why bring fairytales into it

[chekhov]

Spiral, you have a great way with words.
The Brian Cox of the Beehole End.

[CJW]

God is amazing isn't he.

[Fretters]

Believe they’re going to reveal the final destination of that Gifton Noel-Williams penalty at a press conference tomorrow.

The ball is on display at its final resting place, in the St Peter's Centre.