James Webb Just Broke the Universe .... Again !

a reply to: gortex
The first stars were probably extremely massive, going through all the stages of synthesis very quickly. Supergiants use up the hydrogen and helium in their cores within a few million years. They then start to burn the carbon. Supergiants live for about 10 million years, after which they go supernova.

a reply to: wildespace2

I'm aware of the theory but think existing and new discoveries will eventually prove current theory untenable , which is a good thing for science.

Isaac Newton found gravety!
No one befor him thought about it! ?

Isaac Only calclated the Speed of it.
we have silly ideas as to what gravety is.
and we spend $trillions world wide to Try to find what it may be.
and will spend Much more.

can you imagine what the quality of life would
be like if that money was spend inproving it?

a reply to: Scratchpost

What is being spent on gravity and where?

a reply to: SprocketUK

More like a circular universe where we see the same things at very many points of time.

originally posted by: SlightlySlightly
a reply to: SprocketUK

More like a circular universe where we see the same things at very many points of time.

again too messy for my pet theory

I find these concepts fascinating. But I am convinced they are pure nonsense in the sense that they have no relationship to the real world, or the universe, whatever that may be. I am not a cosmologist. But I am somewhat qualified to have what I would call a very educated opinion about this. I work in a lab as a scientific programmer. I have degrees in pure mathematics and in computer science. I am surrounded by scientists from many different fields of study and I participate in all the meetings. I have to understand the theory to be able to write the software for the given task.

Modern science is politics. The most important thing is to keep the funds coming in to support the projects and the salaries of the scientists, and yes, my salary, as well. There is a lot of good work being performed in applied Physics. Pay attention to the word "applied". That is very important. Unfortunately, cosmology, astrophysics, and similar disciplines are almost entirely theoretical. The Mathematics of those theories is very real. The practical aspect is not. None of those things exist because observations are adapted to support the mathematical equations and formulae already written and agreed upon. It happens almost every day in that industry. So, after 25 years of doing this work, I am convinced all those models are a lie, yes, if you want to look at it that way. The theoretical concepts are real, but the interpretation, the objects themselves need not exist in reality. All you see are lights in the sky. That's all. And you let your imagination run wild. That's what keeps the money coming in for those scientific projects. William Shatner was 100% on point when he said in an interview some years ago that science fiction and science are the same thing. In fact, they are. But he was referring to theoretical physics and space science primarily. Obviously, applied science is great and things you can actually measure, touch, calculate, etc. When young students who plan to study science approach me and ask me what they should study, I always tell them to get into areas of science that have practical applications. Areas where you can validate that the mathematics is right beyond any reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for space physics.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: wildespace2

I'm aware of the theory but think existing and new discoveries will eventually prove current theory untenable , which is a good thing for science.

I believe you are 100% correct. New discoveries are shattering our previous conclusions on a lot of things related to Astrophysics and the logic needed for us as we attempt going ahead into space.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Scratchpost

What is being spent on gravity and where?

Well there is ANTI gravity research. I think that must be a drop in the bucket compared to what we sent to Ukraine just this year to lose a war. They are also losing all that equipment NATO sends them.

a reply to: madscientist3000

I will testify to the "modern science is politics". My experience working with (not for) the EPA has shown that I can say things to the Scientists in meetings sometimes when we gather with that the EPA personnel who know I am right can't because they will get demoted for telling the truth. We can design things to not pollute, but we can't design a power grabbing gov agency from destroying common sense apparently. The Michigan lead in the school drinking water, the Ohio train wreck, the Colorado Silver mine they blasted the retention pond for some dumbass reason and the wet weather creeks being called "navigable" are just some of my examples of some tom foolery at the top of that agency.

Yes, environmental science is one of the biggest scams and money laundering schemes. Not all of it is fake, but a lot of it is.

As far as space physics and cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, and the like, I am convinced that most of those are fake. Space does not exist in the context that is taught to us.

Look for a video where Michio Kaku, a world renowned physicist for several decades, clearly states he does not know anyone in the scientific community who uses the scientific method. It is intuition, working by the seat of your pants, etc. He is being honest when he says that. They are working backwards. Let's adapt reality to the theories, the mathematical equations. If the equations don't work, it is not because the equations are wrong. It is because there is something hidden we have not seen, but it must exist because the math says it does. When you rationally analyze this approach with critical thinking, the only conclusion is that it is pure nonsense.

originally posted by: madscientist3000
Yes, environmental science is one of the biggest scams and money laundering schemes. Not all of it is fake, but a lot of it is.

environmental science. lol

I live in outback Australia and they are now offering to pay us $36,000 a year to put a wind turbine up, increasing with inflation, guaranteed.

One bloke's land they wanna put up 5 of em ..he reluctantly consented. Soon he'll no longer need to farm and will need to be content with his $200k per year for .. erm, kickin back i suppose

They could place one in the center of my driveway for $36,000 annually

originally posted by: wildespace2
a reply to: gortex
The first stars were probably extremely massive, going through all the stages of synthesis very quickly. Supergiants use up the hydrogen and helium in their cores within a few million years. They then start to burn the carbon. Supergiants live for about 10 million years, after which they go supernova.

In theory ….