Re: tOfficial Astronomy Thread

[Nordic]

Seems pretty simple to me. All matter gets sucked into the black hole of black holes. It bursts. Matter spreads through out the universe. Michigan State signs Mel Tucker. Natty.

[MiamiSpartan]

I watched this a couple days ago and this is the best explanation I've seen on the Big Bang, and even this takes a universal-sized leap of faith.

NOVA Universe Revealed: Big Bang

Define faith.

It is not a universal-sized leap of faith to understand what we call the big bang.  We see actual pictures of it just 300,000 years after it happened.  We can describe the math of what happened down to 10 to the -34th of a second after it happened.  In other words, it might take faith that the math is right in the same way it is a leap of faith to sit down in a chair.  Yes, the chair might collapse or be pulled out away from us, but the EVIDENCE is that we will sit in the chair unharmed.  

Religion is faith without evidence - trying to explain what we don't know by filling in something that we don't have evidence for and saying it explains everything.  That's bullshit.

Science takes faith in the sense that we have to accept that we as individuals can't know everything, so we have faith that science has the evidence to back it's claim.  When the evidence isn't there (as in what happened to cause the big bang, or what happened before the big bang, if there is such a thing), the overwhelming vast majority of real scientists admit they don't know....yet.

Knowing that you don't know is the first sign you're dealing with people that require actual evidence to support their claims.  I have faith in that.

Who is "we"?  Have you done the math?  Have you seen the pictures and recognize what it is on your own?  Or, like 99.99%+ of us, do you just believe what others tell you is the math and the evidence?  That's where we take it on faith.  

Also, as far as evidence goes, there is evidence of many things that aren't true.  Every theory ever come up with from Copernicus, to Newton, to Einstein, was based on evidence, much of which has been shown to be incorrect, leading to wrong conclusions, or been superceded by more detailed evidence (to varying degrees).  Logically, I find it difficult to think that we've suddenly got it right now, especially with 95% of the makeup of the universe being a complete mystery.

And here's something to chew on.  There is evidence that we are living in a simulation.  A study within the last couple of years put this chance at 50/50.  Many of the top astrophysicists accept this possibility.  So, if we are living in some advanced alien version of minecraft or sim city, then wouldn't the pimply faced alien teenager that is playing this game be, in essence, God?  

Yeah, I suppose I can geek out on this stuff a bit, which is weird because I wasn't a science major and am not in a science career.  But I find the mystery of all of this to be pretty incredible.  Not knowing opens up the imagination to great possibilities, including, but not limited to, destroying OSU tomorrow.

Edit: After re-reading that, the first couple of paragraphs sound like it could be interpreted as anti-science or science skeptical, so just to be clear, I'm very pro-science. I just like to think about what we don't know.

[Floyd Robertson]

OK, now you make it sound like we're living under a giant's fingernail or something.

[gomersbro]

OK, now you make it sound like we're living under a giant's fingernail or something.

That is what I actually wanted the end of Game of Thrones to be, they were living in that Giants Blue eye just like old Nan told Bran. Never watched the end of the series, but have been told that wasn't the case. I think that would have been cool to see that we could all just be someone's dream.

[TrapperGus]

Well yes & no.

In the field of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a fundamental theory that explains why it is impossible to measure more than one quantum variable simultaneously. Another implication of the uncertainty principle is that it is impossible to accurately measure the energy of a system in some finite amount of time.

In effect Heisenburg said that Newton's calculus where the limit of a variable goes to zero but you can still infer the value of a function has a flaw in physical reality.  In order to measure velocity, for instance, a moving object's distance traveled must be observed for a finite amount of time.  Thus where physical variables are depend on each other for physical definition they cannot be both known exactly by measurement.

Related to what you said is the fact that the change rate of time is a variable, Einstein's huge discovery. How fast time changes relates to an acceleration factor (field) at a given point in space.  Time at the surface of the earth changes slower than time does for an object in orbit around the earth, because gravity, an acceleration  field, is stronger.

Prior to and at the inflection point (start of time, when the big bang started) of the big bang the rate of change for time was different.  Time may not have existed.

Physicists have caused time to run backward at the quantum level of reality.

It is really hard, outside a descriptive discussion, to see the rate of change of time as variable, but it has been proven that it is, thus without time the existence of "nothing" is possible.

[AvgMSUJoe]

[AvgMSUJoe]

So another physics thing I can wrap my head around is something about the universe being a reflection of itself and there being multiple points with the exact same thing happening (or some shit???)...

So on the other side of the universe there is another steve irritating 80% of message board posters at any given time?

[TrapperGus]

So another physics thing I can wrap my head around is something about the universe being a reflection of itself and there being multiple points with the exact same thing happening (or some shit???)...

So on the other side of the universe there is another steve irritating 80% of message board posters at any given time?

That is one of the speculations which has only math to support it, but cannot, at this point be disproven. As Karl Popper said, a theory which cannot be tested is not science.

[Rick Saunders]

Well yes & no.

In the field of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a fundamental theory that explains why it is impossible to measure more than one quantum variable simultaneously. Another implication of the uncertainty principle is that it is impossible to accurately measure the energy of a system in some finite amount of time.

In effect Heisenburg said that Newton's calculus where the limit of a variable goes to zero but you can still infer the value of a function has a flaw in physical reality.  In order to measure velocity, for instance, a moving object's distance traveled must be observed for a finite amount of time.  Thus where physical variables are depend on each other for physical definition they cannot be both known exactly by measurement.

Related to what you said is the fact that the change rate of time is a variable, Einstein's huge discovery. How fast time changes relates to an acceleration factor (field) at a given point in space.  Time at the surface of the earth changes slower than time does for an object in orbit around the earth, because gravity, an acceleration  field, is stronger.

Prior to and at the inflection point (start of time, when the big bang started) of the big bang the rate of change for time was different.  Time may not have existed.

Physicists have caused time to run backward at the quantum level of reality.

It is really hard, outside a descriptive discussion, to see the rate of change of time as variable, but it has been proven that it is, thus without time the existence of "nothing" is possible.

Sometimes I feel like a god because I can turn particles into waves just by observing them. Then I realize everyone can.

[MSU addict]

Please correct me if I am wrong - but there is no math that supports the "how" or "why" of the big bang theory. The math supports the evolution of the universe as we know it (there are some anomalies), but not its creation.

The creation of the universe under the big bang theory violates the fundamental laws of physics - including the first law of thermodynamics (that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed) and the theory of relativity (nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).

[TrapperGus]

Please correct me if I am wrong - but there is no math that supports the "how" or "why" of the big bang theory.  The math supports the evolution of the universe as we know it (there are some anomalies), but not its creation.  

The creation of the universe under the big bang theory violates the fundamental laws of physics - including the first law of thermodynamics (that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed) and the theory of relativity (nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).

The math is actually the easy part, at least until something like ten to the minus 38 (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001) seconds after the big bang.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the very edge of the observable Universe is about 13.8 billion light-years away. This light left the Universe when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, this is around the limit of what we can observe ...

379,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled down enough to become transparent, according to calculations.  Photons, that is, visible light, from the hot plasma that filled the Universe at that time, have traveled ever since and are now represented by redshift in the microwave range.  Thus, the farthest point in time, which is currently actively observed: 13.7 ± 0.037 billion years is 379,000 years after the big bang.

edit - I think you are asking how did or why did the Big bang occur, for which the speculation answer is that it was an time/energy fluctuation in "H" space.  H space a super set which includes all of the universe and possibly more.  Part of what is really confusing for us laypeople is that only about 4% of the universe we know about interacts in ways, other than gravity, that we can observe.  The math shows us what happened immediately 10**-38 seconds after the big bang and observations give us information starting at 379,000 years after the big bang.

[Nordic]

Imma gonna grab a gummy bear and read this thread tonight.

[MiamiSpartan]

Please correct me if I am wrong - but there is no math that supports the "how" or "why" of the big bang theory.  The math supports the evolution of the universe as we know it (there are some anomalies), but not its creation.  

The creation of the universe under the big bang theory violates the fundamental laws of physics - including the first law of thermodynamics (that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed) and the theory of relativity (nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).

The math is actually the easy part, at least until something like ten to the minus 38 (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001) seconds after the big bang.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the very edge of the observable Universe is about 13.8 billion light-years away. This light left the Universe when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, this is around the limit of what we can observe ...

379,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled down enough to become transparent, according to calculations.  Photons, that is, visible light, from the hot plasma that filled the Universe at that time, have traveled ever since and are now represented by redshift in the microwave range.  Thus, the farthest point in time, which is currently actively observed: 13.7 ± 0.037 billion years is 379,000 years after the big bang.

edit - I think you are asking how did or why did the Big bang occur, for which the speculation answer is that it was an time/energy fluctuation in "H" space.  H space a super set which includes all of the universe and possibly more.  Part of what is really confusing for us laypeople is that only about 4% of the universe we know about interacts in ways, other than gravity, that we can observe.  The math shows us what happened immediately 10**-38 seconds after the big bang and observations give us information starting at 379,000 years after the big bang.

In other words, MSU addict is correct that there is no math that supports the how or why it started.  That's not a criticism of it, it's just another of those things that we simply can't know with the current understanding of Math and Physics.

[TrapperGus]

The math is actually the easy part, at least until something like ten to the minus 38 (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001) seconds after the big bang.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the very edge of the observable Universe is about 13.8 billion light-years away. This light left the Universe when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, this is around the limit of what we can observe ...

379,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled down enough to become transparent, according to calculations.  Photons, that is, visible light, from the hot plasma that filled the Universe at that time, have traveled ever since and are now represented by redshift in the microwave range.  Thus, the farthest point in time, which is currently actively observed: 13.7 ± 0.037 billion years is 379,000 years after the big bang.

edit - I think you are asking how did or why did the Big bang occur, for which the speculation answer is that it was an time/energy fluctuation in "H" space.  H space a super set which includes all of the universe and possibly more.  Part of what is really confusing for us laypeople is that only about 4% of the universe we know about interacts in ways, other than gravity, that we can observe.  The math shows us what happened immediately 10**-38 seconds after the big bang and observations give us information starting at 379,000 years after the big bang.

In other words, MSU addict is correct that there is no math that supports the how or why it started.  That's not a criticism of it, it's just another of those things that we simply can't know with the current understanding of Math and Physics.

Most agree that before the big bang there was no rate of change of time, thus talking about how something started without the existence of time is hard to do.

[MiamiSpartan]

In other words, MSU addict is correct that there is no math that supports the how or why it started.  That's not a criticism of it, it's just another of those things that we simply can't know with the current understanding of Math and Physics.

Most agree that before the big bang there was no rate of change of time, thus talking about how something started without the existence of time is hard to do.

To quote you quoting Karl Hopper, a theory that can't be tested is not science.

[TrapperGus]

Most agree that before the big bang there was no rate of change of time, thus talking about how something started without the existence of time is hard to do.

To quote you quoting Karl Hopper, a theory that can't be tested is not science.  

Correct, the theory works and has not be disproven back to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the universe started.  Before that it is a guess.

[Frank Ricard]

Please correct me if I am wrong - but there is no math that supports the "how" or "why" of the big bang theory. The math supports the evolution of the universe as we know it (there are some anomalies), but not its creation.

The creation of the universe under the big bang theory violates the fundamental laws of physics - including the first law of thermodynamics (that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed) and the theory of relativity (nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).

I'd refer you to some talks by Lawrence Krauss. He wrote a book from a Universe from Nothing. The book and his numerous talks he's given you can look up on youtube talks about how the universe coming from nothing does not violate any laws on the conservation of energy. Since I'm not a theoretical physicist and I guess I'm not allowed by some posters I can't say the collective "we" (jfc, never claimed to be), Krauss talks about how the universe's shape is "flat" and apparently this tells scientists that the net energy of the universe is zero. Dont ask me to explain it. But, yes, I do have faith that these people have done their peer reviewed theories are correct or at minimum, far closer to the truth we've ever been.

[MiamiSpartan]

Please correct me if I am wrong - but there is no math that supports the "how" or "why" of the big bang theory. The math supports the evolution of the universe as we know it (there are some anomalies), but not its creation.

The creation of the universe under the big bang theory violates the fundamental laws of physics - including the first law of thermodynamics (that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed) and the theory of relativity (nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).

I'd refer you to some talks by Lawrence Krauss. He wrote a book from a Universe from Nothing. The book and his numerous talks he's given you can look up on youtube talks about how the universe coming from nothing does not violate any laws on the conservation of energy. Since I'm not a theoretical physicist and I guess I'm not allowed by some posters I can't say the collective "we" (jfc, never claimed to be), Krauss talks about how the universe's shape is "flat" and apparently this tells scientists that the net energy of the universe is zero. Dont ask me to explain it. But, yes, I do have faith that these people have done their peer reviewed theories are correct or at minimum, far closer to the truth we've ever been.

Did you really misunderstand that point of mine so badly? I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I most certainly want saying that you can't comment on something if you aren't an expert (I definitely am not). That was about the faith discussion, and my point was that you (and me, and 99.99%+ of people) take what extremely high level scientists say on faith. Faith that their math and their observations show what they say that they show.

[Frank Ricard]

I'd refer you to some talks by Lawrence Krauss.  He wrote a book from a Universe from Nothing.  The book and his numerous talks he's given you can look up on youtube talks about how the universe coming from nothing does not violate any laws on the conservation of energy.  Since I'm not a theoretical physicist and I guess I'm not allowed by some posters I can't say the collective "we" (jfc, never claimed to be), Krauss talks about how the universe's shape is "flat" and apparently this tells scientists that the net energy of the universe is zero.  Dont ask me to explain it.  But, yes, I do have faith that these people have done their peer reviewed theories are correct or at minimum, far closer to the truth we've ever been.

Did you really misunderstand that point of mine so badly?  I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I most certainly want saying that you can't comment on something if you aren't an expert (I definitely am not).  That was about the faith discussion, and my point was that you (and me, and 99.99%+ of people) take what extremely high level scientists say on faith.  Faith that their math and their observations show what they say that they show.

Apology accepted lol. For me, it's a little bit more than having faith. I'm obviously not a theoretical physicist, but I've probably had more advanced math than most.  Not nearly enough to be any more than to be at a barely basic level, but more than just 'I'll take their word for it'.

I have done equations figuring time dilation and length contraction problems in calc based physics classes.  What was amazing to me at the time (circa 1980) and still amazes me today that we in the class in an undergraduate junior level physics class were able to do some of the calculations that took Einstein a few years to get it right with General Relativity.  Never took a class in quantum mechanics, but again, had numerous chemistry classes that indirectly involve understanding things like quantum states like spin, energy levels, spectrography, etc.

There are also some great youtube channels with Leonard Susskind from Stanford and Brian Greene that do go DEEPLY into the math, as in Susskind's class is at the post graduate level.  Now, could I do these any of these calculations on my own?  Hell no.  But when I watch these experts do them, do I have a pretty good idea what they're doing?  Yeah, I do get some of it and enough to have faith that they're on the right path and believing them is a reasonable thing to think.

I have few regrets in life.  One was not getting a pilots license.  The other was not going into astronomy and physics.  I was a computer science engineering major where I had the math classes, realized I absolutely hated programming, then switched to agronomy (turf, because I loved golf and decided I should get a degree in something I actually liked), where I had a lot of biology and science classes.  Didn't graduate until I was 27.  Then ran golf courses 25 years, after doing a stint as a stock broker for 5 years.  Retired 6 years ago.  Should have switched to astronomy all those years ago and I ended up taking a couple of astronomy classes to see what it was like, but went a different direction  (took them in the old Astronomy building - one of my favorite buildings on campus).  But that's life.  Running golf courses wasn't bad until I reached 50, then it became work.  But now I really do wish I would have continued the math/physics path I was on, but instead of computers, doing it for astronomy.

[TrapperGus]

Did you really misunderstand that point of mine so badly? I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I most certainly want saying that you can't comment on something if you aren't an expert (I definitely am not). That was about the faith discussion, and my point was that you (and me, and 99.99%+ of people) take what extremely high level scientists say on faith. Faith that their math and their observations show what they say that they show.

Apology accepted lol. For me, it's a little bit more than having faith. I'm obviously not a theoretical physicist, but I've probably had more advanced math than most. Not nearly enough to be any more than to be at a barely basic level, but more than just 'I'll take their word for it'.

I have done equations figuring time dilation and length contraction problems in calc based physics classes. What was amazing to me at the time (circa 1980) and still amazes me today that we in the class in an undergraduate junior level physics class were able to do some of the calculations that took Einstein a few years to get it right with General Relativity. Never took a class in quantum mechanics, but again, had numerous chemistry classes that indirectly involve understanding things like quantum states like spin, energy levels, spectrography, etc.

There are also some great youtube channels with Leonard Susskind from Stanford and Brian Greene that do go DEEPLY into the math, as in Susskind's class is at the post graduate level. Now, could I do these any of these calculations on my own? Hell no. But when I watch these experts do them, do I have a pretty good idea what they're doing? Yeah, I do get some of it and enough to have faith that they're on the right path and believing them is a reasonable thing to think.

I have few regrets in life. One was not getting a pilots license. The other was not going into astronomy and physics. I was a computer science engineering major where I had the math classes, realized I absolutely hated programming, then switched to agronomy (turf, because I loved golf and decided I should get a degree in something I actually liked), where I had a lot of biology and science classes. Didn't graduate until I was 27. Then ran golf courses 25 years, after doing a stint as a stock broker for 5 years. Retired 6 years ago. Should have switched to astronomy all those years ago and even took a couple of astronomy classes to see what it was like, but went a different direction (took them in the old Astronomy building - one of my favorite buildings on campus). But that's life. Running golf courses wasn't bad until I reached 50, then it became work. But now I really do wish I would have continued the math/physics path I was on, but instead of computers, doing it for astronomy instead.

The really amazing result from Quantum theories are the math predicting results down to the tenth decimal place which were later shown to be correct by experiment. This type of precision is why the period from immediately after the big bang until observation of the universe at about 279,000 years after the big bang is able to be known via the quantum math theroy.

[Frank Ricard]

Apology accepted lol. For me, it's a little bit more than having faith. I'm obviously not a theoretical physicist, but I've probably had more advanced math than most.  Not nearly enough to be any more than to be at a barely basic level, but more than just 'I'll take their word for it'.

I have done equations figuring time dilation and length contraction problems in calc based physics classes.  What was amazing to me at the time (circa 1980) and still amazes me today that we in the class in an undergraduate junior level physics class were able to do some of the calculations that took Einstein a few years to get it right with General Relativity.  Never took a class in quantum mechanics, but again, had numerous chemistry classes that indirectly involve understanding things like quantum states like spin, energy levels, spectrography, etc.

There are also some great youtube channels with Leonard Susskind from Stanford and Brian Greene that do go DEEPLY into the math, as in Susskind's class is at the post graduate level.  Now, could I do these any of these calculations on my own?  Hell no.  But when I watch these experts do them, do I have a pretty good idea what they're doing?  Yeah, I do get some of it and enough to have faith that they're on the right path and believing them is a reasonable thing to think.

I have few regrets in life.  One was not getting a pilots license.  The other was not going into astronomy and physics.  I was a computer science engineering major where I had the math classes, realized I absolutely hated programming, then switched to agronomy (turf, because I loved golf and decided I should get a degree in something I actually liked), where I had a lot of biology and science classes.  Didn't graduate until I was 27.  Then ran golf courses 25 years, after doing a stint as a stock broker for 5 years.  Retired 6 years ago.  Should have switched to astronomy all those years ago and even took a couple of astronomy classes to see what it was like, but went a different direction  (took them in the old Astronomy building - one of my favorite buildings on campus).  But that's life.  Running golf courses wasn't bad until I reached 50, then it became work.  But now I really do wish I would have continued the math/physics path I was on, but instead of computers, doing it for astronomy instead.

The really amazing result from Quantum theories are the math predicting results down to the tenth decimal place which were later shown to be correct by experiment.  This type of precision is why the period from immediately after the big bang until observation of the universe at about 279,000 years after the big bang is able to be known via the quantum math theroy.

Richard Feynman, who was initially scoffed at by his peers, showed that quantum electrodynamics mathematics was accurate to something like the 8th decimal place to observations.

But even with this level of knowledge, even the most brilliant of scientists know that we're far from knowing how it all works.  And that why I actually accept the overwhelming vast majority findings in science, especially in the astrophysical branches of science.  I like when people know when they don't know and admit it.  People need to know the limits of their expertise and knowledge.  I'm very wary of anyone who says the contrary.  Reminds of a certain ex-president who said in his nomination acceptance speech "I alone can fix it".  Anyone who says that is full of shit.

Next June we'll be in Geneva, if travel can at least stay where it's at.  Just got back from Iceland ( posted a couple of pics in the "Post your current weather status" thread a couple days back.  I think they came out pretty good - check 'em out lol), so international travel is still possible.  I want to tour CERN.  It's possible to get these tours, but they only book a few weeks out at a time.  Fingers crossed.

[TrapperGus]

The really amazing result from Quantum theories are the math predicting results down to the tenth decimal place which were later shown to be correct by experiment.  This type of precision is why the period from immediately after the big bang until observation of the universe at about 279,000 years after the big bang is able to be known via the quantum math theroy.

Richard Feynman, who was initially scoffed at by his peers, showed that quantum electrodynamics mathematics was accurate to something like the 8th decimal place to observations.

But even with this level of knowledge, even the most brilliant of scientists know that we're far from knowing how it all works.  And that why I actually accept the overwhelming vast majority findings in science, especially in the astrophysical branches of science.  I like when people know when they don't know and admit it.  People need to know the limits of their expertise and knowledge.  I'm very wary of anyone who says the contrary.  Reminds of a certain ex-president who said in his nomination acceptance speech "I alone can fix it".  Anyone who says that is full of shit.

Next June we'll be in Geneva, if travel can at least stay where it's at.  Just got back from Iceland ( posted a couple of pics in the "Post your current weather status" thread a couple days back.  I think they came out pretty good - check 'em out lol), so international travel is still possible.  I want to tour CERN.  It's possible to get these tours, but they only book a few weeks out at a time.  Fingers crossed.

Agreed that we don't have a TOE, however knowing in theory the dynamics of the big bang back to one Plank Time Step after the beginning is pretty impressive.

I also think that knowing that time is not an absolute and that there is a logical fallacy involved in "knowing how it all started" because it didn't "start", as that presumes a time progression from before the time itself had started.

Since there was no time as we know it before the big bang "start" is a misleading idea.  

To me the universe exists and since there was no "before the universe" there is nothing to talk about regarding "how or why it exists".  All that can be talked about it how it fits together during its existence.

edit - if some genius figures out how to observe the 94% of the universe which does not interact with photons & the other bosons, aka QED or QCD, and thus can observe "the rest of the story" then maybe that will drastically change this.

[DWags]

This is a bit concerning actually. Do they know something we don't know? I mean I get it, you need to practice. But my paranoid self tells me they know some thing is headed our way. Better not his before Tucker wins a National Championship.

NASA is going to practice firing a bullet at asteroid to see if they can change it's orbit. WTF? I

[Floyd Robertson]

This is a bit concerning actually. Do they know something we don't know? I mean I get it, you need to practice. But my paranoid self tells me they know some thing is headed our way. Better not his before Tucker wins a National Championship.

NASA is going to practice firing a bullet at asteroid to see if they can change it's orbit. WTF? I

I just want to know if Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi are on stand-by with their crew in case this thing fails.

[The Pantry]

How To Watch Comet Leonard's Return To Earth's Orbit After A 70,000 Year Hiatus

[Floyd Robertson]

Pretty cool gif of Leonard's flyby through our solar system. It looks like a near-collision with Venus, astronomically-speaking.

[Trapper Gus]

This is a bit concerning actually. Do they know something we don't know? I mean I get it, you need to practice. But my paranoid self tells me they know some thing is headed our way. Better not his before Tucker wins a National Championship.

NASA is going to practice firing a bullet at asteroid to see if they can change it's orbit. WTF? I

I just want to know if Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi are on stand-by with their crew in case this thing fails.

Are they going to use the SR-71 or a shuttle?

[Floyd Robertson]

I just want to know if Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi are on stand-by with their crew in case this thing fails.

Are they going to use the SR-71 or a shuttle?

Hmmm, a retired jet or a retired space vehicle. IDK, maybe they can draw something else up quick.

[Trapper Gus]

https://apnews.com/article/space-launches-space-exploration-science-health-business-2e43570579dcb8a25d7afa89ce4cb8b6

NASA’s newest X-ray telescope rockets into orbit

[tGreenWay]

This is a bit concerning actually. Do they know something we don't know? I mean I get it, you need to practice. But my paranoid self tells me they know some thing is headed our way. Better not his before Tucker wins a National Championship.

NASA is going to practice firing a bullet at asteroid to see if they can change it's orbit. WTF? I

I admit to having the same thought.

[Trapper Gus]

This is a bit concerning actually. Do they know something we don't know? I mean I get it, you need to practice. But my paranoid self tells me they know some thing is headed our way. Better not his before Tucker wins a National Championship.

NASA is going to practice firing a bullet at asteroid to see if they can change it's orbit. WTF? I

I admit to having the same thought.

Me thinks you guys missed the movie "The Butterfly Effect"

The basic idea is that a tiny change in orbit years before there is a potential collision causes a big enough change years later to avoid the collision.

[Trapper Gus]

Hopefully NASA gets to launch their Christmas Present.

https://www.axios.com/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-launch-watch-live-ce67b698-57a6-4f2f-941a-033887918fd2.html

[Trapper Gus]

Launch complete!

The Webb is on its way.

https://www.space.com/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-next-steps

[MiamiSpartan]

The Webb telescope seems pretty amazing. Going out some 4x further than the moon, and will shield heat and light from the earth and the sun so as not to interfere with what it can do. Should produce some incredible pictures and data. And what is it, some 300+ points of potential failure between now and being operational in 6 months? Hope they don't need a repair team like the Hubble did. I don't mean that as a negative, but rather just a reminder of how incredibly difficult it is to pull off things in space, especially that deep into space.

[Trapper Gus]

The Webb telescope seems pretty amazing. Going out some 4x further than the moon, and will shield heat and light from the earth and the sun so as not to interfere with what it can do. Should produce some incredible pictures and data. And what is it, some 300+ points of potential failure between now and being operational in 6 months? Hope they don't need a repair team like the Hubble did. I don't mean that as a negative, but rather just a reminder of how incredibly difficult it is to pull off things in space, especially that deep into space.

There are 6 months to go before we know if everything worked, however, launch is probably the biggest risk overall and that is over, along with power up and the first "course correction" burn.

[Turtleneck]

The Solar System Exists Inside a Giant, Mysterious Void, And We Finally Know Why

A team of astronomers led by the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) has now mapped the Local Bubble with the highest precision yet – and found that the Local Bubble was likely carved out of the interstellar medium by a series of supernova explosions millions of years ago.

This is consistent with previous studies, with an additional sting in the tail: the still-expanding Local Bubble is responsible for regions of heightened star formation at its perimeter.

"This is really an origin story; for the first time we can explain how all nearby star formation began," says astronomer Catherine Zucker of the Space Telescope Science Institute, who conducted the research while at the CfA.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-solar-system-floats-in-a-void-now-we-know-how-that-void-triggered-the-formation-of-stars

[Floyd Robertson]

"series of supernova explosions millions of years ago"

Really? Like not last week?

[Rick Saunders]

The Solar System Exists Inside a Giant, Mysterious Void, And We Finally Know Why

Sorry guys. I just started this high fiber diet.

[tGreenWay]

"series of supernova explosions millions of years ago"

Really? Like not last week?

Mr. Crankypants. Did you and Rick just start a high fiber diet together?

[Trapper Gus]

Tiny bubbles ... in the wine ...

[Sponsored content]