Subject: More, different BIG science news
Date: Sun Aug 7 07:24:52 2022
User: Mobius
Message:My latest reference is for ongoing research into using the sun as a gravitational lense, and using recently developed techniques for eliminating or reducing the effects of the sun's brightness and the glow of the corona... while you claim to be referencing attempts to use the sun as a gravitational lense from over 100 years ago.
Regarding your latest not-a-criticism-of-me comments - tnm... you remember an article you posted by Michael Specter?
Really all anyone needs to know about your veracity, competence, honesty and integrity.
But if that isn't enough, then reference the erased articles regarding organic foods, organic milk, aspartame, genetically modified foods, colony collapse disorder, fracking, ethanol in our gasoline or ANY article or topic I have posted information about that you and the Royal bloggers have opposed...
Repost the information and let's see how you stack up to referencing those long ago articles where you disingenuously claim to have "Years back, I went WAAAAAY out of my way; I bent WAAAAAY backwards trying to intelligently discuss/debate issues with you. "
You have NEVER tried to have a discussion with me... not even close.
More recently Alex Miles, a friend or acquaintance of Denny's, commented on the lack of discussion coming from the Royals regarding comments I had made.
Alex challenged several posters to respond to the info I had posted... they didn't. A couple of them decided to go after Alex.
Buzz went after Alex, who promptly put him in his place with just a few words...
So going way back or just recently, you, tnm, have demonstrated that you aren't interested in conversation when conflicts with your corporate commitments are concerned or because you feel you need to continue to take unjustified swipes at me to salve your ego.
tnm, that you would PRETEND to have tried to have a discussion with me shows how bruised your ego still is.
With your record of baselessly attacking me and criticizing me, of course I am not likely to read most of your references... especially with the dismal record your references have when I have decided to read and vet them (Michael Specter reference and the Anjinomoto study of aspartame that you and Buzz lauded are just two of many examples).
So please get back on topic and have a discussion of the RECENT efforts by NASA to use the sun as a gravitational lense... and stop typing to me or about me
Were you aware of this research?
Apparently not, as you referenced a 100 year old attempt to use the sun as a gravitational lense.
My reference is a video you can use to tutor yourself.
Link: Solar Gravitational Lense Will Map Exoplanets
Date: Sun Aug 7 09:28:04 2022
User: outskirts
Message:Frustrated tutor
Date: Sun Aug 7 13:51:04 2022
User: Mobius
Message:Thaddeus Cesari - Posted on June 8, 2022
Categories James Webb Space Telescope
Micrometeoroid impact in May 2022
"After initial assessments, the team found the telescope is still performing at a level that exceeds all mission requirements despite a marginally detectable effect in the data. Thorough analysis and measurements are ongoing."
Link: Practical outlook on micrometeoroid damage from May 2022
Date: Sun Aug 7 14:49:32 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Thanks, Michael, but that's essentially the exact same info I posted on July 21 in this very thread ⏫, from Sky News of July 20th.
Another example of you skipping classes....
Date: Mon Aug 8 14:00:30 2022
User: Mobius
Message:I suppose that snarky criticism (skipping classes) isn't critical either...
But it is just as unsubstantiable as your other criticisms of me...
This is supposed to be about discussion, not egos or chips on our shoulders.
My post was a response to reading your post and the information at Sky News... my criticism of you is that you should have referenced the NASA story on this (as I did), not "Sky News".
Sky News is right-biased & sensationalist.
They also don't link to the article they claim is from NASA, that they liberally quote.
Is an apology forthcoming from you for that unjustifiable smart-alec-y snarky?
I don't think so...
Here's your post
"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."
That's a dismal outlook, at best, and the dismal-ity is not justified according to the info at NASA.
Here's the Sky News story headline - "Meteoroid hit has caused 'significant uncorrectable' damage to James Webb Space Telescope"
Sky News claims to be quoting NASA, but doesn't link to the NASA report.
Here's an excerpt from the Sky News article - "Fortunately, this change is not especially impactful on how the telescope as a whole functions - and NASA has said that its performance is continuing to exceed expectations - but it fundamentally reduces the accuracy of the data collected."
So the Sky News article's content doesn't match the sensationalist headline... but does attempt to justify it through mischaracterization of NASA's "marginally detectable" to "fundamentally reduces... accuracy"
My post is a PRACTICAL report, coming from NASA on the JWST and its capabilities after the meteoroid strike (happened somewhere between May 22 and May 24).
NASA is where SkyNews has to get info, but created its own alarming headline to spin it to draw readers, like you tnm and anyone who clicked on the used-bait you provided.
As a reminder. Sky News doesn't link to the NASA article that it liberally claims to be quoting from.
From the NASA article I linked to - "After initial assessments, the team found the telescope is still performing at a level that exceeds all mission requirements despite a marginally detectable effect in the data. Thorough analysis and measurements are ongoing."
Source from the source, rather than biased media outlets review of the source, looking to draw readership through sensationalism and virally spread stories to increase readership.
Click-bait.
tnm, you have a problem with using biased media reports on science issues (Snopes and CNN and MSNBC, as examples), rather than sourcing science info directly from studies or reports by scientists and researchers... or at the very least established journalists with defendable reputations and stellar records for honesty, truth and competence.
Even some of the science mags you reference are no more than click-bait wearing a gown or a tux.
Source from reliable sources...
! کلک بیت سے بچیں
Link: Write-effective-clickbait-headlines-for-garbage-content
Date: Mon Aug 8 14:41:59 2022
User: Mobius
Message:BTW... that article on click-bait is pretty funny...
The article talks about dignity, honesty, journalism, ethics, grammar, "vapid commentary". blatant lies, and Amish Miracle Heaters!
Here it is again, if for some reason you can no longer scroll up...
Link: Here's the clickbait article again - A "how to"
Date: Mon Aug 8 14:56:38 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:"As I recall" (since it was a month and a half ago).................................................that was just a "breaking news" item at that time - and I just posted it as the news 'hit' as being the first story about it I encountered. I'm sure other sources had it as well, but really, does whether a news organization is right-wing, left-wing, or under-the-wing really matter in this case? I'm very much against politicizing science (and can scarcely believe some corners have done so), so such a motive wouldn't even registered as a notion or thought whatsoever. Your link was to an **outlook**; mine was reporting on an ACTUAL EVENT. You say: "Sky News doesn't link to the NASA article that it liberally claims to be quoting from." Why would ANY article about such a news EVENT quote something talking about what *could* happen?!? Your complaint doesn't make any sense.
Which was most relevant??? You did NOT reference "this" (the actual micrometeoroid strike), as the NASA piece was written well before the event!!!!! Good gracious, Michael. Which will be more important: me predicting the winner of this year's World Series now, or the actual winner WHEN IT HAPPENS?
And........not that it really matters...........but SkyNews is owned by Comcast/NBC. Some would call that right-wing, but "conservative" is closer. (You know - that organization that has MSNBC.) You're (once again) trying to create some sort of straw man here where this isn't even a thought of one from anybody else.
And..........again, not that it really matters to you, as your keen observational skills miss a tiny detail every now and then.............but I've posted MANY DOZENS (if not hundreds) of journal articles on this forum. Not really sure why you seem to miss all those. In fact.................I'd bet a fair sum of money I've posted more journal article links on this forum than any other poster - possibly by a large margin. And just in case you try to claim otherwise.................your "pseudo-science" publications don't count - not to mention you most often don't hyperlink them. Even considering that................I'd say my journal article links far outweigh any other poster's.
Date: Mon Aug 8 15:54:09 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Clarification/correction.........
Where your link showed "......from May 2022", I incorrectly interpreted that to mean the article was written in May, but it *was* written after the damage - even tho most of the article was prospective. So, my bad on that. (See, I'm not ashamed to admit when I'm wrong about stuff.) In fact.........I now remember reading that release, because the phrases "was larger than was modeled" and "was larger than out degradation predictions assumed" really struck me. I specifically remember reading those at the thing-which-does-not-exist. Point being........if that thing-which-does-not-exist really doesn't exist, does the "when" of it matter? 😄
Date: Tue Aug 9 16:39:00 2022
User: Mobius
Message:Even when you admit you were wrong, you don't apologize for personally criticizing me in your 2 error-riddled paragraphs.
Then in your post admitting your error you continue to attack me personally.
You take credit for admitting you made a mistake, then imply I misled you into making the mistake.
The first two paragraphs... you say that was your bad... what does that mean?
Is that an apology for ranting about me because you didn't understand what I posted?
Or are you just trying to beat me to the punch of pointing out your error?
Even if the report from NASA was in May 2022, that doesn't preclude the date of the report from being AFTER May 24 and before June 1st, post meteoroid strike. So your clarification post blaming me for having misleading info in my URL description falls flat.
My original post leads off with the date in mid-June that the referenced article was created and posted on the NASA website.
So to get to the point where you didn't realize what the date was you had to miss two date references and then misinterpret what you did read.
Stop wasting precious time and space and breath with this drivel.
Admit YOU'RE wrong, it was YOUR mistake (not me misleading you), make YOUR apology to me (that's not gonna fly), and let's get on with SCIENCE talk.
Link: flies in the science ointment-AAAS Peter Raven Joe Schwarcz
Date: Tue Aug 9 17:24:05 2022
User: Mobius
Message:The European Space Agency claims to have identified two of the arc-schmears as images of the same galaxy.
Why don't we see an Einstein Ring where many of these galaxies seem to be concentric?
Link: Two Schmears are the same galaxy
Date: Tue Aug 9 17:25:14 2022
User: BuzzClik
Message:Please, Michael, return to discussing the science. We understand your complaints completely. If you feel that you are truly owed an apology that has not come, email the admins and let them decide.
Date: Tue Aug 9 17:28:00 2022
User: BuzzClik
Message:Michael, you and I posted at the same time. Thank you for abandoning the previous discussion and getting back to the scientific aspects. (I have no expertise to comment on you post. I am sure that some here have such knowledge and may be willing to contribute.)
Date: Wed Aug 10 04:16:17 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:1a. I read that article too hurriedly. I was wrong when I first thought it was all prospective. I said as much. I did NOT "imply [you] misled me into making the mistake". Where, exactly, did I do that? That's the *one* thing in your post I'm really curious about. Don't see that at all. The article was mostly prospective, but not totally. That most certainly was/is in no way your 'fault'. Nor did I in any way indicate it was. It was "my bad" for reading it too hurriedly.
1b. BUT......................................kindly point out, if you wish, *succinctly*, what specifically in the SkyNews article was incorrect? One could *maybe* say the headline was ever-so-slightly sensationalized, but it was accurate, and IMO it *was* the most important point, along with the part about "continuing to exceed expectations". So it's really about perception - more from the reader than the article itself. Truthfully, I don't think we know yet how much the exceedingly faint stuff will be impacted. The data *has* been affected. NASA has said so. They haven't given details on that - at least that I'm aware of. I can imagine spectral stuff might get a tad muddy, but that's just a guess. It's hard enough to distinguish between C=O and O-H stretches (in and of themselves) in carboxylic acids, ketones, and aldehydes on earth, much less from billions of miles away. (Just as a hypothetical example. Not likely to be aldehydes and ketones in the atmosphere of Neptune's 'counterpart' (let's call it "Poseidon", just for fun) orbiting around the near star HD 260655, let's say - but who knows? And.........if one is looking for carbon dioxide, which they are...........that's two C=O bonds to try and detect right there.)
2. My apology was for making the mistake. I wasn't necessarily trying to "beat you to the punch". I try to always admit my errors as quickly as possible, whether in person, or in an online forum. Wasn't the first mistake I've made here, and likely won't be the last.
3. Yes, let's get back to the science talk. There are FAR too many babies herein to have this bathwater thrown out.
Date: Wed Aug 10 04:33:41 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:I'm curious, Michael, why you posted the article about Joe Schwarcz at McGill, and what he does? [Bravo for Joe!] He seems the antithesis of the things you've supported over and over and over here. I won't name the two main things, because Denny has (correctly) forbid they be discussed. But how unbelievably ironic that Mercola and the anti-you-know-whats show up as two of his main 'targets'. Have you changed your thinking?!?!?!
Date: Wed Aug 10 15:31:33 2022
User: BuzzClik
Message:>>Date: Wed Aug 10 04:33:41 2022
>>User: TNmountainman
>>Message: I'm curious, Michael, why you posted the article about Joe Schwarcz at McGill...
I read the linked article and a bunch more by the McGill crew. Great stuff.
Based on a quick search of Peter Raven, former president of AAAS, I think Michael was intending to direct us to yet another hatchet piece on someone who does not espouse the undeniable fact that GMOs killed us all ten years ago.
Date: Wed Aug 10 15:44:18 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:🤫🤫
I *think* a grad school colleague of mine went on to study more at McGill, but that was long ago. Lost touch with him long ago, too, but remember that he really liked the folks there in that dept. It's possible he even went to this guy's lab.
Date: Thu Aug 11 21:51:27 2022
User: Mobius
Message:I remind ol blue that the two of you are poking the bear again.
Buzz and tnm - you repeatedly have exposed your disingenuousness in your posts claiming you want to get back to Science News.
My current post, once again, exposes the problems we CONTINUE to cause by altering food crop DNA
I consider this Really Big CURRENT Science News
I also know that both of you are well aware that all of the following info is factual and scientifically correct.
I won't be providing links unless you continue to ignore the purpose of this thread... the purpose you keep reminding me of
Biotech executives and bribed politicians, regulators and academia resist/ignore the SCIENCE and close their minds to the harms slowly happening to our children and the environment through the current way the vast majority of our GM food is grown.
The damage being done is slow and indisious, just like smoking one cigarette or a pack a day for a year won't result in your death or ill health.
Both of you laud over McGill Raven and Schwarcz because they support the current techniques of bioengineering of our food crops and the farming practices needed to grow those crops... GM farming is a proven unsustainable failure.
Both of you know this, but pretend not to.
Raven's and Schwarcz's take on GMOs is that they are needed to save life as we know it... much like tnm's failed reference to GM food advocate/shill Michael Specter.
Schwarcz's attacks on Dr Mercola, Dr Oz and world renowned virus and vaccine expert Dr Geert Vanden Bossche put him in the left lunatic fringe of science and medicine, supporting all things profitable for the drug and biotech industries.
The implementations of GMO growing practices are not sustainable.
Resistance is growing in insects and weeds to the increasing list of poisonous proteins we cause to simultaneously grow in insect resistant GM crops and the multiple herbicides we spray on herbicide resistant crops and the soils they grow in.
Most GM food crops have had their DNA altered with both types of traits... maximizing contaminations on and in our food and in the soils and local environments in which these crops are grown.
There is nothing good to be said about the way GM crops are grown today (as they have been since their introduction, and their gradually increasing presence in our food markets, since the 1990s).
There might be a place or justification for modifying our food crops' DNA in the future. When we understand DNA better, prove the technology produces foods that are long-term safe and ensure the farming practices are sustainable.
But both buzz and tnm know these things already... they don't care.
Date: Thu Aug 11 22:04:08 2022
User: bullsgits
Message:bullsgits
Date: Fri Aug 12 05:40:10 2022
User: Mobius
Message:Try discussion.
Science facts and truth stand up well in discussions... but bullsgit doesn't...
Date: Fri Aug 12 05:55:01 2022
User: Mobius
Message:Date: Tue Aug 9 17:24:05 2022
User: Mobius
The European Space Agency claims to have identified two of the arc-schmears as images of the same galaxy.
Why don't we see an Einstein Ring where many of these galaxies seem to be concentric?
Two Schmears in the James Webb deep field are the same galaxy
Link: Two Schmears are the same galaxy
Date: Sat Aug 13 09:09:44 2022
User: BuzzClik
Message:Alignment
https://earthsky.org/space/this-image-shows-an-einstein-ring/
https://esahubble.org/images/potw1151a/
https://www.engadget.com/2016-06-01-rare-galactic-alignment-canarias-einstein-ring.html
Date: Sun Aug 14 11:39:26 2022
User: outskirts
Message:Re to ix
Date: Thu Aug 4 18:18:58 2022
User: ixtapolapoquetl
Message:
i've done that, sitting...
You know there are apps to turn your phone into a remote ... Someone needs to start a thread about things our phones can do. They're medical equipment. Katya keeps up, she could probably tell us all the medical stuff they do.
Date: Sun Aug 14 16:09:19 2022
User: Mobius
Message:From the ESA website -
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb
The NIRSpec instrument is the workhorse near-infrared spectrograph on board the James Webb Space Telescope and is provided by ESA.
The NASA/ESA/CSA Webb Telescope has yet another discovery machine aboard – the Near-Infrared Spectrograph’s (NIRSpec’s) microshutter array.
This instrument has more than 248,000 tiny doors that can be individually opened to gather spectra (light) of up to approximately 150 individual objects simultaneously.
Date: Sun Aug 14 19:19:17 2022
User: Mobius
Message:From the ESA website -
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb
The NIRSpec instrument is the workhorse near-infrared spectrograph on board the James Webb Space Telescope and is provided by ESA.
The NASA/ESA/CSA Webb Telescope has yet another discovery machine aboard – the Near-Infrared Spectrograph’s (NIRSpec’s) microshutter array.
This instrument has more than 248,000 tiny doors that can be individually opened to gather spectra (light) of up to approximately 150 individual objects simultaneously.
Date: Sun Aug 14 20:57:46 2022
User: BuzzClik
Message:The two posts above actually are not different. They are mirrors of the same post, a result of gravitational lensing from the extraordinary traffic in the chat room.
Date: Sun Aug 14 21:03:18 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Nice one. Bravo.
Date: Sun Aug 21 00:52:33 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:This is not "breaking news", but a nice conglomeration of articles (mostly) in pre-print describing what observations are coming in. Sort of a review article of what various astronomers are coming up with. Not surprisingly................there are some surprises. :)
Link: Tales of galaxies aplenty
Date: Thu Aug 25 18:33:18 2022
User: ejchap
Message:TN & Olblue
My son just had a nice writeup from his science company
Myeloid Theraputics Eric Chapdelaine
Obviously I am very proud of him. I sent the whole article to 2 of his science teachers
Ed
ejchap
Date: Thu Aug 25 19:09:41 2022
User: olblue
Message:Congratulations, ej! I know you're proud!
Date: Tue Aug 30 17:24:42 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Hubble and Webb working together......
This is of course heavily 'massaged', but presumably accurate, depending on how one 'sees' it.
Link: Hubble and Webb combine forces
Date: Tue Aug 30 23:37:16 2022
User: Kaos
Message:Yeah, I see it as NASA still trying to say that Hubble Telescope is relevant but it’s over 30 years old and now a second-tier instrument. Newer land-based scopes have equalled or surpassed it and once the new Magellan scope is online it will be all over. The latest image correction from using lasers to adjust for atmospheric interference is now so good Hubble’s location above the atmosphere is almost gone. No such equivalent measures are available for infrared so Webb will be hard to surpass for terrestrial scopes for the foreseeable future looking at infrared light
Date: Wed Aug 31 00:14:06 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:I respectfully (moderately) disagree. Not with your facts, really, but with the conclusion. There's still a place for it in the pantheon of tools. Ask how many astronomers wanted time on Hubble but couldn't get it. Or *still* can't. "Second-tier" by definition, maybe, but you could say that about the second-string NFL QBs, Avis, the second-best Q in East TN, those who are mere millionaires instead of billionaires, etc.
But a major point (pun yet again intended) is that each 'scope can only watch a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the sky at once. Pointing Hubble at "second-tier" targets will still yield who-knows-what-kind of results. Heck, use it for another Deep Field of another tiny section of 'blank' sky. Or 10 more Deep Fields.
Besides that............the example above of them imaging the same thing in different frequencies gives a fuller 'picture' (yes, another one, barely qualifying) of the object(s). Science is replete with observing, measuring, detecting, etc., the same object or phenomenon with a multitude of frequencies. Look at how long it took to 'recognize' black holes because the x-ray radiation couldn't be visibly observed. Is Hubble now inferior to the capabilities of Webb? Of course. But as long as it continues to work properly it'll still get heavy use.
Date: Wed Aug 31 00:16:51 2022
User: Kaos
Message:Yeah, and in snooping around on this, I see someone named Adam Reiss won a Noble Prize in Physics in 2011 for research into the expansion rate of the universe using data from Hubble. Ironic because one: there is still no consensus for what this rate is. Two: this rate is called the Hubble constant. three: there’s a good chance the Webb telescope can help figure out what the real answer is. And, as always, Four, since Einstein never won a Noble Prize for his General Theory of Relativity, all Noble Prizes in Physics are crap (except for the money).
Date: Wed Aug 31 00:34:27 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well.........don't really disagree with any of that, other than Physics Nobels are crap. They *CERTAINLY* missed the boat (or the whole ocean) on general relativity, but the majority of them are pretty much on target - if sometimes far too late. But that's part of the Nobel process; the committee wisely(?) waits until a big chuck of the contribution makes its impact.
That Hubble constant thing is so very squirrely. Everybody wants to see how that turns out. But I'd say giving the Nobel to Reiss isn't really all that bad. Even the differing values aren't *that* different. (Altho they clearly represent slightly different manifestations of 'reality'.) We now know there's 'something' more going on, but his value *was* a nice contribution. So when we DO figure it out, we'll name it the Webb constant. Oh, but wait.........................he was part of the purge of homosexuals way back when, so that wouldn't do. Woe is us!
Date: Wed Aug 31 00:37:33 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Will the Hubble telescope still be used?
"Observing the same astronomical objects with both telescopes allows for a more complete understanding of that object. Jeletic added that Hubble is expected to continue to operate "into the late 2020s" or longer and that work is ongoing to prolong its mission, such as by preparing for future failures.
What will happen to Hubble telescope?
"Hubble will remain primary for visible and ultraviolet wavelengths of light, which JWST cannot see," said Hubble senior project scientist Jennifer Wiseman. "JWST will become the primary deep space imaging telescope in infrared wavelengths of light."
Link: Hubble will continue doing science - until it can't
Date: Wed Aug 31 00:56:31 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:“The most recent estimates say that there’s an excellent chance we’re going to be doing science like we do today until at least 2026, and perhaps the whole decade. It’s looking pretty good right now.”
..............."It’s possible Hubble will stay on until it can be truly replaced, but most astronomers are bracing for a big knowledge gap when it finally stops working. “Hubble is really the premier game for doing ultraviolet and optical astronomy,”
Link: the Webb is not really a "replacement"
Date: Thu Sep 1 00:04:51 2022
User: Kaos
Message:Well, Hubble will still be top dog in some areas for longer than I thought. The E-ELT and Giant Magellan telescopes are 4-5 and 5-7 years out for going online. So, Hubble will still be relevant until then. But, it’s not going to produce any further ground breaking data. That ship has sailed. In fact, the Adam Reiss Noble Prize already nudges it into the overrated realm.
On the flip side, the Webb telescope has already eclipsed Hubble in terms of ground breaking data. The awards just need to catch up. The only (PR) mistake is that they should have named it Hubble II or the Einstein, or the Galileo telescope. The Webb telescope isn’t a replacement for Hubble, it’s just an entirely better idea:
It’s 6.25 times bigger.
It’s focused on gathering infrared (IR) light, AKA the oldest light in the universe.
It’s way out in space - more than 1000x further away than Hubble. So, it gets way less distortion than Hubble.
We have techniques for correcting for visible light from terrestrial telescopes but not so for IR light. So, the JWST will reign supreme for some time.
Date: Thu Sep 1 04:25:49 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Man, you really are anti-Hubble. Kinda funny, it seems to me. I have no idea whether it will produce any further ground-breaking data, but I'd not be tempted to 'challenge' it in that way. Again............how many astronomers would *still* like Hubble time? Tons. And Hubble overrated?!?!? That's a rather astonishing statement, utterly contradicted by the facts of its decades of service. Further..........to say that the Webb has eclipsed Hubble in terms of ground-breaking data just doesn't seem to add up. Sure, the Webb can "see better", but it seems absurd, at least to me, to say that its achievements in a month+ outweigh what Hubble has observed over 30 years.
And "entirely better idea"? Not sure about that. Yes, the IR data is better able to reach further back in time, but that knowledge was already extant when Hubble was planned. Part of the reason to go with visible and UV wavelengths was that visual pics would help convince a *very* skeptical Congress and public about the need for it. And boy that aspect of the decision sure paid off. In fact, without Hubble's remarkable achievements (and very specifically the pics, which connected with a public with a low science IQ), there likely would not have even *been* a Webb.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that IR light is "the oldest in the universe". When atoms finally started coming together, and electrons started jumping up and down in orbitals (thus emitting radiation), my understanding is that UV, IR, x-ray, radio, and visible were all being emitted - just like now. What I suspect you mean is that it's the oldest *we can see*? Well, yes, but also remember that cosmology has made some large leaps in knowledge over the last 30 years, too. Even if we don't have an agreed-upon value for the Hubble constant, we have it within a fairly tight range, and we know (like with virtually all science) that that brings up more questions than answers.
We *hope* JWST will reign supreme for quite a long time, but it's also more susceptible to micrometeorite damage, as we've already seen. Both are remarkable, stunning machines and achievements. Puzzled why the knocks on Hubble.....
Date: Thu Sep 22 04:12:29 2022
User: ix
Message:15 minutes long, but pretty comprehensive for a simplification. i definitely did not realize how impressive it is that the thing is now workaday. and that it was packed into a spacecraft. imagine the added stress of all involved, knowing that one day they would be watching a countdown clock, mentally chanting "please don't blow up please don't blow up"
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybn8-_QV8Tg&ab_channel=LaunchPadAstronomy
Date: Thu Sep 22 04:55:59 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:It's a semantical question whether or not Webb is also orbiting the sun as the Earth does. I say it is. Would one say the moon orbits the sun, as well as the Earth? I would, but that's just me. (And that's *not* to imply the Webb is orbiting the Earth, which it's not.) (And yes, I also understand that the word "orbit" implies a spherical or elliptical path, which Webb certainly does not have around the sun. But I'm saying Webb does have an elliptical(-ish) path around the sun, just with big wobbles in it.)
And yeah, LaGrange has always blown me away. Newton still reigns supreme in my awe, tho, because he came up with the stuff essentially out of nothing. Not completely, but it was big-time revolutionary. So LaGrange supercharged that stuff, cranking it up with the 3-body mechanics stuff. That's HELLA HARD, if any of you have every worked on that math. Not to mention all the other stuff he was ridiculously good at. But he *did* build on Euler's (there's *that* man again) work with the LaGrange points. But how could he do all the stuff he did 250 years ago? I suspect there had to be some intellect involved somehow. Had Nobels been around then, I'd say he might have earned 3 or so....
Date: Fri Sep 30 04:53:08 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:The jolt from the target asteroid crash was bigger than anticipated.
@ Kaos.........
"Fitzsimmons said the images were "a beautiful demonstration of the extra science you can get by using more than one telescope simultaneously".
Link: Did anybody get the license plate of that spaceship?
Date: Thu Oct 27 20:19:39 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Speaking of jolts.....
Not sure why we had to wait 'til these two joural articles came out to get this story. Seems like somebody didn't want their thunder stolen. But both these are (for the most part) readily lay-understandable - especially the first one:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add8574
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7157
Link: meteor crash and subsequent quake on Mars
Date: Sun Nov 27 01:41:25 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:I'll let this speak for itself with no commentary - for the reason that will be apparent.
*IF* it works, will be a gigantic achievement. But maybe a pretty big "if"; just sooo many pitfalls.
Link: New frontier in jabbing?
Date: Thu Dec 15 05:48:19 2022
User: TNmountainman
Message:Great example of how Webb and Hubble work together.
Remember the original "deep field" study? This is from a completely different area of the sky, and the picture will only get better because the exposure(s) will continue to accumulate.
The link at the top of this goes to the original article in the Astronomical Journal, published today, which is VERY dense and VERY detailed about the observances, etc.
Most of these pics we've seen before, but not the deep-field thing. All that stuff in a window of the sky of about 2% the area of the moon. Flabbergasting, just like the original.
"In a galaxy far, far away................."
Link: semi-deep and semi-wide field view
Date: Thu Dec 15 21:08:29 2022
User: mrbuck
Message:Hollywood take note, space hurricanes are a thing.
mrbuck
Link: link
Date: Fri Jan 13 01:44:26 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ok, here's another one of those things that **could** end up being a gigantic scientific achievement in the future. And actually..........there's some amazing stuff here already. I'll hyperlink the lay-level article (altho it's really not very well written, imo), and above that, here in this box, I'll show the original link to the article in "Cell", an extremely prestigious journal for those not hep. IF IF IF this leads to what they're aiming for, this will be a true landmark paper.
Those of you paying close attention may recall I've mentioned epigenetics a few times in the past, but not in detail. Mostly because it's a subject that's *really* hard to study, or even to properly describe. But utterly fascinating.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01570-7
(Can't read entire article without subscription, but can see authors, summary, and references. Even without seeing the whole article, its clear that a staggering amount of effort was involved.)
Link: major progress in age progression AND reversal (in animals)
Date: Fri Jan 13 02:11:04 2023
User: Klepp
Message:I'd not be surprised if the average healthy, cared-for '23 newborn lived near (if not well) into the 23rd century.
Date: Fri Apr 7 04:10:56 2023
User: TNmountainman
Message:A new study tightens the calculation of the Hubble constant via the Cephid variable method. Nothing revolutionary, but a nice methodology "trick" to add weight. Now if we could just get a better handle on the cosmic background radiation version of the constant........
Link: more accurate Hubble constant calculation from Cephid variables
Post follow-up