/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15558279
Hijacking this thread because cosmologists will be here. I hear that you can observe the very earliest stars to have existed because the 'light' from them is only reaching us now. From this it follows:
>If the universe was smaller, we'd never see the earliest stars because the light would've reached us eons ago.
>If the universe was larger, we'd never see the earliest stars because the light from them wouldn't reach us for eons.
Why are we in the Goldilocks zone for seeing the earliest stars? Is the universe 'a good size' or is it just 'bang average'?

>>15558316
>Why are we in the Goldilocks zone for seeing the earliest stars?
I can't answer this question in full but the only thing I do know on the subject matter is that the Universe is still relatively young. Don't forget that every second, around 15,000 galaxies vanish beyond the limit of the Observable Universe.

>>15558316
there are a lot of stars we'll never see because the universe at that distance expands "faster than light" from our point of view. we just happen to see the early stars that are just within reach, heavily redshifted.

>>15558324
Thank you anon.

>>15558336
I understand that. What I'm wondering is whether the range of universe sizes is such that that's likely. How much smaller or larger would the universe have to be for it not to be possible?

>>15558279

>>15558342
>>If the universe was larger, we'd never see the earliest stars because the light from them wouldn't reach us for eons.

that is wrong. we'll see what we see today. heavily redshifted stars from around the beginning of the universe that are at the edge of the visible universe. the light of those stars that are further away never reaches us.

>>15558371
If the universe was larger *at the point the light was emitted* then.

>>15558386
im too stupid to explain it better but as long the universe is bigger than the visible universe it doesnt matter how big it is. we see the same.

>oh hay guise i know everything about the entire universe
cosmology isn't science, its a neurosis

>>15558423
>cosmology isn't science, its a neurosis
Retard, who told you that cosmologists know everything?

>>15558324
name one galaxy

>>15558446
M51

>>15558316
No one here can answer your question.

>>15558464
FUCK off troll

>>15558449
Best galaxy

>>15558279
>First decent image of Neptune since voyager
Too based, my favorite planet

>>15558464
Easier way is to record your video and watch later lol

>>15558316
there is no goldilocks zone
We are simultaneously too far, too close, and in the perfect spot to see the earliest stars. There were multiple, spread throughout the entire universe, and the band we see now just happens to be the ones that were the perfect distance away.

I THINK SPACE IS NICE AND FUN ANON

>>15558748
OMG GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP AND PROPAGANDA AGENCY GOOGLE SAYS JWST IS NEAT-O!!!
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!

>inb4 anon post chorizo, btfoing all of science forever because science journalists are retards.

>>15558464
>picrel
Kek, one of the best troll comics I've seen

>>15558316
>Why are we in the Goldilocks zone for seeing the earliest stars? Is the universe 'a good size' or is it just 'bang average'?

Big bang is a Catholic lie invented by a priest to save face for the inquisition of Giordano Bruno, and it gets propagated because Catholics have massive control over various budgets and allocations. It really is that simply. Understand this and everything will make sense.

>>15558423
>cosmology isn't science, its a neurosis

More specifically: it's a de facto religion.

>JWST in operation for one year
>still hasn't looked at the star with the alien megastructures
>still no direct imaging of proxima b
>still hasn't searched for habitable planets in the rest of the alpha centauri system
>still no results on the trappist 1d and 1e planetary atmospheres
seriously what the heck?

>>15558279
>>15558316
>>15558371
The earth is flat and stationary with a dome. They are never ever leaving this enclosed plane alive, and neither are you sciencegoys.
CGI is all you get in this life and if you are vaxxed, I know many of you here are well boosted, then the Mars landings will be livestreamed straight into your vaxxed brain.
Also with the latest Neurolink brain processor you'll be able to watch multiple landings at the same time, with the same bitrate and no loss in quality experience.

>>15558316
The universe is infinite dumbass, you can pick any point and from there you will see the earliest stars because there were stars everywhere no matter what and eventually looking far out enough you will see them.

>>15559685
>infinity meme
if we assume the universe came from a single position at some point in the past then the light from that time will pass earth and we wouldn't be able to see it again, why is that not the case retard?

>>15559700
>if we assume the universe came from a single position at some point in the past then the light from that time will pass earth and we wouldn't be able to see it again, why is that not the case retard?

Bro, big bangers are so fcking gone its not even worth arguing with them. The ones who actually study it from 1st principles know its bullsht, but the Abrahamists with small hats are the top who control funding demand a moment of creation. It's why losers like "Professor Dave" LOSE. THEIR. SHT. When you start asking the right questions about big bang "theory". They know it makes their entire life a lie. I mean, can you imagine dedicating your entire life to a lie?

>>15559700
The universe did not come from a single position, that's just a misconception. The universe was always infinite, it was just more dense. Many physicists cringe at the name of Big Bang since it keeps perpetuating this error, but it can't be helped anymore.
All that needs to be said is that before the "Big Bang" the universe was too dense for the physics we understand to work properly, and then it became less dense very quickly.
I mean, of course, if you wish to listen to the completely insane like >>15559754 these sorts of retards, don't let me stop you.

>>15559791
Oh this cleared a lot of things thank you. I feel like a dumbass now, they seriously need to change the name.

>>15558694
>there is no goldilocks zone
>We are simultaneously too far, too close, and in the perfect spot to see the earliest stars
Being simultaneously too far, too close, and in the perfect spot to see the earliest stars *is* being in the goldilocks zone, though. There are conditions where seeing the earliest stars would be impossible. Instead of a bigger universe, you could imagine the speed of light being slower, and a light year being 1km. We'd be able to see the earliest light from our solar system in a radius of 13.7B km, but not the earliest stars, because our solar system doesn't have any of the earliest stars in it, and never did. Instead of a smaller universe, you could imagine light being close to infinitely fast. In this case, the light from all of the earliest stars would already have 'gone'.

>>15559808
>dumbass

You still are, Anon. Lol. Have fun!

>>15559816
schizos are the tranny of /sci/ you will never be right.

Trappist when?

>>15558343
>go to science board
>enter thread about telescope
>get mad
Autism.

>>15558316
the universe is a lot bigger than we expected, the edge of space is not at the goldilocks zone

>>15559665
Go back to /pol/

>>15559595
>still hasn't looked at the star with the alien megastructures
You mean the star with the dust clouds. Contrary to the popular media it's not hugely interesting. There is a cycle 2 program on it.
>still no direct imaging of proxima b
>still hasn't searched for habitable planets in the rest of the alpha centauri system
It doesn't have the contrast to directly image either.
>still no results on the trappist 1d and 1e planetary atmospheres
In prep. It takes time to understand a totally new instrument.

>>15559813
>>15558316
If the speed of light was much slower then structure formation would have been much slower. How could galaxies assemble if was no time for gravity to propagate over that distance. Everything would happen much slower.

>>15560261
Okay, but unless you're claiming that there are *no* conditions under which we couldn't observe the earliest stars, then that's irrelevant. If you *are* claiming that there are no conditions under which we couldn't observe the earliest stars, then you are including the observer in the model, which is a big red flag.

>>15558279
https://youtu.be/UOLLMkAHHQI?t=2477

>>15560256
>You mean the star with the dust clouds
>dust clouds around star
>no observed infrared emissions from said dust clouds
Not saying it's ayys but there's some strange shit going on with this star. It wouldn't hurt for JWST to take a peek at it.