>just speculation from someone who doesnt know nearly enough about these matters

Well, I know I couldn't have put those sentences together, so you've got me beat!

I just came to say can we just call it the nancy roman teleacope so we dont have to endure "tot mom" flashbacks

why not just call it Nancy Roman? Everyone’s gonna think it’s a telescope named after Nancy Grace that was conceptualized and developed in Rome.

[removed]

Her name is Nancy Roman. Grace is her middle name.

[deleted]

This is a highly unfortunate coincidence.

I failed at making a joke. Thought her show was called “Grace Under Fire” but that was actually the name of a bad 90s sitcom by a different woman named Grace (not Nancy Grace). I agree with you on Nancy Grace tv lady

I work at a medical manufacturing plant that has these printers. They can do anything they want and can control everything. If there is a void they can program it to not happen, takes a lot of time but it gets done.

To be fair, it’s referenced as that in the article as well

That was the very nicest way I could describe her; there are many less nice, and more accurate, ways I can think of.

[removed]

[removed]

There is a whole company who has been working on full scale 3d printed rockets! Ofc Veritasium has an episode it: https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E

Interestingly, the paper proposes that the mass of black holes is "cosmologically coupled" to the expansion rate of the universe. This was based on unexpected mass growth in black holes that our current models do not explain with accretion alone. The observations were made through analysis of older elliptical galaxies and gravitational wave signatures. What is being described by the researchers is the hypothesis that emerged from these unexpected observations.

My question is, if this expansion continues to accelerate to the point where only discrete massive objects exist in an expanding spacetime where all other objects have receded beyond the light horizon, would said objects continue their mass growth being coupled with an arbitrarily large, expanding spacetime? If so, what happens next?

It would seem that in this condition the "universe" would eventually consist of permanently displaced, high-density, high-temperature, low-volume objects gaining mass through some unknown mechanism by manner of spactime's continued expansion. Would the hypothetical conditions that altered the state of the proto-universe from pre-Big Bang to post-Big Bang arise in these objects? Would the continued mass growth over arbitrarily long time scales consequently increase the chances of the hypothesized causative quantum fluctuations yielding renewed expansion in any of these objects? Is there a critical point at which these infintesimally low probability occurences necessarily happen due to the continued addition of mass?

Most of the above is just speculation from someone who doesnt know nearly enough about these matters. Nonetheless, it seems the nature of this relationship - the cosmological coupling of black holes to expansion rate - may provide some very insightful avenues for continued research if the signal proves to represent an actual physical phenomenon.

Same concept as directed evolution in the life sciences. Don’t know exactly how to make something better? Let iteration and selection handle it for you.

[removed]

The woman's name is Roman, I used it.

I don't think you needed to exclude the woman's name.

You didn't even use the acronym again in your post.

Are you intentionally trying to erase this woman's accomplishments from the scientific record or just obtuse?

Dark energy is just a placeholder like a letter in an algebra equation . We don’t know what it is , we don’t know if it really even exists . We just know something is missing from the picture.

There is so many different sciences or schools of science that it does happen more so in some then others.

Theories and physics is a bit different but it can happen to have that ah ha moment.

There is so much that we don’t know or can see it’s hard to have it all figured out.

I have been reading about the whole dark energy thing for awhile and it never clicked .

So I guess I am excited about a different theory on the matter .

And no matter how smart any of us or all of humanity thinks we are we probably don’t even know a percentage of a percent of what would be considered the truth .

Science can be matlockesqe it has happened ..

When somebody finally cracks a cure to polio or malaria or eventually cancer sure there will have to be trails and studies but that person will feel that moment .

Spatial theory might be a whole different ballgame when it comes to that because even when you think you have it figured out you really don’t.

It is hard to have it all figured out when you can only see one piece of the puzzle.

>i'd love to see somebody one day to leapfrog up from what we have with newer technologies

Neutron and Stoke's upper stage both have some pretty original designs.

Just who are all these brilliant people who design, engineer etc etc these modern telescopes. They are building the dreams of astrologists of the last few thousand years. For a simple pleb, I'm in awe.

> Science isn't some Matlock-esque stage play where the hero rushes up, presents incontrovertible evidence, everyone says "yeah, that explains it" and then that's the end.

In fairness, that does happen, but it's very rare. When the sensitivity conjecture was proven in computer science, the proof was short enough to be tweeted out (a formal paper a couple pages long was published at the same time).