@pb1022 saidNegative. The early universe was hot and dark. In the first few million years after the BB, the universe was too hot to propagate photons. Only after the universe cooled down could light be transported. Therefore, no light-sensitive telescope can 'see' the BB, ever.
Eventually, one of these telescopes will be able to see the moment the Big Bang happens. That’ll be interesting.
@ogb saidI believe the correct formulation is that an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate a mass up to the speed of light, not that the object itself increases in mass.
a bit off topic...sorry...but didn't Einstein say that an object's mass increases the closer it gets to the speed of light? And if it did reach light speed, an object would be infinitely large ? That never made sense to my puny brain...
@Liljo
I just woke up from a horrible nightmare: Our brave little Webb scope got blown off course by a blast of solar wind, got pelted by meteorites, and then got sucked into a black hole. Whew! I hope it's okay and all is well.
@sonhouse saidEven if it was just a boring regular sliver of plain dull rock, imagine all the new skills, experience and knowledge we would gain by chasing down a super-speedy alien object and sending back detailed images, videos and other data.
@Ponderable
I think they would be destined for disappointment when they find out it is just a long and thin sliver of an asteroid, just regular space rocks that flaked off a bigger asteroid.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 16
- Moves
- 4810
@bunnyknight saidConsidering that when it was discovered, it was on its way out of our solar system. It had no gravitational bonding to our sun. They had a grand total of 11 days…eleven days. That was the entire time of observation.
Even if it was just a boring regular sliver of plain dull rock, imagine all the new skills, experience and knowledge we would gain by chasing down a super-speedy alien object and sending back detailed images, videos and other data.
https://www.space.com/oumuamua-first-interstellar-visitor-true-nature-mystery
@liljo saidAre you saying that our brave little Webby survived space rocks, solar storms, radioactive nebulas, neutron stars, quasars, deadly black holes and killer aliens?
Webb has arrived! The final adjustment at L2 has been accomplished! No space rocks have destroyed the 'scope!
Perfectly executed. Let the cooldown begin!
Amazing if true.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 16
- Moves
- 4810
@bunnyknight saidSure did! Amazing!
Are you saying that our brave little Webby survived space rocks, solar storms, radioactive nebulas, neutron stars, quasars, deadly black holes and killer aliens?
Amazing if true.
I'm sure there were a few supernovas, masses of dark matter, and the increasing threat of interstellar objects to navigate.
On a serious note, the accuracy of all the work, planning, engineering, design, etc., is truly mind-boggling. It took 30 years and 10 billions dollars. There was quite the celebration at NASA yesterday, and across the world.
@moonbus
It does increase in mass when getting close to c. And it is an asymptote, the amount of energy needed to get to c means there never is enough energy because at c the mass would indeed be close to infinite anyway. Close enough to make it impossible.
Maybe we can get to 99.99% c but that is still not c.
Doesn't look like so far even that is possible outside of a particle accelerator.
Would be nice if we could do it, we would be going effectively about 100X the speed of light.
The problem with that deal is, if it worked, you can visit a star 100 ly away in one year travel so you goof around, do amazing science, discover sentient lobsters, whatever, take ten years there, go back home and when you get home you find 210 years have passed on Earth because the closer you get to c the slower everything inside that craft runs, the electrons flapping around a nucleus, that flapping around slows down because it is a spacetime thing, time runs slower and so you leave Earth, say in the year 2300 and are 30 years old, spend ten years on star X, come back to Earth, you are now 42 years old but the clocks all say it is 2510 or so on Earth because our clocks are running WAY faster than someone going 99.99%c.
I bet astronauts will have to sign an agreement they cancel any bank accounts before they go🙂 200+ years of accumulated interest would be a good chunk of change🙂
My undoubtedly bad take on it would be like running a vehicle through mud, an infinite mud flat, so the faster it goes the more mud plows up in front so the vehicle gets heavier. And heavier and so forth till the same amount of thrust just lets you maintain the velocity you managed to get to.
Of course at that velocity, an ATOM can cause damage to such a vehicle so there better be about a mile of ice in front for shielding🙂
@sonhouse saidHow much energy is required to accelerate to 50% light speed 1 mile of ice + 1 person in a spacecraft large enough for 1 years support?
@moonbus
It does increase in mass when getting close to c. And it is an asymptote, the amount of energy needed to get to c means there never is enough energy because at c the mass would indeed be close to infinite anyway. Close enough to make it impossible.
Maybe we can get to 99.99% c but that is still not c.
Doesn't look like so far even that is possible outside of ...[text shortened]... M can cause damage to such a vehicle so there better be about a mile of ice in front for shielding🙂
I think even at 1/2 light speed it's..... more than we have.