• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

James Webb Telescope

Unfortunately there was a ton of sensational language in that article.

There are things that are definitely broken though, just hard to tell exactly what they are from that article.

Is the discovery of unimaginably distant galaxies a mirage, or a revolution?
Click to expand...

That was particularly annoying to me anyway. It's neither mirage nor revolution and its galaxies where we expected to find them. That completely overlooks the part that may be "revolutionary", their size and structure.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
That was particularly annoying to me anyway. It's neither mirage nor revolution and its galaxies where we expected to find them. That completely overlooks the part that may be "revolutionary", their size and structure.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
I agree. Generally, Scientific American does a pretty decent job of science journalism, but I think someone went more than a little over the top with this particular article.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of this hyperbole in newspaper coverage of the James Webb telescope, I do wonder if there's an element of 'attempting to justify the astronomical cost to the general public' going on.

But we knew all along it would revolutionise our understanding of a lot of things, that's what will justify the cost. We just didn't know exactly what we would learn. If we had, we wouldn't have needed to build it.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
That is true. And so is the next sentence I wrote after that one.
Click to expand...

It simply is not

When they pointed HST at dark sky most experts thought it was a waste of time.

The cosmos consistently out performs our expectations.

I get the feeling defending the big bang is not defending the big bang. You attach your identity to science. The earth is round. Life evolves. Vaccines work. The climate changes. The universe is expanding.

You will defend all of that wholesale, because your identity is based upon it.

But these ideas about how the universe began.... c'mon. I can question that, and keep my scientific identity in tact.

Failing to ask questions about your own beliefs is a failure to be scientific.
 
Making up hypotheses out of thin air and believing in them without evidence is a failure to be scientific. That's true even if one of them, by sheer chance, eventually turns out to be correct.
 
Mike Helland said:
But these ideas about how the universe began.... c'mon. I can question that, and keep my scientific identity in tact.

Failing to ask questions about your own beliefs is a failure to be scientific.
Click to expand...

The problem has never been that you question anything. There are actually two problems. First, you are very selective in your questions. You never examine alternatives (the loony stuff) with a critical eye. And second, you don’t really listen to the answers, and you don’t seem to learn.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, you are very selective in your questions. You never examine alternatives (the loony stuff) with a critical eye. And second, you don’t really listen to the answers, and you don’t seem to learn.
Click to expand...

I am very selective.

Science, to me, has a lot to do with controlled experiments. Repeatability. Practical technology. Impractical wizardry even.

This "theory" tells us how existence was born. And gives us nothing else. And is in conflict with our observations of the cosmos. Has been for decades. Just keeps getting worse.

I am very selective. I have my doubts about it. You don't. But this isn't about me or you. It's about the idea.
 
Good grief Mike. What I said was true, you had to ignore half of what I said to even spin it. And I know about the history of HST. And if you just read the second sentence you failed to quote, then you would know I also know we've been surprised and I know the nature of the surprises.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Good grief Mike. What I said was true, you had to ignore half of what I said to even spin it. And I know about the history of HST. And if you just read the second sentence you failed to quote, then you would know I also know we've been surprised and I know the nature of the surprises.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to this:

"That completely overlooks the part that may be "revolutionary", their size and structure."

I don't think you've been paying attention. That's exactly the issue here. There are massive, evolved galaxies at all distances.
 
Mike Helland said:
Are you referring to this:

"That completely overlooks the part that may be "revolutionary", their size and structure."

I don't think you've been paying attention. That's exactly the issue here. There are massive, evolved galaxies at all distances.
Click to expand...

I know it's the issue. You just quoted me saying it's revolutionary.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? It's simple English.

BTW and you have other misunderstandings that seem pointless to repeat here.
 
Mike Helland said:
I am very selective.
Click to expand...

Then you are very badly selective, because you've put forth as worthy of consideration "theories" which have been repeatedly debunked and which don't withstand even cursory scrutiny.

This "theory" tells us how existence was born. And gives us nothing else.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect cosmology to do anything else?

And is in conflict with our observations of the cosmos. Has been for decades. Just keeps getting worse.
Click to expand...

Not really. Stop believing journalists over scientists. I've explained to you multiple times where the conflicts actually are, but you never seem to learn.
 
arthwollipot said:
I agree. Generally, Scientific American does a pretty decent job of science journalism, but I think someone went more than a little over the top with this particular article.
Click to expand...

Here's Sabine's take on "the big bang didn't happen" articles:

https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547/

And here's her take on the SciAm article:

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1570024514028707841

An excellent summary from @Astro_Jonny about what the new #JWST means for the concordance model.

(And kudos for not conflating this with the big bang...)
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
Then you are very badly selective, because you've put forth as worthy of consideration "theories" which have been repeatedly debunked and which don't withstand even cursory scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I make conjectures. I don't believe in them.

I write software, I write stories, I write songs. Not all of them work.


Why would you expect cosmology to do anything else?
Click to expand...

Of course.

Cosmology exists specifically to tell us how everything was created? Interesting.

Not really. Stop believing journalists over scientists. I've explained to you multiple times where the conflicts actually are, but you never seem to learn.
Click to expand...

Ok, amigo. Have a great day.
 
I'm sure some people appreciate your links since the links themselves are interesting but...

Why quote them without your own comments? We have no idea what loony toons take away you have from those links so you aren't going to get any helpful feedback with this.
 
Jesus Christ I remember when people where butthurt that the Hubble didn't see God and I was hoping we'd were over that for the Webb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom