Cosmic Catastrophe

[redneck]

.

Two astrophotographers have captured "the most ridiculously detailed" photo of the moon

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/n...ailed-picture/


Thought this was cool… 😎



>

.

[freebeard]

"The color in this image is real, but presented with increased saturation so it is easily visible to our eyes," he wrote. "The reddish tones demonstrate areas rich in iron and feldspar, while the bluish areas are spots where the regolith is rich in titanium. Oxidization from influence from Earth's atmosphere makes the colors appear like they do."

Wondering how much saturation is in the eye of the beholder.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It gets worse. duckduckgo.com/?q=jame+webb+big+bangi&ia=web

The James Webb Telescope has seen past the Big Bang. It's all the same.

The only explanation that holds water is that we are living in a Simulation.

I looked at everything on the first page, but couldn't find anything about that.
One of the articles said to the effect that J W T wouldn't look as 'far' as the X-ray and Gamma-Ray telescopes have already seen.
Observing in infrared, it would be able to see many orders of magnitude further than the Hubble.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Wondering how much saturation is in the eye of the beholder.

The eyeball operates in photopic, metopic, scotopic vision ranges.
Under a dark night sky, it takes about a half-hour to fully dark adapt into scotopic vision, and only off- pupil regions of the retina are capable of seeing the most feeble light source.
Every time you blink, you interrupt the photons falling on your eyes.
And you 'arrest' saturation.
Between 'blinks' the retina will begin again to absorb the light, then you blink again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cryogenically-cooled, charge couple device in the digital camera, strapped to the telescope and clock-drive, German Equatorial Mount never 'blinks.'
Photons can fall on it all night, 'saturating' each segment of the entire visible wavelength spectrum.
We can't experience what the camera does, but that's the whole point.
Extrasensory perception!

[freebeard]

I looked at everything on the first page, but couldn't find anything about that.

It is a controversial stance. The first page was mainly about debunking it. But the debunking relies on Universe expanding without any center. Which most likely is mis-interpretation of red-shift data.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ancient Greeks thought Universe is a dodecahedron, that wraps around to opposing faces like a side-scrolling 8-bit video game. Being a fan of the Platonic solids (and the Archimedian semi-regulars) it sounds as good as anything to me.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It is a controversial stance. The first page was mainly about debunking it. But the debunking relies on Universe expanding without any center. Which most likely is mis-interpretation of red-shift data.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ancient Greeks thought Universe is a dodecahedron, that wraps around to opposing faces like a side-scrolling 8-bit video game. Being a fan of the Platonic solids (and the Archimedian semi-regulars) it sounds as good as anything to me.

PBS finished up a series about a week ago about the Universe. They ended it with black holes, then James Webb ST.
They did say that, an observer, observing the Universe, from any vantage point, will experience the same thing, regardless of location. Expanding space-time, forever.
An edge to the Universe doesn't exist.
All information lost to a black hole might remain as a hologram at the event horizon.
Perhaps, black holes existed before galaxies, not after. Clumps of matter.
Dark matter.
Dark energy.
More unknowns than knowns.
And if the theoretical quantum physicists can't come up with a unified field theory to explain all phenomena, we're at a impasse.
It was all over my head in college, but I enjoyed the guest lecturers anyway.

[freebeard]

The proposition IIRC is that the expansion is centerless, as you say, the same from any vantage point. And it's accelerating over time.

Which strikes me as preposterous, or at least unfalsifiable. Maybe the measurements are shrinking instead?

An edge to the Universe doesn't exist.

Finite but unbounded, or so I hear. The recursive Dodecahedron is consistent with Simulation Theory.

[freebeard]

So -- we've gone from a Geocentric Universe to a Heliocentric Universe to .... a Centerless Universe.

I follow Anton Petrov and he's weighed in on the subject

Did James Webb Prove Big Bang Theory Wrong? Here Are The Facts

What is true, apparently, is that the James Webb Telescope is only able to see back to 50 millions of years this side of the Big Bang. And what they see is too advanced structurally to fit their models.

So -- close but it's not a game of horseshoes (or hand grenades)?

What I haven't seen yet is a confirmation of the Cosmic Background radiation from outside the Earth's atmosphere. He mentions Hubble and James Webb, but those are optical not radio instruments.

[freebeard]

Scott Adams today says he 'fell for the hoax' about the theorized Big Bang. Episode 1847 It sounds like he just wanted to be able to claim he admits to being wrong on occasion.

He comes to his conclusion without using his 'the cat is on the roof' scenario. But then rightly concludes that it is consistent with Simulation 'Theory.

Then he goes completely off the rails saying people shouldn't watch the Hunter Biden [fan-]fictionalization until after the election. ?!? Surely he means trial, but he said it repeatedly. Totally oblivious to the fact that the election is already two years in the past.

[Piotrsko]

Some of the stuff I watch is indicating that the H.Biden story # 1 through 3 is repositioning for for another go around in 2024 as a defense in the current orange document drama, but ignores Hillary.

I suppose this is a result of perpetual need to grab clicks but it would be nice if they would let it all settle to winnow out all the posturing