James Webb telescope

[Wash DC Blue]

I thought this comparison with Hubble was pretty cool.

https://petapixel.com/2022/07/12/com...at-hubble-saw/

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I think you must know what I meant but, as you probably know, genetic fingerprinting is the correct term.

I wasn't totally sure. For all I know, new DNA structures could be designed by man. I'm no expert in these matters.

[bobh]

The first pictures have just been published:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62122859

Absolutely stunning. The distances involved are mind-boggling.

Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real 'wow, that's big', time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.

Courtesy of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Some studies suggest there's likely to be at least a septillion stars in the universe, let alone planets which would on average raise the figure by a billion or two! So it's quite possible there may be at least 10^27 planets in the visible universe. Of course the other parts of the universe we can never see will contain an awful lot more. This is the chief reason I don't believe in the Rare Earth hypothesis.

And scientists have even worked out how the universe came about - "well, there was this big bang and everything appeared..." Wow.

[rudy gestede]

And scientists have even worked out how the universe came about - "well, there was this big bang and everything appeared..." Wow.

There’s a lot more behind the theory than that in fairness but it’s not unlike you to present your ignorance as a source of pride

[A Quiet Monkfish]

There’s a lot more behind the theory than that in fairness but it’s not unlike you to present your ignorance as a source of pride

I think you'll find that I'm correct in saying the scientific consensus is that everything began with a 'big bang'. If the scientists say that's what happened, then they're right.

[Rjk]

I think you'll find that I'm correct in saying the scientific consensus is that everything began with a 'big bang'. If the scientists say that's what happened, then they're right.

do you understand why they think that?

[Citizen's Nephew]

Has anyone here ever been to CERN?

Mrs Citizen has been pestering me to go for a visit for years and it's on the (her) bucket list. Just wondered if anyone had been?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I think you'll find that I'm correct in saying the scientific consensus is that everything began with a 'big bang'. If the scientists say that's what happened, then they're right.

Scientists worth their salt declare that they do not know what happened before the Big Bang. I don't think they necessarily state that is was the starting point, as such. Science means knowledge - and at the current time, we do not seem to have the evidence or knowledge to go back before the Big Bang. Have you read any scientific non-fiction books about what evidence there is about how things develop "post-Big-Bang" ?

[A Quiet Monkfish]

do you understand why they think that?

I haven't got a fu**ing clue.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Scientists worth their salt declare that they do not know what happened before the Big Bang. I don't think they necessarily state that is was the starting point, as such. Science means knowledge - and at the current time, we do not seem to have the evidence or knowledge to go back before the Big Bang. Have you read any scientific non-fiction books about what evidence there is about how things develop "post-Big-Bang" ?

Actually the theory postulated by the scientific community when asked that question, was that before the 'big bang' there was another 'big bang'.

On the question of science, what is everything made of ?

[rudy gestede]

Actually the theory postulated by the scientific community when asked that question, was that before the 'big bang' there was another 'big bang'.

On the question of science, what is everything made of ?

Have a read of short history of nearly everything by bill Bryson if you’re genuinely interested. It’s a nice summary and pitched at a level that’s understandable and entertaining.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Actually the theory postulated by the scientific community when asked that question, was that before the 'big bang' there was another 'big bang'.

On the question of science, what is everything made of ?

A 'postulated theory' suggests that it's a case of not having enough evidence to state that something is definitively the case - and not necessarily the opinion of the scientific community as a whole.
As for what everything is made of, I suggest a bit of light reading. I'm no scientist (and there will be far greater minds regarding this subject in the CCMB firmament) but this simple soul is currently reading two different books about the cosmos....

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Have a read of short history of nearly everything by bill Bryson if you’re genuinely interested. It’s a nice summary and pitched at a level that’s understandable and entertaining.

I've read it [-as I have all his books]. Also Sapiens, etc, etc.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

A 'postulated theory' suggests that it's a case of not having enough evidence to state that something is definitively the case - and not necessarily the opinion of the scientific community as a whole.
As for what everything is made of, I suggest a bit of light reading. I'm no scientist (and there will be far greater minds regarding this subject in the CCMB firmament) but this simple soul is currently reading two different books about the cosmos....

Good luck with that ! To answer my own question, once we've reached down to the absolute smallest known/identified 'particle', it turns out it's 'energy'. And 'energy' can only really be identified by how everything else reacts. So in essence, everything is actually nothing. Energy is a 'concept'. Just that.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Good luck with that ! To answer my own question, once we've reached down to the absolute smallest known/identified 'particle', it turns out it's 'energy'. And 'energy' can only really be identified by how everything else reacts. So in essence, everything is actually nothing. Energy is a 'concept'. Just that.

Thanks for explaining. I'll put down my two scientific tomes as they are obviously spinning things out to a ridiculous degree.

[Joe Gillis]

There was a clue: "and it's estimated that there are trillions of galaxies in the universe."

Yeah, do we believe all that guff though?

[Rjk]

Yeah, do we believe all that guff though?

which guff do you believe?

[Dorcus]

Good luck with that ! To answer my own question, once we've reached down to the absolute smallest known/identified 'particle', it turns out it's 'energy'. And 'energy' can only really be identified by how everything else reacts. So in essence, everything is actually nothing. Energy is a 'concept'. Just that.

Maybe solipsism is the key after all.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Maybe solipsism is the key after all.

That’s so you that is. Always thinking about yourself!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Maybe solipsism is the key after all.

As intelligent beings, we have the choice of realising that we know very little and that it's a joy to even scratch the surface of knowledge attained courtesy of far more brilliant minds than ourselves and using incredibly sophisiticated technology (and even though we may only be able to grasp most of the concepts in part at best)
or.......

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Thanks for explaining. I'll put down my two scientific tomes as they are obviously spinning things out to a ridiculous degree.

sorry for spoiling the ending[s].

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Maybe solipsism is the key after all.

I admit I had to look that up, but I always consider that religion and science are the same thing, not complete opposites. We then enter into other other philosophical areas which may offer solutions that conventional science cannot.

[Rjk]

I admit I had to look that up, but I always consider that religion and science are the same thing, not complete opposites. We then enter into other other philosophical areas which may offer solutions that conventional science cannot.

I disagree entirely.
you see this bogus argument from religious folk nowadays trying to make some equivalence between the things science can't yet explain and the existence of a magic sky man on a cloud.
Religion and science are fundamentally opposite. religion is about blindly following the "truth" that has been handed down to you, usually by your parents at a young age, and in the face of any evidence to the contrary.
science is as changeable as religion is fixed. if new evidence emerged that blew away all of the laws of physics then the scientific consensus would change. if there was evidence that the earth was created by a deity then that would be part of science too, but there isnt

[Harry Paget Flashman]

I disagree entirely.
you see this bogus argument from religious folk nowadays trying to make some equivalence between the things science can't yet explain and the existence of a magic sky man on a cloud.
Religion and science are fundamentally opposite. religion is about blindly following the "truth" that has been handed down to you, usually by your parents at a young age, and in the face of any evidence to the contrary.
science is as changeable as religion is fixed. if new evidence emerged that blew away all of the laws of physics then the scientific consensus would change. if there was evidence that the earth was created by a deity then that would be part of science too, but there isnt

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...F406&FORM=VIRE