A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

James Webb Space Telescope Impllication



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 2nd 17, 01:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default James Webb Space Telescope Impllication

I saw a TV show on the effects of the Hubble Space Telescope.
It revolutionized astronomy and cosmology. The galaxy field
and the nebula field were born anew.

The Webb telescope was said to be reaching the boundary of
the age of the universe. A scientist promised the new view
would startle the world. He did not clarify this comment.

He did say that stars are born out of nebula. This opposes
the current cosmology of stellar evolution, my comment.

If the galaxies simply continue into the past before the
birth time of the universe, what does this mean? Are some
scientists expecting the big-bang to topple?

Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive
origin of this universe?
Ads
  #3  
Old November 2nd 17, 03:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default James Webb Space Telescope Impllication

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

I saw a TV show on the effects of the Hubble Space Telescope.
It revolutionized astronomy and cosmology. The galaxy field
and the nebula field were born anew.

The Webb telescope was said to be reaching the boundary of
the age of the universe. A scientist promised the new view
would startle the world. He did not clarify this comment.

He did say that stars are born out of nebula. This opposes
the current cosmology of stellar evolution, my comment.


Well, no, it doesn't.


If the galaxies simply continue into the past before the
birth time of the universe, what does this mean?


It means you don't understand what 'birth time of the universe' means.


Are some
scientists expecting the big-bang to topple?


No doubt there are some somewhere, but the evidence is pretty much all
against them.


Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive
origin of this universe?


No. Are you a 'flat Earther', Dougie?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson


Yes, I am a Flat Earther. The vector transform is used to generalize
a differential transform. The person viewing in 2D has a hidden
function. If they do not know it exists they stay in 2D. Begging
the question of how to solve this viewing con-founder in a general
fashion. Einstein found the Minkowski space. Two functions,
length and time contraction resolved to this space. So, in general,
any two functions need examination to see if they are related by
the hidden relation.
  #4  
Old November 2nd 17, 09:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,793
Default James Webb Space Telescope Impllication

wrote:

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

I saw a TV show on the effects of the Hubble Space Telescope.
It revolutionized astronomy and cosmology. The galaxy field
and the nebula field were born anew.

The Webb telescope was said to be reaching the boundary of
the age of the universe. A scientist promised the new view
would startle the world. He did not clarify this comment.

He did say that stars are born out of nebula. This opposes
the current cosmology of stellar evolution, my comment.


Well, no, it doesn't.


If the galaxies simply continue into the past before the
birth time of the universe, what does this mean?


It means you don't understand what 'birth time of the universe' means.


Are some
scientists expecting the big-bang to topple?


No doubt there are some somewhere, but the evidence is pretty much all
against them.


Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive
origin of this universe?


No. Are you a 'flat Earther', Dougie?


Yes, I am a Flat Earther.


Why am I not surprised?

gibberish elided


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #5  
Old November 3rd 17, 02:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default James Webb Space Telescope Impllication

On Nov/1/2017 at 8:56 PM, wrote :

Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive
origin of this universe?


There are several other facts supportive of the Big Bang.
Here are a few:

1) Proportions of different elements.
If you start with a soup of quarks extremely dense and
hot, at first nucleons (protons and neutrons) can't form
or more precisely if they do form they hit something at
high velocity and disintegrate like they do when they
collide in particle accelerators. If the quark soup is
cooling by rapid expansion, you can calculate how long
they will have to form nucleons, and then how long
the nucleons will have to form atom nuclei. The atom
nuclei will only have a very short span of time to form.
It turns out that things like oxygen won't have time
to form. There will be very little of anything else
than hydrogen and helium. And the hydrogen should be
about 90% of the outcome, helium about 10% (if I recall
correctly). If you look at very old galaxies you can
see that they contain hydrogen and helium about in
the proportion predicted by theory. In more recent
parts of the universe you have heavier elements
in the proportion that one would expect from stellar
nuclear synthesis.

2) Cosmic background radiation.
If you had a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, one would
expect to see not the big bang itself because the universe
was to dense to let light go through at the very beginning.
You can evaluate quite precisely at which temperature
the universe becomes transparent to light (it is at the
temperature where atom nuclei can hold on to electrons).
So it is at a very specific temperature that the background
radiation should have been emitted. You then calculate
what that should look like after the expected red-shift.
It is a quite specific wave length and has a quite
specific shape and observations fit perfectly well with
theory on this.


Alain Fournier
  #6  
Old November 4th 17, 02:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default James Webb Space Telescope Impllication

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 9:28:23 PM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
On Nov/1/2017 at 8:56 PM, wrote :

Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive
origin of this universe?


There are several other facts supportive of the Big Bang.
Here are a few:

1) Proportions of different elements.
If you start with a soup of quarks extremely dense and
hot, at first nucleons (protons and neutrons) can't form
or more precisely if they do form they hit something at
high velocity and disintegrate like they do when they
collide in particle accelerators. If the quark soup is
cooling by rapid expansion, you can calculate how long
they will have to form nucleons, and then how long
the nucleons will have to form atom nuclei. The atom
nuclei will only have a very short span of time to form.
It turns out that things like oxygen won't have time
to form. There will be very little of anything else
than hydrogen and helium. And the hydrogen should be
about 90% of the outcome, helium about 10% (if I recall
correctly). If you look at very old galaxies you can
see that they contain hydrogen and helium about in
the proportion predicted by theory. In more recent
parts of the universe you have heavier elements
in the proportion that one would expect from stellar
nuclear synthesis.

2) Cosmic background radiation.
If you had a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, one would
expect to see not the big bang itself because the universe
was to dense to let light go through at the very beginning.
You can evaluate quite precisely at which temperature
the universe becomes transparent to light (it is at the
temperature where atom nuclei can hold on to electrons).
So it is at a very specific temperature that the background
radiation should have been emitted. You then calculate
what that should look like after the expected red-shift.
It is a quite specific wave length and has a quite
specific shape and observations fit perfectly well with
theory on this.


Alain Fournier


Quantum evolution in the soup of the expanding universe is
a speculative answer to the need to diagram all quantum.
It is a cosmological theory. A more reasonable theory is
to observe quanta as now seen. And to inter-relate effects
as seen. The universe origin version is a class of quantum theory
used commonly.

The red shift is a question. Why? I can only answer that
there is a gravitational effect. I can't do math though
so don't read me to seriously.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
6 Fun Facts about the James Webb Space Telescope Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 2 March 16th 10 02:43 AM
James Webb Space Telescope is a boondoggle Andrew Nowicki Astronomy Misc 38 February 24th 05 07:48 AM
James Webb Space Telescope is a boondoggle Andrew Nowicki Policy 37 February 24th 05 07:48 AM
James Webb Space Telescope maintenance Andrew Nowicki Science 1 June 5th 04 06:32 PM
James Webb Space Telescope Alan Erskine Policy 7 February 10th 04 12:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.