James Webb Space Telescope

[brian64]

Yes, that's quite alright...and I never for a second thought that any of the mainstream academic types here would be interested in his material...but the book I mentioned is not about any of that. Part of it is speculative to be sure, regarding the interpretation of ancient myths...but, going on memory, there's much in it critiquing issues in astrophysics and offering alternative theories.

The interesting thing is, this thread started about the discovery of these distant galaxies which was NOT predicted by the prevailing theories...yet LaViolette's theory DID predict it.

And btw...for the record, and for the sake of clarity, it was never my intention to "endorse" or even bring up for discussion everything and anything that Laviolette ever said or wrote.

The only reason I brought up that specific book is because of its direct relevance to this specific story. It is just one example of a critique of the "big bang" that offers, IMO, some very compelling ideas about how stars and galaxies are formed that predicted this very Webb discovery. That's the point.

 

[sablebrush52]

For clarity, at this point the people viewing these images from the JWST have said that they don't know for certain what these objects actually are. It remains for a spectral analysis to provide further information and there will be more data forthcoming.

 

[OverMountain]

I clone the DNA
View attachment 205719
to put into the bacteria
View attachment 205720
to make the cells glow
View attachment 205721


From far away it's beautiful. Almost art. But the deadlines are killer.

And tomorrow is Monday...

Thanks for sharing! Is this medical research, pharma etc?

 

[Winnipeger]

For clarity, at this point the people viewing these images from the JWST have said that they don't know for certain what these objects actually are. It remains for a spectral analysis to provide further information and there will be more data forthcoming.

One Physicist I saw interviewed suggested (he thinks) they're probably not galaxies, but rather black holes.

 

[telescopes]

I have refrained from posting on a thread with a title that reflects an interest I have in a field I have strongly engaged much time in for over 40 years.

Does everything have to follow the rules of Red and Blue thinking?

Can't we just enjoy the pictures Without politicizing them?

 

[jguss]

I hope that by having dug a little deeper behind the veneer I've given the other forum members a little more by which to make their own decisions [italics mine] about what to believe, or not.

Alas, a forlorn hope at best. If there’s one more eternal verity that ranks with death and taxes it’s humanity’s compulsion to cheat off someone else’s homework. People are, on the whole, lazy, and thinking for yourself is so…much…work.

 

[telescopes]

Kind of also drives a stake through the heart of fringe theories like creationism. Evidently the cosmos is older than 7,000 + years.

Only if someone is willing to concede "their side" is bullshit, LOL. I am getting the idea that "proof" is a one-sided deck of cards.

 

[greeneyes]

Thanks for sharing! Is this medical research, pharma etc?

Biomedical research at a Midwestern University. I study the mechanisms by which microRNAs inform and reinforce cell fate decisions. Specifically I use barcoded lentivirally delivered microRNA inhibitors and sensors to screen for microRNAs that induce cellular senescence in response to stressors such as radiation, replicative exhaustion or oncogene induction. The projects are significantly more complex than this, but I have about 4 ongoing parallel projects based on this over-arching theme. I'm writing up a paper now for publication involving microRNAs and epigenetic regulation of senescence for which I'm preparing figures.

The images above are the cloning of a DNA vector that encodes for an inhibitor of a specific microRNA. The DNA is amplified and screed in bacteria and combined with other DNA vectors to create a pseudotyped HIV virus (lentivirus) that can reverse transcribe itself into the genome of my cells, carrying with it a marker (green fluorescence) and the microRNA inhibitor. From there the cells are evaluated using everything from gene expression by PCR to fluorescence microscopy.

 

[BarrelProof]

Biomedical research at a Midwestern University. I study the mechanisms by which microRNAs inform and reinforce cell fate decisions. Specifically I use barcoded lentivirally delivered microRNA inhibitors and sensors to screen for microRNAs that induce cellular senescence in response to stressors such as radiation, replicative exhaustion or oncogene induction. The projects are significantly more complex than this, but I have about 4 ongoing parallel projects based on this over-arching theme. I'm writing up a paper now for publication involving microRNAs and epigenetic regulation of senescence for which I'm preparing figures.

The images above are the cloning of a DNA vector that encodes for an inhibitor of a specific microRNA. The DNA is amplified and screed in bacteria and combined with other DNA vectors to create a pseudotyped HIV virus (lentivirus) that can reverse transcribe itself into the genome of my cells, carrying with it a marker (green fluorescence) and the microRNA inhibitor. From there the cells are evaluated using everything from gene expression by PCR to fluorescence microscopy.

Incredible. I’m excited to read your paper. Please share when it’s published and ready!

 

[Grangerous]

For what it’s worth, I have held a personal theory for years. Time is infinite. Space is infinite.

Life emerges, evolves, flourishes and fades.

When our sun is finished, our remnants will cross infinite space and infinite time.

Earth will “seed” other worlds.

Life will emerge anew, it will evolve, perhaps to consciousness and again fade away.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Mathematically, however improbable this may seem, we are speaking to the infinate.

And Granger remains Earth’s greatest achievement.

 

[sablebrush52]

Biomedical research at a Midwestern University. I study the mechanisms by which microRNAs inform and reinforce cell fate decisions. Specifically I use barcoded lentivirally delivered microRNA inhibitors and sensors to screen for microRNAs that induce cellular senescence in response to stressors such as radiation, replicative exhaustion or oncogene induction. The projects are significantly more complex than this, but I have about 4 ongoing parallel projects based on this over-arching theme. I'm writing up a paper now for publication involving microRNAs and epigenetic regulation of senescence for which I'm preparing figures.

The images above are the cloning of a DNA vector that encodes for an inhibitor of a specific microRNA. The DNA is amplified and screed in bacteria and combined with other DNA vectors to create a pseudotyped HIV virus (lentivirus) that can reverse transcribe itself into the genome of my cells, carrying with it a marker (green fluorescence) and the microRNA inhibitor. From there the cells are evaluated using everything from gene expression by PCR to fluorescence microscopy.

What I love about this is that it's a slice of how incredibly detailed and complex actual research is, and this is one tiny part of what goes on over the globe. Incredibly detailed and thorough work that takes a great deal of experience,and expertise to carry out.

Quite a bit different than the grandiose and simple proposals of the many snake oil salesmen exalted by self deluded freethinkers who devalue or ignore actual detailed research in support of some cooked up tribal ideology.

 

[karam]

What I love about this is that it's a slice of how incredibly detailed and complex actual research is, and this is one tiny part of what goes on over the globe. Incredibly detailed and thorough work that takes a great deal of experience,and expertise to carry out.

Quite a bit different than the grandiose and simple proposals of the many snake oil salesmen exalted by self deluded freethinkers who devalue or ignore actual detailed research in support of some cooked up tribal ideology.

Just to highlight how different various disciplines under the "bio" aegis are, I vaguely know of some of the techniques described by @greeneyes but could neither explain them to anyone in any detail, or perform them myself, and can very very broadly summarize the concept of the work to a layman as "how do cells grow old".

Sorry if I butchered/oversimplified it @greeneyes!

Personally I spent a lot of time looking at lines, dots and occasionally numbers, and and growing a lot of bacteria which smell either like wet earth or feces I used to be excited by picture such as:

 

[OverMountain]

Awesome work fellas. I envision you enjoying a pipe after a long day in the lab connecting the dots on the days events and discoveries.

 

[cshubhra]

Not to stir up the pot again - But I watched an excellent PBS Nova documentary today which came out fairly recently on how scientists are using the data from JWST on their research.

Some items were a bit trivial but I understand that is why it would appeal to general audience.

One thing the OP article did not mention “Red Shift” but I had assumed that is how they estimated the distance / time. PBS covers that.

The PBS documentary was shot a bit early I think, compared to the OP article

 

[Winnipeger]

Does everything have to follow the rules of Red and Blue thinking?

Where I live, Red is centre left and Blue is further right. (Left is Orange or Green.) I think it's different on your side of the border? That video that was posted before was from the Hoover Institution. I had to look that up after I watched it. It didn't actually strike me as rightwing. Some people see politics when it isn't there. Others try to infuse it where it doesn't belong. I'm glad this forum has no politics, so we can freely discuss non-partisan topics like science and religion!

 

[telescopes]

Where I live, Red is centre left and Blue is further right. (Left is Orange or Green.) I think it's different on your side of the border? That video that was posted before was from the Hoover Institution. I had to look that up after I watched it. It didn't actually strike me as rightwing. Some people see politics when it isn't there. Others try to infuse it where it doesn't belong. I'm glad this forum has no politics, so we can freely discuss non-partisan topics like science and religion!

I would hope. I think our mods to a tremendous job keeping the politics down to a decent level. But it creeps in, unfortunately. Even in discussions about science, discussions regarding the credibility of science are really discussions of red and blue. It shouldn't be. Science should be challenged at every possible angle to help it improve. However, it is easy to see that often the challenges are not meant to improve the quality of the data or to improve the credibility of what is being explained, but rather to make a case to articulate a point of view that if accepted, benefits a certain political philosophy.

This politicization of science is not limited to any one particular brand of politics. Both red and blue do it equally.

Of course, Einstein's standard model will at some point need to be adjusted or more likely, replaced with something much more accurate. The likelihood that it will need to be replaced is not an argument for the existence of God, for example, Einstein was wrong, therefore it had to be God...

But atlas, few will agree with me. I am Jesuit trained in some of my thinking. It is easy for me to believe that two truths can exist at the same time and be equally true even if both truths would seem to contradict each other. It allows me to explore science and faith at the same time. Science, or secular knowledge of the universe, is revealed over time. Faith, or theological knowledge, is also revealed over time. When there are contradictions, it is only because the revelations of the truth has not been fully manifested.

So for me, the pictures are just that; pictures. I don't know what they mean, and I doubt anyone else does at this time either. To ascribe meaning to them is to suggest that one's own knowledge of the universe is somehow "the" logos of the ages and everyone else's "truth" is subservient. For now, they are just pictures.

 

[Winnipeger]

I would hope. I think our mods to a tremendous job keeping the politics down to a decent level. But it creeps in, unfortunately. Even in discussions about science, discussions regarding the credibility of science are really discussions of red and blue. It shouldn't be. Science should be challenged at every possible angle to help it improve. However, it is easy to see that often the challenges are not meant to improve the quality of the data or to improve the credibility of what is being explained, but rather to make a case to articulate a point of view that if accepted, benefits a certain political philosophy.

This politicization of science is not limited to any one particular brand of politics. Both red and blue do it equally.

Of course, Einstein's standard model will at some point need to be adjusted or more likely, replaced with something much more accurate. The likelihood that it will need to be replaced is not an argument for the existence of God, for example, Einstein was wrong, therefore it had to be God...

But atlas, few will agree with me. I am Jesuit trained in some of my thinking. It is easy for me to believe that two truths can exist at the same time and be equally true even if both truths would seem to contradict each other. It allows me to explore science and faith at the same time. Science, or secular knowledge of the universe, is revealed over time. Faith, or theological knowledge, is also revealed over time. When there are contradictions, it is only because the revelations of the truth has not been fully manifested.

So for me, the pictures are just that; pictures. I don't know what they mean, and I doubt anyone else does at this time either. To ascribe meaning to them is to suggest that one's own knowledge of the universe is somehow "the" logos of the ages and everyone else's "truth" is subservient. For now, they are just pictures.

Beautiful sentiments @telescopes.

I'm so far outside of the norm myself that I'm probably just naïve to the political biases at play behind so much of the discussion on here. But I'm catching on.

I'm also happy to be willfully ignorant in that regard, because choosing one side or the other does nothing for me. Ideologues might call that wishy washy, but I think ideologies are a big problem for society in general. I've been reading works by physicists, philosophers, and zen masters for decades. What they all have in common is questioning received wisdom. If someone says, "don't listen to this" or "don't pay attention to that", because it's political, or partisan, that's just someone's opinion. We all have biases, and they're not only unknown to one another, but they're mostly invisible to ourselves as well, just like I don't speak with an accent as far it sounds to me.

This forum is mostly American blokes, and some of you have your own particular bugbears and axes to grind. Some of you are just here for the pipe porn. I like the pretty JWST pictures too; and I'm interested in the physics, the cosmology, all the different competing theories amongst theoretical physicists, mathematicians, philosophers and their ilk. Who can parse it all? Yet it's truly amazing living in this period, when on the one hand society seems to be tearing itself apart, and on the other, we're finally learning what really happened 13 billion years ago, thanks to a bunch of eggheads. Bless them every one. They are definitely not the problem IMO.

I'd also add, pace @sablebrush52...I know "scientists"...in my own family...who have half the alphabet after their name. They can be as superstitious, reactionary, and narrow-minded as any other normal human being. Highly specialized people know a whole hell of a lot about very specific things, but can also harbour immense blind spots when it comes to the big picture. This notion that laymen, or generalists would do well not to question people who do real science for a living, is antithetical to rationalism, enlightenment, and the scientific tradition.

 

[sablebrush52]

I'd also add, pace @sablebrush52...I know "scientists"...in my own family...who have half the alphabet after their name. They can be as superstitious, reactionary, and narrow-minded as any other normal human being. Highly specialized people know a whole hell of a lot about very specific things, but can also harbour immense blind spots when it comes to the big picture. This notion that laymen, or generalists would do well not to question people who do real science for a living, is antithetical to rationalism, enlightenment, and the scientific tradition.

I don't disagree with this. However, while keeping an open mind, also be sure to use it. Whether scientists, clergy, or various other forms of laymen, people are often unreliable, manipulative and dishonest. The only thing I have blind faith in is death and taxes.

Roughly half of us admit to cheating on our spouses, more than half lie on resumes and cheat to get jobs or promotions. I've reviewed portfolios that contained examples of my own work, being claimed by the applicant as being their's. Want to guess if I hired them?

It's helpful to develop a sensitivity for spotting fakes. It's also helpful to avoid extremes, but some people seem organically drawn to them, and it's helpful to recognize when that's involved as well.

Trust but verify as goes the saying. These days for me it's more "verify" because communication is so highly sensationalized, and critical thinking is largely absent.