Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

skyandtelescope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–547 of 547 posts

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#541

Post by bardworx »

JimBlackwood wrote: post #540
bardworx wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, still very much misunderstood. There is an experiment showing the dominant mechanism (so still only explaining a part!) between solid-solid and a generic model proposed that can be used to explain other interactions (solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, etc). This seems like a very large part, no? I mean, we know it works, we get the majority of it, and it doesn’t seem super necessary to spend a lot of dollars and brai…

Sorry for my late response. Anyway: I get your point. However, this is worked on by researchers who get paid to work on unsolved problems. This is one of them. It's a surprising one, since it looks like such a simple and obvious effect governed by physics we've (seemingly) understood for centuries. Gauss's Laws are from 1773 and much of the work on static electricity is from that era. So, it's not just an internet de…

Maybe there are researchers who want to study the discrepancies of static electricity but if they don’t get funding, then they won’t be paid and have to take other priorities.

Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#542

Post by jquery »

moffkalast wrote: post #495
jquery wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me, as a layperson, if MOND was hypothesized first, it would be the dominant theory. It’s so elegant and simple with so much explanatory power. However, because it was hypothesized much later, the fact it matches past predictions is given no weight, despite its simplicity. I think this is a bit of a mistake. I believe that simplicity itself is evidence. Dark matter theory is starting to feel like the epic…

I was pretty convinced that dark matter is made up nonsense and that RelMOND is probably correct, but then I learned of the Bullet cluster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to... Two clusters collided, with most of the observable objects being just past the middle point right now, however most of the mass seems have already shot way out to the edges, as if it passed right through everything.…

Here's a good response to MOND re: the bullet cluster - https://web.archive.org/web/20160721044735/http://www.astro....

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#543

Post by moloch-hai »

eru wrote: post #536
moloch-hai wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do. Many don't. Much of Wikipedia is "curated" by retired professors carefully scrubbing mention of anything new that makes their graduate thesis look ill-conceived.

> Much of Wikipedia is "curated" by retired professors carefully scrubbing mention of anything new that makes their graduate thesis look ill-conceived. What makes you think so? What evidence do you have?

Have you read any of it?

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#544

Post by make3 »

function_seven wrote: post #64
seanw444 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, as I understand it. No matter can travel at the speed of light, and no light can travel faster than the speed of light. But the rule doesn't extend to the rate of expansion of the "field" on which those things exist.

I vote we bring back “aether” as a valid term. The aether is stretching everywhere, and in so doing it spreads distant things away faster than light can overcome.

I mean that's just space

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#545

Post by make3 »

seszett wrote: post #81
seanw444 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, as I understand it. No matter can travel at the speed of light, and no light can travel faster than the speed of light. But the rule doesn't extend to the rate of expansion of the "field" on which those things exist.

When I read this, it seems to me like this is more or less the same as saying that the speed of light is decreasing, but I am probably wrong?

only if the expansion is really equal everywhere I guess

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#546

Post by soiler »

bpye wrote: post #398
soiler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can actually already see that time period, in its present form. It's called the Cosmic Microwave Background. It is the (now extremely cold) energy which permeated the entire universe in that very early time period. The entire universe was opaque and extremely hot... then as it expanded, it began to cool enough for particles and then atoms to form. Only then were stars possible, and later galaxies. How/why can we s…

> and it came down very early in time. Is this just because we’ve used it to define the start?

No, models predict that an extremely short amount of time elapsed before this. Like orders of magnitude less than 1 second. However, we know our models are not perfectly accurate, so it is possible there is something else very weird going on.

Re: The James Webb Space Telescope is finding too many early galaxies

#547

Post by foxyv »

moloch-hai wrote: post #531
foxyv wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is exactly equivalent to "dunno, maybe something". Yup! It's like understanding the why of weather and people. They are messy and have so many factors you can't account for. It's like saying, why are the clouds shaped like that. You can why your way down, but it's turtles all the way! When it comes to non-linear junk, the why becomes mixed up because the causes are so numerous. There are so many tiny interacti…

It is entirely possible that global warming could tip us into the next ice age, though probably not in our lifetimes. First you would need a world-wide cloud layer reflecting insolation back without conversion to IR. As the temperature drops, ice forms. When the clouds dissipate, the ice takes over reflecting sunlight out.

Or it could return us back to the hothouse earth of the cretaceous era. Or it could turn our entire planet into a second Venus with a runaway effect from all the methane. Or it could do almost nothing at all. There is just no way to know because it's never really happened before. We are playing with fire for sure.
Post reply on HN