The James Webb Telescope has blown up past knowledge

[Unkotare]

... I can't talk to you about all of this ...

Why not?

 

[ReinyDays]

Webb has been invaluable since the telescope has debunked a lot of information earlier believed. It opened doors. I think many believed the earlier science is accurate and not changeable. But this proves it can be changed when found not to be accurate. Thanks to Webb we have the tool in place.

Why do you think "many believed the earlier science is accurate and not changeable"? ... no one even casually interested in science believes that ... it's only religion that stays immobile and static ... the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awards to folks who disproved the Big Bang Theory ... all of cosmology is a-drift these days ...

We have better and bigger telescopes here on Earth ... it's too expensive trying to fly these instruments into space ... that's the main advantage of Webb, she's above the atmosphere ... what Hubble has been for visible wavelengths, Webb now covers the infrared ...

What we need is to be able to manufacture telescope mirrors in space ... from space debris ... we could make them ten miles across !!! ...

 

[Robert W]

Why do you think "many believed the earlier science is accurate and not changeable"? ... no one even casually interested in science believes that ... it's only religion that stays immobile and static ... the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awards to folks who disproved the Big Bang Theory ... all of cosmology is a-drift these days ...

We have better and bigger telescopes here on Earth ... it's too expensive trying to fly these instruments into space ... that's the main advantage of Webb, she's above the atmosphere ... what Hubble has been for visible wavelengths, Webb now covers the infrared ...

What we need is to be able to manufacture telescope mirrors in space ... from space debris ... we could make them ten miles across !!! ...

I was commenting on those who declare that the universe is precisely as earlier described and bring in Webb as a debunker.

 

[rampart]

Yup....but if you challenged that knowledge prior to this you would have been attacked! Told that all the experts agree and that you're too stupid.

 

[Robert W]

Why not?

At that time I was not finished with the Video. This is days later so I have to brush up again to talk more. But the Video clearly does a nice job.

 

[Robert W]

Yup....but if you challenged that knowledge prior to this you would have been attacked! Told that all the experts agree and that you're too stupid.

Even now that I posted the video I get attacked.

 

[justoffal]

Even now that I posted the video I get attacked.

Lol.... You must not threaten the status quo! Or as the Chinese elders once said to Bruce Lee.
" You must not teach the Quay-lo"!

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Why do you think "many believed the earlier science is accurate and not changeable"? ... no one even casually interested in science believes that ... it's only religion that stays immobile and static ... the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awards to folks who disproved the Big Bang Theory ... all of cosmology is a-drift these days ...

Cosmologists pulled dark energy out of their dark holes to explain away the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

 

[ReinyDays]

Cosmologists pulled dark energy out of their dark holes to explain away the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Right ... a mythological placeholder until we figure out why ... "does æther by any other name smell as bad?" ...

 

[justoffal]

Right ... a mythological placeholder until we figure out why ... "does æther by any other name smell as bad?" ...

Oh Gosh...…Shakespearean cosmology?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Right ... a mythological placeholder until we figure out why ... "does æther by any other name smell as bad?" ...

The aether at least had known analogues. Ocean waves are waves on water. Sound waves are waves on air. Seismic waves are waves in the Earth. Makes sense that light would be waves in the aether. Dark energy has no analogue with anything despite the leading name.

 

[ReinyDays]

The aether at least had known analogues. Ocean waves are waves on water. Sound waves are waves on air. Seismic waves are waves in the Earth. Makes sense that light would be waves in the aether. Dark energy has no analogue with anything despite the leading name.

Do we have an experiment that demonstrates this æther? ... what physical properties does this æther need to have for this energy to travel without resistance? ...

How does this explain light's duel nature? ... Newton's corpuscule theory of photons still holds water ... and a reminder that the Standard Model of Particle Physics includes photons, but not æther ... more explaining from your side ...

What about density? ... doesn't the æther thin out over time ... sound travels differently through the air at the surface compared to where satellites orbit ... after 11 billion years, why would the æther be thick enough to propagate light waves? ... if light travels faster today, why do we see an expanding universe? ... this æther is immune to gravity, or we'd see refraction all over the universe ...

Bosons ... pffffft ... worse than carnivores ...

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Do we have an experiment that demonstrates this æther?

The rotating Sagnac interferometer is consistent with the theory. The Michelson-Morely Experiment, didn't give the expected results, but it didn't give a zero result either. It's consistent with a constrained aether. The Dayton Miller Experiment was also consistent with the existence of the aether.

... what physical properties does this æther need to have for this energy to travel without resistance? ...

This is where the real problem with the theory comes in. The high speed of light implies a high tension in the aether, but why doesn't this aether appear to have no effect on the motion of bodies through space?

How does this explain light's duel nature?

When it was hypothesized the dual nature hadn't been discovered yet. Newton's corpuscular theory had been tossed out in favor of Thomas Young's wave theory.

... Newton's corpuscule theory of photons still holds water

Not really. It doesn't explain the wave properties of light.

... and a reminder that the Standard Model of Particle Physics includes photons, but not æther ... more explaining from your side ...

But there is an aether, of sorts: The quantum wave function.

What about density?

It would have to be quite dense. Definitely a problem.

... doesn't the æther thin out over time

Why should it?

... sound travels differently through the air at the surface compared to where satellites orbit

Nature abhors a vaccum so fills it with aether.

... after 11 billion years, why would the æther be thick enough to propagate light waves? ... if light travels faster today, why do we see an expanding universe? ... this æther is immune to gravity, or we'd see refraction all over the universe ...

Bosons ... pffffft ... worse than carnivores ...

Maybe the universe is expanding because it's being filled with aether. It's possible that the index refraction id frequency independent. Certainly a strange physical property indeed!

 

[Captain Caveman]

So what they knew, they really were guessing. And due to findings by the James Webb Telescope, they were radically off. I can't talk to you about all of this so learn from the video.

A person who is a scientist doubts. So you take onboard the current theory but you still work on that area of science for greater understanding because the current theory maybe wrong or inaccurate.

When someone believes it is settled science, then that is called a religion.

 

[ReinyDays]

The rotating Sagnac interferometer is consistent with the theory. The Michelson-Morely Experiment, didn't give the expected results, but it didn't give a zero result either. It's consistent with a constrained aether. The Dayton Miller Experiment was also consistent with the existence of the aether.

This is where the real problem with the theory comes in. The high speed of light implies a high tension in the aether, but why doesn't this aether appear to have no effect on the motion of bodies through space?


When it was hypothesized the dual nature hadn't been discovered yet. Newton's corpuscular theory had been tossed out in favor of Thomas Young's wave theory.


Not really. It doesn't explain the wave properties of light.

But there is an aether, of sorts: The quantum wave function.


It would have to be quite dense. Definitely a problem.



Why should it?


Nature abhors a vaccum so fills it with aether.


Maybe the universe is expanding because it's being filled with aether. It's possible that the index refraction id frequency independent. Certainly a strange physical property indeed!

Except Einstein showed light is subject to gravity ... which explains all these experiments better ... I see you've brought up quantum wave functions, so you're dismissing all of Einstein's work ... so how does the æther explain non-Euclidian time (i.e. Lorenz Transformations)? ...

Did you really think James Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz are wrong? ... maybe, but the burden is on you to prove this ... EM Theory meshes with everything else we know, an incomplete æther theory does not ... I think the magnetism part of all this is screwing you up ... which is strange, you call upon quantum wave functions but can't solve these field vectors ...

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Except Einstein showed light is subject to gravity ...

It was also subject to gravity in Newton's theory.

which explains all these experiments better ...

No one is seriously working with aether theory anymore so it's not surprising that it hasn't kept up with developments.

I see you've brought up quantum wave functions, so you're dismissing all of Einstein's work

Einstein's theory of gravity is at serious odds with cosmological data and appears to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics. We're past due for a replacement.

... so how does the æther explain non-Euclidian time (i.e. Lorenz Transformations)? ...

I think it's useful to consider two aspect separately. First is length contraction. This has never been observed and is unlikely to ever be observed. Time dilation has been observed. Well, sort of. What's actually been observed is clock dilation and the redshift of light. The clocks used to observe time dilation all rely on the weak nuclear force. So what aether theorists would need to do is come up with a theory describing the interaction of the weak nuclear force, gravity, and the aether. For a specific example consider the famous case of atmospheric muons. At face value we would expect they to decay before reaching the Earth. Einstein explains this discrepancy with time dilation. Fair enough. But muons move through the Earth's gravitational field and the muon's life time depends on the weak nuclear force. Currently there doesn't exist a theory on the interaction between gravity and the weak nuclear force and special relativity considers it either as non-existence or too weak to effect muon decay. However if they do interact it's a big unknown what the size of the effect is. A good aether theory would explain the muon decay in terms of aether, gravity, and weak nuclear force interaction. Unfortunately no one seems to be working in this diection.

Did you really think James Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz are wrong?

Hertz had a different theory than Maxwell, so which one was wrong?

... maybe, but the burden is on you to prove this ... EM Theory meshes with everything else we know, an incomplete æther theory does not ...

Actually there is currently no theory that meshes quantum electrodynamics with gravity. So if your standard is that the theories have to mesh then standard theory does meet your standards.

I think the magnetism part of all this is screwing you up ... which is strange, you call upon quantum wave functions but can't solve these field vectors ...

Magnetism is a bit of a strange bird given that there are no magnetic monopoles. I've often wondered if they exist but we're just not thinking about them correctly so attempts to incorporate them have failed.

 

[ReinyDays]

It was also subject to gravity in Newton's theory.

Really? ... then why was the world astonished when Einstein showed photons are subject to gravity? ...

Seems like you're confusing Classical Physics with Modern Physics ... the Sagnac interferometer does show evidence of the æther but only under Classical rules ... Maxwell, then Einstein showed that natural forces are fields in nature, and not straight lines like the vector we use in Classical ... the Sagnac interferometer results are an artifact of our frame-of-reference ...

Eddington experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If your math is right ... people should be listening to you ...

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Really? ... then why was the world astonished when Einstein showed photons are subject to gravity? ...

Probably because the world is scientifically illiterate. It was well known in the physics community that light under Newton's theory of gravity would be bend by gravity and would undergo gravitational redshift. There are even black holes in Newtonian gravity, though they are quite different from those in Einsteinian gravity.

Seems like you're confusing Classical Physics with Modern Physics

I'm not confused at all. My undergraduate degree was in physics.

... the Sagnac interferometer does show evidence of the æther but only under Classical rules ... Maxwell, then Einstein showed that natural forces are fields in nature, and not straight lines like the vector we use in Classical ... the Sagnac interferometer results are an artifact of our frame-of-reference ...

Eddington experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, in Einstein's theory spacetime is curved. However there's a major problem with that because quantum mechanics is incompatible with a dynamically curved spacetime. Unfortunately there isn't any kind of post-classical aether theory, at least that I know of. The closest thing might be the De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory.

If your math is right ... people should be listening to you ...

I haven't produced any math, though perhaps in retirement I'll have the time to devote to such an endeavor.

 

[ReinyDays]

Probably because the world is scientifically illiterate. It was well known in the physics community that light under Newton's theory of gravity would be bend by gravity and would undergo gravitational redshift. There are even black holes in Newtonian gravity, though they are quite different from those in Einsteinian gravity.


I'm not confused at all. My undergraduate degree was in physics.

You haven't even taken a physics class if you think the redshift is caused by gravity ... talk about scientific illiterate ...

F = G m1 m2 / r^2

Photons have no mass ... m2 = 0 ... makes F = 0 ... physics major my ass ... you'll take algebra when you're older enough to attend high school ... photon need not be conserved, just the energy they transmit ...

 

[LeroyDumonde]

You haven't even taken a physics class if you think the redshift is caused by gravity ... talk about scientific illiterate ...

F = G m1 m2 / r^2

Photons have no mass ... m2 = 0 ... makes F = 0 ... physics major my ass ... you'll take algebra when you're older enough to attend high school ... photon need not be conserved, just the energy they transmit ...

What's the energy of a photon? Is it zero? What's the potential energy of a gravitational field? Is Is energy conserved in the gravitational field-photon system? This is pretty basic stuff, yet it will show why photons are blueshifted/redshifted in gravitational fields.