Recent comments in /f/space

nyg8 t1_j79mzfy wrote

Reply to comment by GuitarClef in Serious question by Unable_Region7300

It doesn't even postulate that the expansion started at that point. Only what we would describe as "time" started. It's entirely plausible that the universe is unbound in space, thus expanding for all eternity.

40

plemur t1_j79mfb3 wrote

Reply to Serious question by Unable_Region7300

You'll want to start with Red Shift, then that should point you down the right path to understanding the expanding universe theories. Although the absolutely prevailing theory is the Big Bang, there could be other ways of looking at a finite, infinite universe and expansion. It could be that spacetime doesn't exist for the totality of the universe, only within it, so it's as if it's timeless to our understanding and perception. The gravitational waves pulsing through it could be what even allows spacetime to exist, for all we know. All of what I wrote is, of course, complete bullshit that I just threw out there, but the point being is that there's SO much we don't know that it allows you to find your own understanding and beliefs, whatever they might be -- it's not wrong if we don't know what's right. (It still might be stupid, just not 'wrong' ;P)

1

KamikazeArchon t1_j79m7f8 wrote

Reply to comment by 7sv3n7 in Serious question by Unable_Region7300

That is not what "theory" means in science. Science does not deal with 100% correctness in any circumstance, so there's no need for a separate word to describe that. "Theory" in this context roughly means "model". For example, the "theory of gravity" doesn't mean "we're not sure that gravity is real", it means "here's our model for how gravity works".

JWST is not producing anything that would dispute the basic premise of the Big Bang model - the idea that everything was hot and dense. It is fine-tuning various details of it.

5

7sv3n7 t1_j79ly4p wrote

Reply to comment by subOptimusPrime16 in Serious question by Unable_Region7300

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/12/james-webb-space-telescope-shows-big-bang-didnt-happen-wait-2/

Im no scientist, and this is the first article I found doing a quick search but have seen others. What I remember reading elsewhere is its seeing galaxies too old to line up with the big bang timeline. At least in its current model. And of course there is debate over any new idea so we'll see what comes of it

1

Blutrumpeter t1_j79l7le wrote

Reply to comment by pessimus_even in Serious question by Unable_Region7300

Exactly lol why would I pretend to understand how God created things, except I thought big bang didn't say stuff came from nothing, just that it expanded from a smaller clump and if you extrapolate you get a singularity

11

gen_meade t1_j79l2u1 wrote

Reply to Serious question by Unable_Region7300

The science is that we have no idea what happened before (or even some fractions of a second into) the Big Bang. After that we've got some plausible theories that hold up when compared against the data and math available.

3

7sv3n7 t1_j79klw8 wrote

Reply to Serious question by Unable_Region7300

It is a theory, meaning even scientist agent 100% sure it's correct, but it's the best one we currently have. With the new data coming in from the jwst (James Webb Space Telescope) it's looking like we might need to reconsider it though

−2

Sitheref0874 t1_j79kkow wrote

Reply to Serious question by Unable_Region7300

I’ll politely point out that “science” keeps searching and testing for answers. We know the story is incomplete, and a lot of smart people are trying to find out more of the story.

50

GuitarClef t1_j79jujr wrote

Reply to Serious question by Unable_Region7300

The big bang doesn't say anything about the origin of everything. It says at one point in the past (14ish billion years ago) the universe was gathered together in one ultra dense singularity. Then--for some reason--there was an expansion, which continues on today.

105

fphillips93 OP t1_j79j2hk wrote

Reply to comment by dirschau in Best telescope? by fphillips93

So, $300 is like… low end for a good quality one? I have absolutely no idea about them whatsoever. I just know my child loves looking at the moon and the stars and I want to let her explore and take pictures. And I was thinking smartphone, iPhone, in fact. I didn’t realize an actual camera was better for that. That leads me to my next question, I guess. Do you recommend any specific brand of camera that pairs well with telescopes? Also, if $300 is cheap crap, what should I expect to spend on one I actually am going to enjoy with the kids? Learning curves aren’t an issue - we will learn the telescope until there isn’t anything left to learn about it! I appreciate your response! If you can help anymore, awesome.

1

dirschau t1_j79c1n7 wrote

Reply to comment by fphillips93 in Best telescope? by fphillips93

As long as it's not crap quality, you can take as good pictures as the camera allows through any telescope, but the mount matters (will it shake). It's more important what you're taking pictures with. You can absolutely take pictures with a phone in a mount, but a proper camera is better. But if it's a chunky old DSLR, a cheap telescope ($300 is cheap for a "real" telescope) might have trouble physically supporting it.

For general viewing at that price, I would probably go with this

https://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-astromaster-114-eq-4-5-equatorial-reflector-telescope-31042

It requires some learning how to use the EQ mount and maintenance of the tube, and it's not the sturdiest (so no big DSLR) but it'll do the job. I believe it's also possible to buy a simple motor to drive the equatorial axis (it tracks with the rotation of the earth). That would allow for some basic astrophoto of something that isn't just planets or the moon.

If you're more interested in planets and really cannot be bothered to learn how to properly use the above in the slightest, this could be an alternative

https://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-inspire-80az-refractor-telescope-22402

It's smaller and not suited for deep sky, and the mount won't track (no photographing nebulas with that), but still good for planets and stars, and it's really dead simple, a tube on a pintle. Minimum maintenance (don't break it and it works) and almost zero learning.

2