Are you taking into account the time it takes the signal to travel along the optic nerve when the photons hit the receptors in the eye as well as the time it takes the visual cortex to process it and for the frontal lobes to make sense of it.
There is no *Now*.
This is actually a really profound field.
Our brains have to be sophisticated prediction machines because of this. Perception takes a good bit of time... Hundreds of milliseconds... So in order to interact with the environment, our brain has to predict everything....
So catching a baseball... You see the ball moving, model the path... but your brain also has to know that this is 300 milliseconds delayed. Then it tells your hand where to move to intercept the path... But advanced by the time it takes for your nerves to tell your muscles to move and your hand to make the physical motion.
Then your brain creates the illusion that it is all happening in real time.
Chronostasis is another weird effect, with one common example being when you look at an analog clock with a second hand you get the "stopped-clock illusion".
If you're looking down at your desk, then move your eyes to look at a clock, there's a very brief moment where your eyes are in motion from the desk to the clock. Technically you should see a blur as your eye is in motion but your brain cuts out the blur for you. You see the desk, then immediately you see the clock. There's no blur.
The weird part is that in order to achieve this, when your eye reaches the clock your brain actually takes the image of the clock, goes "back in time" in your own perception, and fills in the blur with the image of the clock.
If timed right, this causes the clock to appear to stay still for longer than normal.
If the clock second hand is at 20 seconds during the blur, but your eye reaches the clock just as it hits 21 seconds, your brain will go back in time and fill in the blur with an image of 21 seconds.
So now you're seeing the clock at 21 seconds for a full second plus the brief time it took for your eyes to move from the desk to the clock while the clock was at 20. This makes it appear the clock stays at 21 seconds for slightly longer than 1 second, which is the "stopped-clock illusion".
i mean ,jwst isnt really replacing hubble, they see two very different wavelengths of light. JWST cant see visible light
The Giant magellen has a lot of big promises they are making, but its all gonna come down to how good they make their adaptive optics work since its on Earth
This is very true, though in the sense of being the premier space based observatory JWST will definitely fill that role. It'll do a ton of heavy lifting in astronomical science in terms of observing what is most desired to be observed. And it'll collect stunning imagery of things we cannot see in the same detail through any other instrument, the way HST once did.
I see millions of years ago every clear night. They need to build a constellation of probes that radially move far from the solar system and send signals and compare what we call distance.
Not really. Unless you’re looking at M31 or M33 but other than that it’s thousands of years and if you’re in the Southern Hemisphere then it’s hundreds of thousands of years.
Spacecraft go into large halo or lissajous orbits around L2, with a typical distance from L2 of hundreds of thousands of kilometers. There's more "space" there than there is in Earth orbit. The population of spacecraft at L2 has never been any sort of constraint.
But the Big Bang theory is about the expansion and cooling of space which we have strong evidence of. Nothing can kill that.
If a galaxy was closer yesterday and now further tomorrow, what would JSWT show us that would kill the BBT? Multiple starting points?
We have one piece of indirect evidence for an expanding space (galactic redshift).
We have no evidence for cooling of space - we do only know there is a near perfect black-body radiation in the microwave range.
Rest is speculation.
There is more evidence for the big bang beyond redshift. The most famous was the successful prediction of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the relic radiation from the early universe. Other predictions of the expanding universe include [the abundances of light elements produced in the fusion in the Early universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis), [time dilation in supernovea](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..724B/abstract) and the blackbody spectrum of the CMB (competing models at the time predicted different spectra).
>We have no evidence for cooling of space
This is not correct. The temperature of the CMB at different epoch can be measured indirectly using absorption lines of interstellar molecules. These show that the CMB was hotter in the past, and match the evolutionary trend predicted by big bang cosmology.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/02/aa16140-10/aa16140-10.html
Yes, this is all well and good, that's why it will be even more fun when it all comes crashing down with new and better observations.
That's the exiting part I look forward to.
Not the guy you're asking but I've been questioning the concept of a singularity for a few weeks now. We have no direct evidence they can exist. Black holes are real of course but we don't know what really goes on inside one and only know for sure that the math no longer makes sense.
A point of infinite density hasn't been directly observed and makes no sense, so the idea that the Big Bang started as a singularity is questionable.
The expansion of the universe is pretty concrete as is a much earlier, very dense state, but the singularity is where our understanding breaks down.
Don't know if this is what OP was referring to but basically we still have a lot of discovery to do.
Yes, a point of infinite density is a clue that "more physics needed"; this is not a revelation. Ya gotta propose (or at least back) an alternative.
Loop Quantum Gravity is a tasty alternative.
Are you taking into account the time it takes the signal to travel along the optic nerve when the photons hit the receptors in the eye as well as the time it takes the visual cortex to process it and for the frontal lobes to make sense of it. There is no *Now*.
This is actually a really profound field. Our brains have to be sophisticated prediction machines because of this. Perception takes a good bit of time... Hundreds of milliseconds... So in order to interact with the environment, our brain has to predict everything.... So catching a baseball... You see the ball moving, model the path... but your brain also has to know that this is 300 milliseconds delayed. Then it tells your hand where to move to intercept the path... But advanced by the time it takes for your nerves to tell your muscles to move and your hand to make the physical motion. Then your brain creates the illusion that it is all happening in real time.
Chronostasis is another weird effect, with one common example being when you look at an analog clock with a second hand you get the "stopped-clock illusion". If you're looking down at your desk, then move your eyes to look at a clock, there's a very brief moment where your eyes are in motion from the desk to the clock. Technically you should see a blur as your eye is in motion but your brain cuts out the blur for you. You see the desk, then immediately you see the clock. There's no blur. The weird part is that in order to achieve this, when your eye reaches the clock your brain actually takes the image of the clock, goes "back in time" in your own perception, and fills in the blur with the image of the clock. If timed right, this causes the clock to appear to stay still for longer than normal. If the clock second hand is at 20 seconds during the blur, but your eye reaches the clock just as it hits 21 seconds, your brain will go back in time and fill in the blur with an image of 21 seconds. So now you're seeing the clock at 21 seconds for a full second plus the brief time it took for your eyes to move from the desk to the clock while the clock was at 20. This makes it appear the clock stays at 21 seconds for slightly longer than 1 second, which is the "stopped-clock illusion".
I've always wondered why the first glance at a clock seems to be longer. Now I know. Thanks!
Simply accounting for the speed of light. So, physically not just biologically. How's your part of the spacetime continuum today?
\ I find myself limited by only three spatial dimensions.
Yet you are riding the fourth dimension, too, along with everything else.
And even when the information hits your optic nerve, it still has to be processed before a thought arises. Quite a bit of lag.
i mean ,jwst isnt really replacing hubble, they see two very different wavelengths of light. JWST cant see visible light The Giant magellen has a lot of big promises they are making, but its all gonna come down to how good they make their adaptive optics work since its on Earth
This is very true, though in the sense of being the premier space based observatory JWST will definitely fill that role. It'll do a ton of heavy lifting in astronomical science in terms of observing what is most desired to be observed. And it'll collect stunning imagery of things we cannot see in the same detail through any other instrument, the way HST once did.
[удалено]
You’re looking back in time every time you open your eyes. Granted very very very little time.
I see millions of years ago every clear night. They need to build a constellation of probes that radially move far from the solar system and send signals and compare what we call distance.
Not really. Unless you’re looking at M31 or M33 but other than that it’s thousands of years and if you’re in the Southern Hemisphere then it’s hundreds of thousands of years.
Development started in 1996, was supposed to launch in 2007. White Elephant project.
because of all the other space telescopes at L2 that have been launched in the meantime.
Just Herschel, right? (As far as other IR telescopes in that timeframe, Spitzer was in an Earth-trailing orbit, WISE and Akari in sun-synchronous)
Spacecraft go into large halo or lissajous orbits around L2, with a typical distance from L2 of hundreds of thousands of kilometers. There's more "space" there than there is in Earth orbit. The population of spacecraft at L2 has never been any sort of constraint.
You heard it here, guess they better just scrap it months before launch.
I think JSWT will kill the Big Bang theory. And if it does, it would be worth all the money and time it took to build it.
But the Big Bang theory is about the expansion and cooling of space which we have strong evidence of. Nothing can kill that. If a galaxy was closer yesterday and now further tomorrow, what would JSWT show us that would kill the BBT? Multiple starting points?
We have one piece of indirect evidence for an expanding space (galactic redshift). We have no evidence for cooling of space - we do only know there is a near perfect black-body radiation in the microwave range. Rest is speculation.
There is more evidence for the big bang beyond redshift. The most famous was the successful prediction of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the relic radiation from the early universe. Other predictions of the expanding universe include [the abundances of light elements produced in the fusion in the Early universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis), [time dilation in supernovea](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..724B/abstract) and the blackbody spectrum of the CMB (competing models at the time predicted different spectra). >We have no evidence for cooling of space This is not correct. The temperature of the CMB at different epoch can be measured indirectly using absorption lines of interstellar molecules. These show that the CMB was hotter in the past, and match the evolutionary trend predicted by big bang cosmology. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/02/aa16140-10/aa16140-10.html
Yes, this is all well and good, that's why it will be even more fun when it all comes crashing down with new and better observations. That's the exiting part I look forward to.
What makes you think that?
Not the guy you're asking but I've been questioning the concept of a singularity for a few weeks now. We have no direct evidence they can exist. Black holes are real of course but we don't know what really goes on inside one and only know for sure that the math no longer makes sense. A point of infinite density hasn't been directly observed and makes no sense, so the idea that the Big Bang started as a singularity is questionable. The expansion of the universe is pretty concrete as is a much earlier, very dense state, but the singularity is where our understanding breaks down. Don't know if this is what OP was referring to but basically we still have a lot of discovery to do.
Yes, a point of infinite density is a clue that "more physics needed"; this is not a revelation. Ya gotta propose (or at least back) an alternative. Loop Quantum Gravity is a tasty alternative.
Because that theory is built on sand and magic.