re: The New Hubble Telescope

quote:

---

I just don’t think people are justifying the cost of JWST over what we had in place (Hubble)

---

All told it cost each taxpayer about $30. For the returns we’ll be getting from it over the years that is completely fair and justified.

I’m excited about the atmosphere reading stuff

Saw something not long ago about the universe expanding faster than previously expected. Maybe this sheds some starlight on the situation.

quote:

---

Maybe. It may help answer some questions about the nature of dark matter.

---

I hate being cynical ab the JWST, I was heavily anticipating the launch for the last 10 years or so. I know it’s early but have been underwhelmed with what has been released to the public thus far, although I know that information (optical images) is not critical to the goal of the data gathered by JWST

quote:

---

I’m trying to figure out what exactly we hope to find.

---

The truth of the matter is that NASA is going to turn the telescope cameras towards earth so we can finally get clear pictures of all the WalMart shoplifters.

quote:

---

All told it cost each taxpayer about $30. For the returns we’ll be getting from it over the years that is completely fair and justified.

---

So the JWST is a call option on technology in your opinion? Did Hubble provide any commercially adaptable technology?

Gotta admit I’m with you. I think Nasa wastes lots of money.

quote:

---

as nuclear fission/fission?

---

we discovered fission back in the 40s - it's fusion that we want

quote:

---

Which was a product of general relativity

---

Special Relativity, but who’s counting.

General Relativity is Einstein’s theory of gravity and cosmic evolution.

quote:

---

General relativity states mass = energy. This is the basis of nuclear energy

---

Since General Relativity is a generalization (hence the name) of Special Relativity, you wouldn’t be technically wrong.

But General Relativity went a million miles beyond Special Relativity and explained how mass curves space-time, thereby generating the force of gravity. Extrapolated to a cosmic scale, it explains why the universe moves the way it moves.

The problem is, we know this theory is incomplete, because of how it breaks down when mass is extremely densely concentrated. It gives us nonsensical infinite answers.

By peering into the extremes of space, back in time when matter was more densely concentrated (the farther we see into space, the further back in time we also see), we see the universe nearly at the regimes when General Relativity would start to break down.

Analyzing the data from these far reaches can perhaps elucidate deviations from the expected results, indicating potential answers for what a more complete theory would have to explain.

Now, how engineers utilize this data, I dunno. We haven’t exactly gathered a whole lot of data yet, so we don’t know where the science might lead us. But I’m sure the engineers who make the technology that we can commercialize appreciate the work of the physicists to expand our knowledge of the universe.