James Webb Space Telescope

[Admin]

Read the latest news about NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.

James Webb Space Telescope : Read more

 

[Atlan0001]

"Webb will study several areas of astronomy and cosmology, gazing deep into the cosmos to study how the universe formed." (How the universe formed!)

Matter and anti-matter have only one difference between them, but that single difference is the biggest difference of them all, matter being the positive side of the coin of matter and anti-matter being the negative side of the same coin of matter. That big a difference can also apply to the philosophy underpinning the above.

A single, but vastly different (ultimately different), philosophy:
Webb will study several areas of astronomy and cosmology, gazing deep into the cosmos to study how the universe forms!

 

[Helio]

It's clear that the universe is expanding, thus not a static form. So what do you mean in your implied difference between "formed" and "forms"?

 

[Atlan0001]

It's clear that the universe is expanding, thus not a static form. So what do you mean in your implied difference between "formed" and "forms"?

It was clear enough. Quite clear.

 

[Michael Varn]

I was just wondering how many long standing theories in cosmology and astronomy are finally going to be put to the test with data retrieved from the James Webb telescope?

For example, I believe that the JWT is going to prove wether or not white holes actually exist. Does anyone have other examples?

But along with new discoveries, some theories will be proven true, while some will be proven false.

The bad news for some astronomers is that their reputations are built around their theories, which means some of them are going to be very disapointed and will have to go back to the drawing board if their theories are proven false.

Now if a lesser known astronomer or cosmologist has an obscure theory that is proven true, they will probably become famous overnight.

 

[Michael Varn]

I thought that the James Webb telescope was going to debunk a few lesser known theories, but the possibility that the JWS may have proven the Big Bang theory wrong is astonishing to me.

The evidence was the JWS's discovery of a group of galaxys.

Now this has not been verified yet, but if these galaxys are as big and are as far away as the JWS suggests, this could be smoking gun proff that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

To clarify, this new theory does not suggest that the universe is not expanding, or has never been expanding.

The fact is the early universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter and this is not in dispute.

It just means that the expansion of the universe did not begin at some infinitesimally small point.

It means that the early universe may have resembled one of those old steady state models of an indefinite size.

And at some point in time, the steady state model began to expand as it continues today and into the future.

 

[billslugg]

JWST longest wavelength can see back to 300 million years after the Big Bang. It has no data prior to that.

At 300My, stellar, galaxy and black hole evolution had gone farther than our models predicted. This means that we must find out why gas clouds release heat and collapse faster than we thought, why hydrogen rich stars form and burn out faster than we thought or why SMBH's form faster than predicted. No such clouds of pure hydrogen exist today so our data is sketchy. In no way does any of this disprove BB theory.

 

[Atlan0001]

I thought that the James Webb telescope was going to debunk a few lesser known theories, but the possibility that the JWS may have proven the Big Bang theory wrong is astonishing to me.

The evidence was the JWS's discovery of a group of galaxys.

Now this has not been verified yet, but if these galaxys are as big and are as far away as the JWS suggests, this could be smoking gun proff that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

To clarify, this new theory does not suggest that the universe is not expanding, or has never been expanding.

The fact is the early universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter and this is not in dispute.

It just means that the expansion of the universe did not begin at some infinitesimally small point.

It means that the early universe may have resembled one of those old steady state models of an indefinite size.

And at some point in time, the steady state model began to expand as it continues today and into the future.

The only thing wrong with the Big Bang Theory is its dimensionality and Biblical-like religious association with the Creation legends of so many cultures of history. You put horizontal space and vertical time (past (into the future) | future (into the past), the "turning" of countless clock-wheels of time <|> // >|<), mass and energy, infinite and infinitesimal, [fbb2 0 (null unity) | 1 (unity)], Planck and Big Bang Horizon (one and the same Horizon (including being the Big (Black) Hole Horizon)), geometry into it and that falls apart on the face of it.

The Planck and Big Bang Horizon (one and the same Horizon) is a collapsed constant, a cosmological constant "horizon," and, therefore, it is everywhere, therefore nowhere at all, therefore only the distant constant absolute of a Horizon of all horizons, for all Time (T = 0|1 . . . and parity (+/-)).

"Distance!" you must realize, has more than one dimension to it. Think about Hawking's famous "baby universes," Alice's trip into the rabbit hole, through the Looking Glass into Wonderland, Gulliver's swing between the Land of the Giants and the Lilliput of the Lilliputians. The fact that infinitesimal is intrinsically integral to infinite, and infinite is intrinsically integral to infinitesimal. Two interchangeable interlocking sides of just one coin of ('1') infinity | ('0') infinities.

Hawking was in fact, spacetime-wise and relatively speaking, dealing in "distance," up and out, down and in, "distance!!!" So was Alice. So was Gulliver. So am I with my ponderosa of PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) ([past (future) | future (past)]) Horizon of all horizons! The Horizon of IMU (Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe).

So, there is expansion (warp bubble, cone, gyroscope, zoom-telescoping macro-scoping and micro-scoping), from everywhere to everywhere (nowhere to nowhere). So, equal but oppositely, there is compaction (discrete compositing component-ism, infinite universe to infinitesimal universe (one and the same)) . . . and universes (the infinities of), from everywhere to everywhere (from nowhere to nowhere). And for all of an infinity of turning wheels (instances) of momentary time, instant to instant, moment to moment, change to change.... (for all Time (always reducing to T = 0 (null unity) |1 (unity) . . . and parity (+/-)).

 

[Michael Varn]

I thought that the James Webb telescope was going to debunk a few lesser known theories, but the possibility that the JWS may have proven the Big Bang theory wrong is astonishing to me.

The evidence was the JWS's discovery of a group of galaxys.

Now this has not been verified yet, but if these galaxys are as big and are as far away as the JWS suggests, this could be smoking gun proff that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

To clarify, this new theory does not suggest that the universe is not expanding, or has never been expanding.

The fact is the early universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter and this is not in dispute.

It just means that the expansion of the universe did not begin at some infinitesimally small point.

It means that the early universe may have resembled one of those old steady state models of an indefinite size.

And at some point in time, the steady state model began to expand as it continues today and into the future.

Now this potential discovery about the big bang is huge news, but the implications of what the JWS could discover could be alot more significant.

Imagine one day, the JWS is peering deep into the cosmos, way beyond the Hubble ultra deep feild, and there it is, in high definition:

The face of God!!!

But by the same token the JWS could discover absolute proof that God does not, and never has existed.

I know everyone want's to know as much as we can about the universe, and the JWS can help us get there.

But if you are a creation astronomer or an evolution astronomer, I would like to impart some wisdom to you:

Be carefully what you wish for, because you just might get it.

 

[murgatroyd]

Imagine one day, the JWS is peering deep into the cosmos, way beyond the Hubble ultra deep feild, and there it is, in high definition:

The face of God!!!

Maybe ...

Or maybe we see a sign MEN AT WORK, scaffolding, empty beer bottles ...

 

[Atlan0001]

Now this potential discovery about the big bang is huge news, but the implications of what the JWS could discover could be alot more significant.

Imagine one day, the JWS is peering deep into the cosmos, way beyond the Hubble ultra deep feild, and there it is, in high definition:

The face of God!!!

But by the same token the JWS could discover absolute proof that God does not, and never has existed.

I know everyone want's to know as much as we can about the universe, and the JWS can help us get there.

But if you are a creation astronomer or an evolution astronomer, I would like to impart some wisdom to you:

Be carefully what you wish for, because you just might get it.

You are time late and a dollar short. That "face" you speak of is there every time some human or alien wherever, whenever, goes out on a clear night and looks up toward the universe. An infinity and eternity moment immediately to....

 

[Michael Varn]

Exactly how far, in terms of light-years, can the JWS detect objects optically?

Does the range of the JWS's infrared, x ray, or ultraviolet sensors vary?

Exactly how much farther than Hubble can the JWS "see"?

I think that sharper JWS images of what Hubble has already seen are interesting, but I am more interested in what Hubble cannot see.

This thing is turning out to be alot more than a standard garden variety man made device that we have been shooting into space since the inception of the space program itself.

I would characteristics the JWS as a "freak of science", in a good way of course.

Think about it, the JWS cannot possibly be the most powerfull telescope that could be made, right?

Are there any future plans for an even more pwerfull telescope that could demote JWS relatively to a magnifying glass?

Does anyone else have any ideas or suggestions of what could be floating around out there beyond the Hubble Ultra deep feild?