Space Exploration - James Webb Telescope / Mars Rovers, etc

[RamFan503]

But, that's just the problem.... looking at those images, you see fully developed galaxies, billions of light years away.
If the universe is actually that diameter, then assuming we're in the middle of the universe, the edge of the universe is 2.7x10*23 miles, or 45.9 trillion light years away (unless I did the math wrong?).
Even if some of the galaxies in that image were 13.8 billion light years away, they should be nothing but twinkles in the big bang's eye--just one big amorphous cloud of gas.
Yet, there they are. Fully formed.
So, the universe is either infinitely old, or it's age is irrelevant to how fast / slow it developed. Or there are huge things we still don't understand about light, gravity, relativity, matter, etc.

 

[Merlin]

 

[Q729]

Well what if the universe is collapsing on itself and we're about to die in a few million years?

 

[Q729]

 

[thirteen28]

Found on Reddit … 2112, James Webb Edition

 

[Tano]

Yep life is a virtual certainty elsewhere in the universe. Question is not whether life is out there but rather how much is out there and whether any of it is alive in our current window of time. Time is as much a separator as distance there. Problem is most people don't understand the sheer staggering size of everything out there. It's hard to grasp the full import of it.

I can't wait for them to start using this thing on neighboring solar systems. As intrigued as I am about the age of the universe I am more intrigued by our little area of the galaxy and the question of do we have neighbors.

Can you imagine if humanity can spread to the stars? Some lucky SOB is gonna be able to dig up remains of alien species someday and walk the ruins of their cities. Maybe even trade and deal with other intelligent life forms in the galactic petri dish of species. Endlessly fascinating to think about. Course we'll be dead and buried and looked at like cavemen by those future humans.

Babylon 5 man

 

[Q729]

Hubble vs. James Webb telescope images: See the difference​

ABC News

These images are out of this world.

Since releasing the first images from its new James Webb Space Telescope earlier this week, NASA has been revealing the differences between Webb and its predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/hubble-james-webb-telescope-images-difference/story?id=86763039

 

[CGI_Ram]

Hubble vs. James Webb telescope images: See the difference​

ABC News

These images are out of this world.

Since releasing the first images from its new James Webb Space Telescope earlier this week, NASA has been revealing the differences between Webb and its predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/hubble-james-webb-telescope-images-difference/story?id=86763039

Thats a cool link worth checking out. The bottom link to ABCnews.

It has a slider you can drag to compare Hubble to Webb images. Real cool.

 

[XXXIVwin]

But, that's just the problem.... looking at those images, you see fully developed galaxies, billions of light years away.
If the universe is actually that diameter, then assuming we're in the middle of the universe, the edge of the universe is 2.7x10*23 miles, or 45.9 trillion light years away (unless I did the math wrong?).
Even if some of the galaxies in that image were 13.8 billion light years away, they should be nothing but twinkles in the big bang's eye--just one big amorphous cloud of gas.
Yet, there they are. Fully formed.
So, the universe is either infinitely old, or it's age is irrelevant to how fast / slow it developed. Or there are huge things we still don't understand about light, gravity, relativity, matter, etc. Either way, the concept of the universe evolving (and, by extension alien life evolving on other worlds in other galaxies) has to be reconsidered.
In other words, the possibility of life having evolved on billions of other planets over those billions of years is just as possible as the universe popping into existence, caused by a Creator, and Earth being the only planet in all the universe with intelligent life.

FWIW I think "most" (or at least "many") of the galaxies shown in that first Webb image are about 4.6 B years old. And I believe they said "some of the faintest light" is from objects "over 13 B years old." But I don't believe they claim to see any "fully formed galaxies that are 13.8 B years old", which is the approx age of the universe.

As of yet, I haven't heard of anything that says the Webb images contradict some of their basic theories. But frankly I hope they do... here's hoping they find some strange anomalies that force them to refine and reconsider their assumptions.

 

[Q729]

Thats a cool link worth checking out. The bottom link to ABCnews.

It has a slider you can drag to compare Hubble to Webb images. Real cool.

Yes, Thanks. I probably should've mentioned my reason for sharing.

 

[JonRam99]

FWIW I think "most" (or at least "many") of the galaxies shown in that first Webb image are about 4.6 B years old. And I believe they said "some of the faintest light" is from objects "over 13 B years old." But I don't believe they claim to see any "fully formed galaxies that are 13.8 B years old", which is the approx age of the universe.

As of yet, I haven't heard of anything that says the Webb images contradict some of their basic theories. But frankly I hope they do... here's hoping they find some strange anomalies that force them to refine and reconsider their assumptions.

To me, it depends on how far away those galaxies are.
A 4.6 B year old galaxy that's over 9.2 B light years away has already exceeded the 13.8 B yr old threshold, according to basic light-year calculations.
From that tiny "grain of sand" image, the tiniest-looking spiral (i.e., developed) galaxy should be the farthest away; so, how far away is it? then add the 4.6 B years it takes for a spiral galaxy to develop. If it's any farther away, it shouldn't have had the time to develop. Therefore, it shouldn't exist... but, there they are.

My main point is: a universe that's 90 T light years across, how fast did it expand? faster than light?? if limited by the speed of light, then a "big bang" formed universe must be 45 T(rillion) years old. Not 13.8B. (some scientists posit the "rapid expansion" theory... but what is that exactly?)
The math just simply doesn't work out for a "big bang" event. (nor does the physics, but that's another thread...) Not unless the universe is much, much older than is currently believed. Or, it just popped into existence.

 

[XXXIVwin]

To me, it depends on how far away those galaxies are.
A 4.6 B year old galaxy that's over 9.2 B light years away has already exceeded the 13.8 B yr old threshold, according to basic light-year calculations.
From that tiny "grain of sand" image, the tiniest-looking spiral (i.e., developed) galaxy should be the farthest away; so, how far away is it? then add the 4.6 B years it takes for a spiral galaxy to develop. ...

The math just simply doesn't work out for a "big bang" event.

With all due respect, I think you don't understand the math and physics behind Big Bang Theory very well. I don't claim to understand it that well either... I took a great Freshman Astronomy course in college over 30 years ago, so of course I've forgotten most all of it. But I certainly learned enough to know that many scientists had devoted their lifetimes to understanding this topic, and the "13.8 B age" theory is widely held.

Keep in mind, there is nothing that says "it takes 4.6 B years for a spiral galaxy to develop." All we know is, when we see a spiral galaxy that is 4.6 B light years away, then by definition we are "looking back in time" to see what that galaxy looked like 4.6 B years ago. We do NOT know how long it took for that galaxy to form. We just know that it took 4.6 B years for the light from it to reach us here on earth. So we don't know the "objective" age of a faraway galaxy. By definition, if light from a galaxy took 4.6 B light years to reach us, all we have is a "snapshot" of what that galaxy looked like 4.6 B years ago.

The farthest Hubble could see was stuff 13.2 B light years away. Apparently Webb will be able to see a little farther than that. But again, nothing so far from Webb has challenged the widely held theory of 13.8 B age of universe.

Hope this helps. To the best of my understanding, we have no way of definitively nailing down the "objective" age of galaxies based on Webb observations. We can make educated guesses about how long they took to develop. But by definition, for a galaxy that is "x" number of light years away, we can get a "snapshot" image of what it looked like "x" number of years ago. That's it.

 

[Q729]

Still looking at this stuff... God damn the universe is vast as fuck! Never mind the size of a single galaxy...

 

[1maGoh]

Hubble vs. James Webb telescope images: See the difference​

ABC News

These images are out of this world.

Since releasing the first images from its new James Webb Space Telescope earlier this week, NASA has been revealing the differences between Webb and its predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/hubble-james-webb-telescope-images-difference/story?id=86763039

 

[XXXIVwin]

God damn the universe is vast as fuck!

There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth.

I've seen various estimates of this-- either ten times more stars to sand grains, up to 10 thousand more stars than sand grains.

I think about this every time I go to the beach, and just pick up a handful of sand. I imagine all the beaches in the world, the Sahara, all the deserts. Just fifty yards of beach-- (imagined as stars)-- too big to contemplate. But all the sand grains on earth? Fuhgeddaboutit.

And the closest star to us is over 4 light years away. So to conceptualize, imagine Trillions and trillions of miles between each and every single grain of sand.

I mean, it's just... I mean... wow. Pass the bong.

 

[Loyal]

There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth.

I've seen various estimates of this-- either ten times more stars to sand grains, up to 10 thousand more stars than sand grains.

I think about this every time I go to the beach, and just pick up a handful of sand. I imagine all the beaches in the world, the Sahara, all the deserts. Just fifty yards of beach-- (imagined as stars)-- too big to contemplate. But all the sand grains on earth? Fuhgeddaboutit.

And the closest star to us is over 4 light years away. So to conceptualize, imagine Trillions and trillions of miles between each and every single grain of sand.

I mean, it's just... I mean... wow. Pass the bong.

View attachment 55076View attachment 55077

There are no stars here.....


View: https://twitter.com/Sciencenature14/status/1552865694076866560?s=20&t=ukSdwaJ_9aXqLGajoyhWGg

 

[Merlin]

And that's 752 million years while travelling at light speed. Crazy.

Do you think aliens have gas stations and truck stops somewhere in the middle of that thing?

 

[CGI_Ram]

Webb Captures Stellar Gymnastics in The Cartwheel Galaxy

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has peered into the chaos of the Cartwheel Galaxy, revealing new details about star formation and the galaxy’s central black hole. Webb’s powerful infrared gaze produced this detailed image of the Cartwheel and two smaller companion galaxies against a backdrop...

www.nasa.gov

Webb Captures Stellar Gymnastics in The Cartwheel Galaxy​

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has peered into the chaos of the Cartwheel Galaxy, revealing new details about star formation and the galaxy’s central black hole. Webb’s powerful infrared gaze produced this detailed image of the Cartwheel and two smaller companion galaxies against a backdrop of many other galaxies. This image provides a new view of how the Cartwheel Galaxy has changed over billions of years.

The Cartwheel Galaxy, located about 500 million light-years away in the Sculptor constellation, is a rare sight. Its appearance, much like that of the wheel of a wagon, is the result of an intense event – a high-speed collision between a large spiral galaxy and a smaller galaxy not visible in this image. Collisions of galactic proportions cause a cascade of different, smaller events between the galaxies involved; the Cartwheel is no exception.

The collision most notably affected the galaxy’s shape and structure. The Cartwheel Galaxy sports two rings — a bright inner ring and a surrounding, colorful ring. These two rings expand outwards from the center of the collision, like ripples in a pond after a stone is tossed into it. Because of these distinctive features, astronomers call this a “ring galaxy,” a structure less common than spiral galaxies like our Milky Way.

The bright core contains a tremendous amount of hot dust with the brightest areas being the home to gigantic young star clusters. On the other hand, the outer ring, which has expanded for about 440 million years, is dominated by star formation and supernovas. As this ring expands, it plows into surrounding gas and triggers star formation.

Other telescopes, including the Hubble Space Telescope, have previously examined the Cartwheel. But the dramatic galaxy has been shrouded in mystery – perhaps literally, given the amount of dust that obscures the view. Webb, with its ability to detect infrared light, now uncovers new insights into the nature of the Cartwheel.

The Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), Webb’s primary imager, looks in the near-infrared range from 0.6 to 5 microns, seeing crucial wavelengths of light that can reveal even more stars than observed in visible light. This is because young stars, many of which are forming in the outer ring, are less obscured by the presence of dust when observed in infrared light. In this image, NIRCam data are colored blue, orange, and yellow. The galaxy displays many individual blue dots, which are individual stars or pockets of star formation. NIRCam also reveals the difference between the smooth distribution or shape of the older star populations and dense dust in the core compared to the clumpy shapes associated with the younger star populations outside of it.

Learning finer details about the dust that inhabits the galaxy, however, requires Webb’s Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI). MIRI data are colored red in this composite image. It reveals regions within the Cartwheel Galaxy rich in hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds, as well as silicate dust, like much of the dust on Earth. These regions form a series of spiraling spokes that essentially form the galaxy’s skeleton. These spokes are evident in previous Hubble observations released in 2018, but they become much more prominent in this Webb image.

Webb’s observations underscore that the Cartwheel is in a very transitory stage. The galaxy, which was presumably a normal spiral galaxy like the Milky Way before its collision, will continue to transform. While Webb gives us a snapshot of the current state of the Cartwheel, it also provides insight into what happened to this galaxy in the past and how it will evolve in the future.

 

[Loyal]

View: https://twitter.com/redditSpacePorn/status/1556682987777003522?s=20&t=wji7fQ9iNQzBpiBc2WA4hA

 

[OldSchool]

Physicist uses a picture of a chorizo sausage and claims it's from James Webb Space Telescope

A French physicist has been caught in a social media storm after attempting to pass off a picture of a slice of chorizo as a distant star.

interestingengineering.com