NANCY GRACE T-SCOPE

[Randy222]

A telescope that is said to upend what we know about the "expanding" universe.

Ut-o.

[kite31]

The upending is already a conjecture or greater. The NGR scope will collect data for or against that view.

[Randy222]

The upending is already a conjecture or greater. The NGR scope will collect data for or against that view.

I suspect not. I suspect all it will do is make the existing textbook/poster observable universe squished sphere graphic a smidge bigger.

But 100% neat we humans keep trying.

[kite31]

You suspect not what? That people do not have conjectures about dark matter? That no data will be collected by NGR? That said data will not be interpreted for or against some conjecture? That you disagree with my punctuation?

[Randy222]

You suspect not what? That people do not have conjectures about dark matter? That no data will be collected by NGR? That said data will not be interpreted for or against some conjecture? That you disagree with my punctuation?

I often forget who is reading what I am writing.

Many already agree the universe is infinitely big. I am skeptical.
100 things will be disproven, 100 things will be proven, 101 new mysteries will arise.
Now run the math you know.

Anyways, can't wait for the new better pictures to come.

[Zondar]

It's primarily a fast, wide-field survey telescope.

Will it solve the dark-matter / dark-energy puzzle? Probably not, or not on its own, but I suspect we will be living with that problem for a few more decades. Personally (and I'm not a physicist), I have growing doubts that the whole "dark"-this-and-that notion will pan out. It's still quite possible that we aren't measuring or understanding non-"dark" physics at galactic or universe-wide scales well enough.

Anyway, the fact that we invest in these sorts of instruments gives me hope for humanity. I'm happy it launched safely and very much hope it has a long life and makes many contributions to science.

[Randy222]

We run with notion that there's only X amount of energy in the box (universe).
Observable energy (mass) has to come from somewhere. Perhaps it comes from dark energy? A "simple" conversion. Conservation of energy is preserved.

Today, this view is not accepted. 100yrs from now, might be.

But this new telescope, an interesting beast. I wonder what hubble gremlins will pop up and we need to do some space walks.

[Andy Chee]

The goal of this telescope is to search for more Type Ia supernovae.

True or false?

I don't think you're informed enough to provide the correct answer.  As such, the rest of your postings is just random uninformed internet conspiracy dribble.

I stand to be corrected.

[Andy Chee]

I wonder what hubble gremlins will pop up and we need to do some space walks.

Do you know where JWST is located?  Nancy Grace Roman will be located in the same place, inaccessible by space walks.

More uninformed nonsense.

[Andy Chee]

A telescope that is said to upend what we know about the "expanding" universe.

How is expansion (or in your case, non-expansion) of the universe measured?

I don't think you know, as such, any commentary can only be uninformed nonsense.

[Randy222]

redshift only means mass is moving away from some other reference point.

There is no way to measure if something is expanding unless you can tell me where the boundaries are at any given time.

You tell me what the something is you are measuring, and then how you measured at time(t) and then again at time(t+1).

I'll wait.

As for measuring the non-expanding thing (you call it "universe") I don't believe you can. My belief is that the space-time fabric is and has always been just infinitely big, has no boundaries, and all the energy within it gets to freely move around. When two super massive clusters collide, the end result is what most people believe as a singularity "big bang". The universe did not start from a "big bang" just some B years ago. The universe is exponentially way older than that. The "observable" uverse as defined today is just a result of a "big event" just some B years ago.

Anyways, the Grace scope will surely produce some data to chomp on for next 100yrs.

[Randy222]

I wonder what hubble gremlins will pop up and we need to do some space walks.

Do you know where JWST is located?  Nancy Grace Roman will be located in the same place, inaccessible by space walks.

More uninformed nonsense.

.....and to think we want to go to Mars, 142mil miles away.
A 3mo journey to make a fix would be a good test to see how good we can do. Humans dont need to go, send a bot.

As an aside, we still nowhere near getting past the moon. Certainly we have some time, the early phase of Red Giant that kills us in earth is ~2B years away. But like kids growing up, times goes fast.

[Smokey]

They'll name a telescope after anyone these days!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace

[paul cotter]

We don't know if the universe is either finite or infinite. We know for sure that it is expanding as some distant galaxies are receding at speeds greater than c and such speeds are impossible under special relativity UNLESS the intervening space is expanding.

[Randy222]

They'll name a telescope after anyone these days!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace

Only off by a generation, but they both always get answers, the truth. 

[Gyro]

Gaaah! I clicked on the thumbnail and she leapt out of the screen at me! 

[Analog Kid]

We don't know if the universe is either finite or infinite. We know for sure that it is expanding as some distant galaxies are receding at speeds greater than c and such speeds are impossible under special relativity UNLESS the intervening space is expanding.

Yawn.
Wake me when those pointy-headed scientists think they finally got this all figured out.

The instrument has yet to be invented that could measure my indifference to all this how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff.

[paul cotter]

I enjoy your posts, Analog Kid, but why are you on this thread if the topic bores you?

[Analog Kid]

I enjoy your posts, Analog Kid, but why are you on this thread if the topic bores you?

Just to point out how utterly irrelevant this whole discussion is to most people living on Planet Earth.

[Analog Kid]

They'll name a telescope after anyone these days!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace

Only off by a generation, but they both always get answers, the truth. 

She gets "the truth", eh?

From that Wikipedia article:

While a prosecutor, Grace was reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Georgia twice, once for withholding exculpatory evidence in a 1994 arson and murder case. The court overturned the conviction in that case and found that Grace's behavior "demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness and was inexcusable."^[10][11] Grace was reprimanded again by the Supreme Court of Georgia after the court found she "had injected prejudicial matters not in evidence [to the case] by making reference to a drug-related, execution-style triple murder and to a serial rapist in her closing argument" in a heroin trafficking case.^[12][11] Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Crcuit found that she "'played fast and loose' with her ethical duties" by knowingly using false testimony in a murder case.^[13]

Sounds like she plays pretty fast and loose with "the truth" in general.

[Randy222]

We don't know if the universe is either finite or infinite. We know for sure that it is expanding as some distant galaxies are receding at speeds greater than c and such speeds are impossible under special relativity UNLESS the intervening space is expanding.

What's the reference point for this observation, and receding from what exactly.

Galaxy-A goes left at 0.8c, Galaxy-B goes right at 0.5c. Observer-n sees the two moving away, and, also sees two galaxies moving away from each other at speed 1.3c. No need for space itself to be stretching like a balloon to observe things that appear faster than c.

[kite31]

Randy222 conflates two different (non-equivalent) reference points, and is thus wrong.

[Andy Chee]

I enjoy your posts, Analog Kid, but why are you on this thread if the topic bores you?

Just to point out how utterly irrelevant this whole discussion is to most people living on Planet Earth.

On the contrary, NGR is likely to stimulate new image analysis techniques that can be applied to other terrestrial imagery.

This image analysis can range from analysing MRI/CAT scans, to the controversial Flock cameras.

[Andy Chee]

redshift only means mass is moving away from some other reference point.

There is no way to measure if something is expanding unless you can tell me where the boundaries are at any given time.

You tell me what the something is you are measuring, and then how you measured at time(t) and then again at time(t+1).

I'll wait.

What is your explanation for the shifted emission spectra for the same type of star located at different "distances"?

[Analog Kid]

I enjoy your posts, Analog Kid, but why are you on this thread if the topic bores you?

Just to point out how utterly irrelevant this whole discussion is to most people living on Planet Earth.

On the contrary, NGR is likely to stimulate new image analysis techniques that can be applied to other terrestrial imagery.

Well, sure, the well-known "spin-off technology" effect.

Meh. Color me unimpressed. Hardly a way to justify, for instance (not in the case of NGR) the deployment of massive technologies intended to kill people and wreak destruction on one's enemy because some possibly unanticipated good might result as a side effect. (E.g., the Internet as an outgrowth of ARPANET.)

Although I am all for remote sensing exploration as opposed to catapulting hue-mons into outer space.

So hats off to NGR, I guess ...