JoeSchmuckatelli

Yeah - some of my favorite arguments are between cosmologists - starting back when Phil Plait had the audacity to start a blog with a forum DM got a couple of people fairly heated

...is something we did well in the Corps. It helps to know what is inside the box and then be willing to work outside of it to get stuff done. I suspect that most people do not recognize how remarkable Musk is in his willingness to accept failures as part of a rapid development and iteration process. Like unicorn unique. With a boss like that, creative people are generally comfortable offering suggestions and trying new things.

I'm not going to admit how long it took for me to spot the tiles. ... Nope. Not even going to mention it.

I've seen mention of that - but IIRC there is some pushback on the idea?

Grin - yeah... I'm getting that. Still - fun to read what the 'smart guy's best guesses' are - hence why I continually post Cosmology questions.

Won't lie: I'm struggling with this. Hence my 'sponge' analogy. One thought: if we zoom out far enough for homogeneity, and have a theory of gravity that works at that scale - are we losing something in understanding gravity at scales like the structures we see? Can a general ' homogeneous' gravity theory actually predict what is going on (w/r/t evolution, speed and distance) at short to mid-range galaxies and clusters? I don't have an answer or even a quibble - but I do find it very interesting.

I like the cut of your Jib, sailor! (Thanks for posting stuff like this)

So - if 'large enough scale' is truly 'large enough' then structures like the Great Attractor, and Lanaikea etc become just part of the mix and homogeneity is assumed once more? (kind of like how a sponge is a sponge, but when you zoom in on it you see the foam of matter and trapped bubbles, but zoom out again and its just a sponge? Is that a decent analogy?) I find cosmology fascinating - but my education is spotty at best. Can you recommend something a non-physicist might read to get a better understanding of why homogeneity is assumed and how it shapes our understanding of the universe?

Methane on Titan isn't

I know. It's entertaining snark - drawing a connection between the 300 and 300,000.

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2021/07/06/space-x-drone-ship-arrives-at-the-port-of-long-beach/

What does the theory of cosmology that the universe is largely homogeneous at large scales get us? This recent article discusses it, but does not explain why it is a fundamental part of the accepted understanding of the distribution of matter https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencenews.org/article/galaxy-giant-arc-3-billion-light-years-long-cosmology-space/amp (confusing b/c when you read about things like the Lanakai Supercluster you get the impression that gravity does impart some sense of organization to the distribution of galaxies / matter, which seems inimical to the concept of homogeneous distribution) Edit: @K^2 are you willing to take a stab at helping me understand this?

Ok - but don't say that I did not warn you. You must indulge your inner 14 y.o. If you approach these with the cynicism of later adulthood... Something fails in the translation. A healthy appreciation for the noxiousness of the '70s is also beneficial

^shocked^ You need to go back to when you were 14, slap your face, and then make your 14 year old self read the damn books. IDK how you can function in modern society without such a fundamental reading experience in your background. (FYI - trying to start the series at any age other than 14 is difficult)

I always believe official denials So easy to dismiss what the government does not want me to think about

If you were to be space walking... would seeing the 'naked' sun freak you out? (The atmosphere protects us from most of the bad stuff)

Meh - we've been spying the ground for a long time. Just look at the recent photos of the Chinese ICBM field. I want to spy stuff far from here - and see if there are any habitable planets around 18 Sco

I just want to watch the thing fly. (I feel like even if I had written that in all caps, it would not make sense of how awesome I anticipate that many engines firing at once would be.)

My impression was that interferometry was best suited for radio telescopes - so that's what I was thinking when I asked the question. Webb is optical / near visual spectrum AFAIK. Hence the mirror and etc. But the scattered array that caught sight of the BH were all radio scopes around the world. What I was thinking is that with a sat. constellation they could get higher resolution

Now that you mention that, I do remember some talk about effective arrays requiring some math and knowledge of distances... But I didn't know it needed much precision. So in that case, while a sat-constellation array might be feasible, it's not likely something we can do cheap by hitched rides on other satellites

I'm not sure. Having read about some of the stuff discovered by the few ground based telescopes linked in an array, and reading of plans for an optical scope larger than Webb... It seems like a bunch of constellation scopes on different trajectories around the planet could give us a planet sized telescope with pretty good resolution

What's the downside?

Would it be feasible to slap some cheap hardware on SX Starlink sats and create a global sized array telescope?

Why is Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor (LUVOIR) Not Large Optical Ultraviolet Infrared Surveyor (LOUIS)? Weak Naming by the space agency.

Going back to the structure we speculated might be a leg, or fin attachment... Did we ever get an idea of what it was? The subsequent photos make it hard to tell if there are 3 or only 2.