Subject: More, different BIG science news
Date: Fri Jul 15 14:47:10 2022
User: Mobius
Message:James Webb
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/main_image_deep_field_smacs0723-5mb.jpg
What's with the smears?
Rogue stars or galaxies not moving with the rest of the universe?
Perturbations in movement of the scope, affecting only some of the creations?
Someone at NASA doodling?
Date: Fri Jul 15 15:11:41 2022
User: Kaos
Message:That’s the impact of gravitational lensing Mobius. The mass of a large galaxy is bending the light of objects behind it, bringing many of them into better focus than would normally be possible.
Date: Fri Jul 15 16:02:55 2022
User: _.!._
Message:Its the beginning of the Big Bang,therefore all those galaxies,stars,etc. needed to be bent into shape to fit.
Date: Fri Jul 15 16:07:02 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Nice one....
Date: Fri Jul 15 17:59:24 2022
User: berries
Message:This link might already be somewhere in this discussion, but I'll post it anyway. Scientific American's docu on the 20 year task of building the Webb. It is really cool! The James Webb Space Telescope just revealed our universe anew--the view is absolutely stunning - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBDHqquK_8k
Date: Thu Jul 21 14:07:28 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Sadly............new, important damage to Webb.............
I think a lot of us aren't too surprised at this, but greatly dismayed.
Link: micrometeorite damage
Date: Thu Jul 21 16:30:29 2022
User: Klepp
Message:We're all scarred in some way or another...hopefully the damage is enough localized to sort of work around...
Date: Thu Jul 21 17:49:24 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Yeah...............I'm actually still not recovered from my last time in orbit. Hence my continuously "loose/lost" screws.
Date: Fri Jul 29 05:11:39 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:This is an amazing, amazing accomplishment, if true. (Note that they leave a smidgen of wiggle room.) The 3-dimensional aspects of large molecules have a gigantic impact on how they react, perform, interact, change, etc. I suspect this process isn't "fully grown up" yet, but this could be game-changer in multiple research avenues. Do *not* splice (ha-ha) this together with the first few links I posted to start this thread, or it'll get scary..............
Link: AI 'solves' all protein structures?
Date: Wed Aug 3 04:15:52 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:In the continuing "war of the telescopes"..................................
Link: Cartwheel galaxy
Date: Wed Aug 3 23:55:37 2022
User: Kaos
Message:Lol. The worst images from the JWST are going to be more significant than the best images from any telescope more than a few years old. Especially when it comes to looking at any far away galaxy - aka most of the visible universe. But, lots to be learned from looking at stars in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies.
Date: Thu Aug 4 00:45:33 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:As I'm sure you know............the IR capabilities of the Webb give it so much more 'deep' power. I'm sometimes uneasy(??) with the coloration of the images - but they hafta be, for our narrow-frequency human eyeballs. Kinda like the earlier "images" of the black hole as discussed herein, I suspect a lot of folks don't realize the colors they see in the released images aren't 'real' - altho the frequency differences are. Just a matter of knowing what one us looking at. Kinda like life on earth sometimes, no?
Date: Thu Aug 4 01:06:11 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:if you point your phone camera at the led in a remote, you can see it activate, but can't with your regular store bought eyeballs, so we're really just looking at a phone camera held up to a telescope, which is what you are saying. nothing for alex jones here. Bender thought film cameras were better than digital, even though his eyes were digital. don't know if that is relevant, but it seemed worth mentioning.
Date: Thu Aug 4 01:51:33 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Not sure I grasp what you're saying.........as I most certainly *can* see the light in a remote. Of all my superpowers, I didn't realize I had that one. 😳🧐
Date: Thu Aug 4 01:56:51 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:well, shoot, i just tried it with my tv remote and yeah, i did see it. but not my dvd player remote, which i can see with my digital camera. listen to my point, not the facts.
Date: Thu Aug 4 01:58:44 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ah.........seems like I've heard *that* before.
.sulks in disappointment at sudden loss of a superpower
Date: Thu Aug 4 12:41:44 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:took another look at the tv remote and what i was seeing was illumination from a red led nearby, not the infrared one that works the tv. you may be superpowerful after all.
Date: Thu Aug 4 13:19:59 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:I've always had a 'touch' of synesthesia, but a weird one where I associate numbers with specific colors. Didn't know that extended into the infrared, however. Perhaps I should work harder on attuning my x-ray vision - but that's in the opposite (spectral) direction.
Date: Thu Aug 4 13:24:58 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:And ix..........be careful looking too closely at those little lights on your remote. You realize that "communication" goes both ways there, right? Don't want to give the illuminati and/or "the man" *too* much control over you. Or has that already happened? (I doubt it.)
Date: Thu Aug 4 16:59:01 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:what kind of remote can you see the infrared? like model number. is it flickering? if you really can see it, it's kind of a big deal to me. on a phone, they look blue, does what you see look different than the colors mortals see?
Date: Thu Aug 4 17:41:32 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well.....I *doubt* I can really see the IR. When I wrote that I can "see the light in the remote", I really meant the little red light ON the remote - that I presume is for notifying mere humans that a signal is being transmitted. I figgered you'd catch that. With my human eyeballs, in the daytime, I can't see the purplish light that a camera can record - which is quasi-mysterious right there. Does a camera/cell phone 'translate' that frequency to one humans can see? And if so.......why and how? (Altho the "how" part isn't terribly difficult.)
I have two remotes, and the color of them both seems identical to the phone camera, not surprisingly. And certainly not what I'd expect IR to 'look' like. I'll have to try it sometime in the dark.
Date: Thu Aug 4 17:44:23 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:And yes, they flicker - sort of a pinkish, purplish, fuchsia-ish - according to the phone camera.
Date: Thu Aug 4 17:52:23 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:>> Does a camera/cell phone 'translate' that frequency to one humans can see?
i submitted that question to the ask Bill Nye website.
Date: Thu Aug 4 17:54:08 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:knowing full well that the answer is yes, but i'm interested in the rationale
Date: Thu Aug 4 17:54:48 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Here's a partial answer - I think. Only read very hurriedly ....
Link: Human IR vision?
Date: Thu Aug 4 18:02:20 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:yeah, i saw a few articles on that, but it just left me confused as to whether some people can see infrared while most can't, hence my question to you. but it led to a great idea and i'm suggesting to nasa that they look at all their hubble images through a digital camera.
Date: Thu Aug 4 18:17:19 2022
User: outskirts
Message:If I point my phone camera at the tv, and point the remote at the phone, I can see it, and the signal will bounce back to the tv. This worked with the left arrow button, that brings up the tv guide.
Date: Thu Aug 4 18:18:58 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:i've done that, sitting in a place where i can see the tv but it can't see the remote, i've aimed it at the wall behind me to bounce it to the tv.
Date: Thu Aug 4 18:33:09 2022
User: outskirts
Message:Lol. Happened accidentally the first time I tried it.
Date: Thu Aug 4 21:54:47 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well.............in the dark, I actually *can* faintly see a blinking, dim red light in one of my two remotes. Not at all the same color as my phone camera sees/shows it. So..........I don't know what that means. It's faint, and seems at the limit of my range of visible light frequency perception - as if I could definitely know what that's like. Everyone knows that in hearing tests, it is determined what your hearing frequency range is. I've not heard of such a test for vision, but surely they exist. Guess I need to read articles ix has already read....
Date: Fri Aug 5 00:21:14 2022
User: Kaos
Message:Tn, re your first comment from 4-Aug: the light that the JWST is now capturing from those galaxies a long time ago and far, far away used to be in the visible light spectrum so if we colorize them back into our visible spectrum that seems perfectly normal. That it makes the images more striking is just part of that. And, the image of the Cartwheel Galaxy is striking. Apparently, our own Milky Way has a cartwheel too. Just not quite as dramatic as the one in the JWST pic.
Date: Fri Aug 5 00:54:20 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Good point. And agreed. Despite the earlier discussions of the Doppler Effect (not to be confused with the Dopeler Effect, as resurrected by roo at one point), I suspect some few freecell citizens (like most world citizens) don't get red-shifting (in the spectral sense, not the political, of course).
That said..............I don't know how much frequency-finagling they're doing on these images. (Altho a lot, surely.) The original light of course was sent out over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, so what colors they assign to what original and detected frequencies determines how they 'look'. If by chance they're purposely 'colorizing' them to match the original from billions of years ago, that would be cool - even in the infrared. Ha-ha. 😉🌈
Date: Fri Aug 5 02:06:45 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:A little bit more detail on how the laser 2-photon trick (from the "Human IR vision?" link above) works.
But what I'm interested in is the upper limit of wavelength detection. If the standard limit is 720 nm.........can ix see 730? Can MrFixit see 735? Can Mastermind or CS see 740? Exactly how specific are the detection limits of those rods and cones? Is ix's suggestion to NASA a good one? I'm sure there's more literature on this; have only looked very cursorily. But in a follow-up post, I'll link a good article exploring all that stuff.
Link: Why laser IR light can appear green to some
Date: Fri Aug 5 02:24:19 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:More about limits. This actually turned out to be less 'enlightening' than I first thought. More descriptive, actually.
Link: What are our visual limits?
Date: Sat Aug 6 15:17:10 2022
User: Mobius
Message:***Date: Fri Jul 29 01:47:18 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:
A bit of tutoring for Michael P./Mobius.......
This does a pretty excellent job of explaining gravitational lensing.
Link: gravitational lensing/"Einstein ring"***
Some re-bruise their egos, for years... Then use pretense as a salve for their self-re-infliction...
Here's another chance to get off on the right foot, rather than put a match in my shoe sole or stub my toe with a hammer.
My question was not about rings but about short-arc-schmears, of which there are a lot in the James Webb image.
There are quite a few schmears that seem to concentrically line up.
Are those schmears caused by gravitational lensing? It would seem so, based on the incompleteness and irregularity of some images I've seen of Einstein rings.
Are we at the wrong focal point and/or location for the mass that's causing the lensing, leading to the short-arc-schmearing effects? Why wouldn't the light be simply dissipated rather than focused in the short-arcs seen in the images?
There are LOTS of masses and gravitational fields that 13-billion-year-old-light had to travel through or be influenced by to reach us... I would expect much more schmearing than what's seen in Webb's or Hubble's deep field images, but then I am not an astrophysicist, astronomer or cosmologist or particle physicist... so questions and imaginings are sometimes all I have, trying to spur a conversation that might enlighten me.
Mobius the Questioner or Tutorer (depending on the subject, but who is not callous or childish enough to point out to someone a claim that they are being tutored... unless our personal relationship led to such spurious and condescending comments )
By the way... pointing someone to a video isn't tutoring.
Tutoring would be more like a conversation or a discussion, one-o on one-o,, and I believe we are on-o a discussion board-o... n'est ce pas?
Date: Sat Aug 6 15:33:31 2022
User: Mobius
Message:***Date: Fri Jul 15 15:11:41 2022
User: Kaos
Message:
That’s the impact of gravitational lensing Mobius. The mass of a large galaxy is bending the light of objects behind it, bringing many of them into better focus than would normally be possible.***
But these schmears don't seem to be focused at all... just seem to be schmears, brightly concentrated though, light-filled...
Some sort of precession effects of the Earth's and moon's revolving/interacting gravitational fields on the JWST?
Date: Sat Aug 6 15:33:49 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Pointing someone to a video that describes the effect you didn't know about is a form of tutoring - or it's at the very least allowing you to learn stuff - which is the point of tutoring. You've repeatedly failed at 'normal' conversation, so that option wasn't/isn't available.
And yes, those "schmears" are due to gravitational lensing. If you want more details, search that web thing. But just as a tidbit.................the "schmearing" is because of the essentially direct-line-of-"sight" alignment of the lensed galaxy, and the nearer one. I'm not gonna try and answer all your questions; it appears you didn't fully understand the first tutoring session. (Not a criticism; just an apparent fact. Your comment about dissipation demonstrates that.)
And below I link how this effect was proven for the first time. An extremely important event.
Link: how gravitational lensing was first proved
Date: Sat Aug 6 15:55:43 2022
User: bullsgits
Message:bullsgits
Date: Sat Aug 6 17:08:44 2022
User: Mobius
Message:Getting off on the right foot I guess isn't what you wanted to do.
Well, you did it, doing what you didn't want to do.
You can't clearly and baselessly criticize someone and then say "Not a criticism..."
If you had no intent to have a discussion or conversation (as you are clearly avoiding now), then instead of stating you are tutoring me, you should have just politely stated I should look on the internet, or not comment to me or about me at all.
You chose not to do that.
You chose to try to make me look foolish.
Which forced me to speculate on why you would do that, leading to the idea that you are nursing/milking that years-old bruised ego for all that it is not worth.
Since after further criticizing me you attempted to explain then gave up... I will try to continue the non-conversation.
The short-arc-schmearing, if part of an Einstein ring or rings, would be part of HUGE rings, based on the slight curve of the arcs.
You also didn't or couldn't address the possibly concentric positioning of some of the short-arcs, possibly being part of an Einstein ring, a large one, that may be disrupted by other gravitational fields along the paths of the lights that should've been bent together and focused into one image..
Regarding the schmears - If you are not at a specific focal point along the focal axis of a galaxy, star or exoplanet you want to observe, then you will be exposed to light from those sources, but it will not be focused... it will be out of focus, scattered or dissipated... relative to your position on the focal axis.
If you are not on the focal axis for an observable phenomena , then you will not see the associated Einstein ring or possibly any light discernible as coming from your desired phenomena.
Seeing Einstein rings are chance observances.
More interesting than Einstein rings or schmears was the research currently going on at NASA on using the sun as a gravitational lense.
Link: Solar Gravitational Lense Will Map Exoplanets
Date: Sat Aug 6 17:50:32 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:"Michael, Michael, Michael" (said to the beat of "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia")...............
Years back, I went WAAAAAY out of my way; I bent WAAAAAY backwards trying to intelligently discuss/debate issues with you. You couldn't do it. Most of your replies turned into 1000+-word salads, well documented. So any wrong-footing here came from you. Thats why we gave up. Repeatedly. Lately...........it has seemed like you had matured(?) a bit in your tenor, but I knew you would revert.
You must not have even read the second link I provided - about how gravitational lensing USING THE SUN was done back over 100 years ago as the first solid proof of Einstein's general relativity axiom. Yes, that's vastly advanced, of course, but the sun is actually the easiest thing we have handy for that purpose. I don't think most would agree that it's more interesting than Einstein rings; it's the same principle, after all. If you happen to think exoplanets are more interesting than the cosmology (I don't), then ok, follow that.
And really, Michael............how do you expect to learn much when you only show up to class every couple of weeks - if that?
Date: Sat Aug 6 18:33:11 2022
User: BuzzClik
Message:TN --
Over the years of exchanging ideas with you and others here, I have grown to respect for the deep knowledge that some of the posters have in complex areas. I post very little on "your" threads because I have just enough training in physics (about 24 credit hours at the undergraduate and graduate level) to recognize that I know very little. I don't have enough knowledge to evaluate the various experts or critique scientific papers-- not even close.
Very nearly all the people on this board are happy to leap into lively debates and discussions in their areas of expertise, and they know when to defer to true experts. But not everyone. An example of this is the "Time is a dimension" thread. I posted an solid article written by a science reporter with deep knowledge in the field, and the article pointed out the obvious. But, I was excoriated for being an idiot in this area (guilty as charged) and for posting an article penned by clown who hadn't done scientific research in a while (an odd charge). I was then directed to read about the undeniable fact (supposedly endorsed by a "vast number" of physicists) that time doesn't exist. Although I am truly a moron in the area of astrophysics and all closely related areas, the notion that the theory of "timeless physics" proves that "time doesn't exist" made me laugh. In investigating this further, I found an excellent quote from Sean Carroll who summed up my reaction to that debate and similar "discussions" posted by our infrequent curmudgeonly friend: "The problem is not that I disagree with the timelessness crowd, it's that I don't see the point. I am not motivated to make the effort to carefully read what they are writing, because I am very unclear about what is to be gained by doing so. If anyone could spell out straightforwardly what I might be able to understand by thinking of the world in the language of timelessness, I'd be very happy to re-orient my attitude and take these works seriously."
I didn't respond to our friend on that thread, and I am repeating that lack of interest here. I trust the real experts to sift through the knowledge.
Date: Sat Aug 6 18:44:43 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:the only technical research i have ever understood was anne elk's theory on the brontosaurus.
Date: Sat Aug 6 20:46:02 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Buzz, 24 credit hours (some graduate even) is substantial. Don't be overly modest (unless more than 1/3 of it was *meta*physics 😅). With quite a few well-educated and over-educated participants on these forums, I'd posit that that places you in the top 5% here. Probably top 2%, but I'm just guessing.
You may have noticed that I didn't bother with that thing-which-does-not-exist comment. I thought best to call for (who I presume to be) our resident expert on topics concerning that-thing-which-does-not-exist, Mr. bullsgits. At least in the seminar break-out sessions concerning all flavors of relativity at each of the cellstocks I've attended, he (yes) had the most profound and insightful comments, delivered with an impeccable sardonic that-which-does-not-exist-lessness.
Date: Sat Aug 6 22:19:18 2022
User: Klepp
Message:Time equals vector's length/vector's intensity (i.e. velocity)...beyond that it becomes conjectural, doesn't it? The Sean Carroll opinion seems worthier than most (all), surely...
(So like, if the denominator in above equation is zero, then time is infinite...or is it, since NOTHING AT ALL IS EVER PERFECTLY STILL?)
...though I would like to know what Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman would say after puff puff puffing on the sweet leaf...
Link: Sweet Leaf
Date: Sat Aug 6 22:41:07 2022
User: Klepp
Message:Although, by the hundredth or so cosmological decade, all sorts of stuff will return to perfect inaction, no?
Link: Cosmological Decade
Post follow-up