Webb telescope promises new age of the stars

"It essentially behaves better than expected in almost every area," said Massimo Stiavelli, head of the Webb mission office at the Space Telescope Science Institute, in Baltimore.

It baffles the mind the amount of effort necessary to put the Webb telescope into working order, but as described in the article the benefits have been even more than what was expected, just looking at the news articles mentioning can give a good perspective about how important this has been for the field and science in general.

virusrexToday  09:53 am JST

It baffles the mind the amount of effort necessary to put the Webb telescope into working order,

It is not baffling at all if looked at from a scientific perspective and being aware of the historical improvements made to telescopes used in space.

but as described in the article the benefits have been even more than what was expected,

Right, so?

just looking at the news articles mentioning

Grammar.

can give a good perspective about how important this has been for the field and science in general.*

Not science in general.

This is an advancement in the specific field of astronomy.

Based on what is written in this article.

RKLToday  01:09 pm JST

Not science in general.

This is an advancement in the specific field of astronomy.

Based on what is written in this article.

Even based on what's written in the article, a lot more than astronomy. It clearly states the atmosphere of exoplanets.

Everything on earth originated in some form or another from space. All the basic elements including what we're made from come from stars. Advancements in physics, chemistry, even biology, etc., can result not only advancement in astronomy. Instead of nitpicking someone's grammar, how about some common sense.

If it were 200 million light years away and looking back at earth, it would see the dinosaurs.

It is not baffling at all if looked at from a scientific perspective and being aware of the historical improvements made to telescopes used in space.

It is for people that clearly understand the amount of effort is not minimized by previous achievements.

Grammar

You seem to think articles here are meant to be of your liking and approval, that is not the case.

Not science in general.

This is an advancement in the specific field of astronomy.

This is not an argument to disprove the advancement on single field can also mean advancement for science in general, knowledge from one field can affect other and produce improvement in related and unrelated fields, specially when it is as important as what is being obtained from this specific advancement.

virusrexDec. 29, 2022  09:53 am JST

It baffles the mind the amount of effort necessary to put the Webb telescope into working order, but as described in the article the benefits have been even more than what was expected,

You misunderstood.

The article is describing how the Webb telescope works much better than the Hubble telescope. Easy mistake to make.

But it is great to see the specific advancement in the field of astronomy.

You misunderstood.

The article is describing how the Webb telescope works much better than the Hubble telescope. Easy mistake to make.

There is no misunderstanding, as other comments clearly point out the achievements necessary to make the webb telescope work are extremely important, and so are the results that have derived from its use, it is also clear that advances on one specific field also contribute to advancement for science in general, as sure as you were completely unable to refute the arguments other commenters also gave to prove this. If anything the misunderstanding here would be all yours.

virusrexToday  01:20 pm JST

There is no misunderstanding, as other comments clearly point out the achievements necessary to make the webb telescope work are extremely important,

You're doubling down on your error?

I can understand though how you did not fully comprehend what is written.

Just to ensure you have a grip on what is being discussed in the article, the point is the Webb telescope works better than the Hubble telescope.

The point is not, as you first thought (but most likely now see your error of thought) that the Webb telescope is performing better than it was thought the Webb would perform.

and so are the results that have derived from its use, it is also clear that advances on one specific field also contribute to advancement for science in general, as sure as you were completely unable to refute the arguments other commenters also gave to prove this. If anything the misunderstanding here would be all yours.

It is a bit odd that you are confused as to the intent of this article, which is to purposely focus on the advancements in astronomy.

It is just jolly silly for anyone to confuse this article's purpose with any other field of science.

But if someone wants to be silly, I say go for it!

Is that still the path you choose?

You're doubling down on your error?

What error, claiming something is an error while not making any argument to prove it does not make it so, it only makes it clear you are trying to impose a persona opinion that can be demosntrated as false without following any logic process to prove that what you write is correct

Just to ensure you have a grip on what is being discussed in the article, the point is the Webb telescope works better than the Hubble telescope.

And that does absolutely nothing to disprove that the amount of effort necessary to put in order the Webb telescope is impressive. It is an irrelevant fact if your intention is to say this is a non-consequential achievent as you claim.

It is a bit odd that you are confused as to the intent of this article, 

The confusion is still yours, you have provided no argument to support your criticism, does this means you are recanting it and now understand that this is a huge achievement?

It is just jolly silly for anyone to confuse this article's purpose with any other field of science.

Since nobody but you have done that you are criticizing only your own comment, what me and others (that you have not been able to refute) is that achievements in one specific field of science can be of benefit of science in general, and frequently are. You can be silly as you claim to be if you want, but trying to impose false claims even while understanding they are false is where you can be criticized.

The Webb is so much farther from Earth than the Hubble.

It has a further reach into the infrared.

Hubble still does its thing too.

I've seen some images from the Webb Telescope, and they are literally out of this world.

And thinking advances in this telescope have a broad effect on other fields of science overall is reaching beyond the realm of reason.

Crazy to think that some images are from relatively close in time to the Big Bang.

And thinking advances in this telescope have a broad effect on other fields of science overall is reaching beyond the realm of reason.

No, it is not, it is actually something completely logical and a relatively common thing in scientific writings

https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/51/3/3.25/224270

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/how-can-astronomy-improve-life-earth

If the experts clearly think that advances in astronomy (as in the example of this article) clearly have an effect on science in general or even on to the point of affecting the daily life of many people it should be obvious that there inothing "beyond the real of reason", at much it is only beyond limited imagination and knowledge of people that are not interested enough in the topic.

virusrexToday  12:35 pm JST

No, it is not, it is actually something completely logical and a relatively common thing in scientific writings

https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/51/3/3.25/224270

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/how-can-astronomy-improve-life-earth

If the experts clearly think that advances in astronomy (as in the example of this article) clearly have an effect on science in general or even on to the point of affecting the daily life of many people it should be obvious that there inothing "beyond the real of reason", at much it is only beyond limited imagination and knowledge of people that are not interested enough in the topic.

You're reaching hard for something not there.

One of your sources is more than 12 years old!!!

And neither of your sources mention the Webb or Hubble telescope.

You mistakenly believe the article describes benefits of the Webb exceeding what was expected of it.

No mistake about that, it is explicitly said so in the article

"It essentially behaves better than expected in almost every area,"

This means the mistake is yours.

This is an extremely precise description of an advance in a specific discipline, astronomy.

Which does absolutely nothing to refute the fact that advances on one specific field can have general positive effects on science in general, as clearly said in the references that disprove your personal opinion about it.

Can you get any expert supporting your claim that advances such as the ones described in this article do not have any effect in science in general? because if not you are trying to impose a baseless appeal to your own supposed authority, which obviously is invalid.

Again, because your sources describe specific scenarios (hypotheticals at that) and not "general" ones,

No, they are not, they even include historical examples how this has been the case, nothing hypothetical about them.

Yes, nice pictures, but not so much more. We should use our remaining resources for ourselves and on this planet, not for such useless ‘space research’ often millions of light years away, places we simply can’t ever reach or aren’t even existent anymore when considering the big amount of time that has passed until those informations or pictures could reach us here.

This is great ---making a telescope that is more advanced than the Hubble is a positive step forward.

I don't think we suddenly will see out doctors taking more powerful x-rays of us because of this improveent in the field of astronomy.

ジョージDec. 29, 2022  03:58 pm JST

Absolutely stunning images. The Pillars of Creation make me think of a hand reaching up to the heavens (kind of what the Webb telescope is doing).

I remember when the 'Fingers of God' was first photographed and shown on TV. It was a bewildering discovery then, even more now.

And those rings around Neptune are so easy to see now, ain't they? I remember when Voyager II was the first spacecraft to visit that planet in 1989, discovering the rings. Now with the Webb telescope we can learn even more about the universe while still pondering over the planetary photos the robot spacecraft have gave us.

should use our remaining resources for ourselves and on this planet, not for such useless ‘space research’ often millions of light years away

As proved by the references, there is nothing useless in astronomical discoveries, just people that fail to recognize how they end up supporting new technologies that can even improve daily lives.

I don't think we suddenly will see out doctors taking more powerful x-rays of us because of this improveent in the field of astronomy.

That still does absolutely nothing to refute the reference supported fact that advances on one specific field of science frequently lead to advances in science in general. Making up an irrational example and then calling it irrational does not prove the already provided rational ones are false.

It has a further reach into the infrared.

You are particularly correct. Hubble has near-infrared capabilities so you can't compare

Hubble still does its thing too.

Kind of. It has had major software issues recently and it has clearly lost its edge in the world of cutting edge.

I wished you would research more before posting. It's hard correcting your errors.

Lol. Some NY good fun.

Do you think the economic disaster in China obscures the Orion nebula??

A butterfly inspired that sage thought...

virusrexJan. 3  06:54 am JST

That still does absolutely nothing to refute the reference supported fact that advances on one specific field of science frequently lead to advances in science in general. Making up an irrational example and then calling it irrational does not prove the already provided rational ones are false.

There is no reference supported fact.

This is about astronomy. And telescopes.

Suggesting the medical field will find the means to provide telescopes for the tiny submarines injected into people is way off the path of reasonableness.