JWST Image Artifacts, TRAPPIST-1 Planets from the Surface, Liquid Glass Space Telescopes | Q&A 330

44 thoughts on “JWST Image Artifacts, TRAPPIST-1 Planets from the Surface, Liquid Glass Space Telescopes | Q&A 330”

1. Thanks Fraser!

2. I have a question for Q&A set: What physically cause the FTL impossible??? There's no torque in the void! Why photons have their low max speed comparing to the size of the Universe?? Is the question already answered or still not?

3. What counts as intelligent life? If we found dolphins on a water world, would we say they were intelligent?

4. watch murderbot its really good scifi

5. If we had an observatory at the lensing boundary of our star we would need a billion of them or have it travel at speeds much faster than it would to deliver it there in a generation to be able to capture any meaningful images. IE a backyard telescope vs a satellite like the ISS traveling around the earth every 40 min. at that distance how fast would it need to travel to cover one lap in a year relative to earth. essentially being in an extended Lagrange orbit; not exactly because the speed would out pace the gravitational pull of Sol and the speed might even induce gravity on the components or maybe it doesnt matter in space that void, you are just going straight in a curved path.

6. Well, you finally got through to me what the cosmic microwave background actually is and why there's an observable vs. unobservable universe. I've seen other videos attempt to explain that, but I didn't get it until now with your very to-the-point, plain English explanation. Thanks again, Fraser!

7. Regarding the spikes: everything has them, the foreground stars and the distant galaxies.

   The only reason we just see them on the stars is they are so much brighter than the galaxies, the difference can’t really be captured in a jpeg rendition of the data.

   Moreover, if you took them out, there would be negative spikes in the data, which may not bother some ppl looking at it, but the data in those spots would be useless.

8. There several key issues with current AI models:

   1. The major ones are being trained using unfiltered data. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want a functional AI that doesn’t frequently hallucinate, you have to control the quality of the training data.

   2. LLMs require huge amounts of data, memory, and computer power. Whether this and be solved remains to be seen.

   3. Power consumption is insane. But given its tendency to hallucinate, that makes sense.

   That aside, generative AI is currently useful, but you must NEVER “trust” the results, you have to validate EVERYTHING an AI reports. Does it make sense? Does the available data support the conclusion? Can you verify the “claims” the AI made? That last part is a bit tricky, because current AI’s can’t give you the sources for its “claims”, you have to go independently research and verify them, because current models don’t “remember” where they got their info, so they can’t cite the source(s). It’s up to the user to validate them results…EVERY SINGLE TIME. The AI may still save you hours of research time, even after you verify the results, but you CANNOT simply trust the results.

9. For us Americans… the sun is about 93 million miles, and the Moon is about 250 thousand miles away.

10. If the Sun wasn’t moving around the Milky-way, would the planets crash into the Sun?

11. I think the diffraction spikes looks awesome.. maybe it's because I have astigmatism so I see diffraction spikes everywhere

12. Even though the answer to the diffraction spike question given here is on point, I'm still very happy that the issue is getting traction, notably due to the gobsmacking excess of spikes JWST is plagued with. It's the best path forward to an eventual telescope that has NO spikes and gives those data-hungry scientists actual clean data rather than ~10% compromised data.

13. I hear a lot of talk about solar sails, magnetic sails, and similar. What good would it be to use such a propulsion type to get to the solar gravitational lens location since you would have no way to stop and look?

14. The Vera Rubin images have a bunch of tiny blue dots in the background – presumably very distant galaxies, but why aren't they more redshifted as a result?

15. I recomend you watch ANIARA. an unusual sci-fi about the society on a doomed colony ship

16. Why is the maximum speed of gravitational waves limited to the speed of light, when the medium they’re influencing, space time itself, has no limit in terms of the expansion of the universe?

17. Thanks.

18. thanks for this one.

19. The diffraction spikes still contain the spectral info that the astronomers love.

20. I thought of this ten years ago. really pleased others are now thinking the same

21. I would spin water

22. Cheers for answering my question 🙏

23. Thank you Fraser for recommending "Pantheon" it totally was way more than I could expect. As for Rick & Morty I think new season is kind of better then two previous ones. Like they no longer try to outdo themselves but just do fun episodes.

24. Q: why don't they remove diffraction spikes. A: stfu

25. Fraser, did you read Robert Zubrin's book "A new world on Mars" that was released last year? What did you think of it if you did? Is terraforming as easy as he says?

26. Wot, no Vera Ruben video yet? You fall asleep?

27. I cringe every time I hear the term "nuclear rockets". Mankind's abysmal record dealing with nuclear materials (ALL of them) has made it beyond clear that we simply lack the discipline of thought required to use these materials for any purpose. There is not a single use that has not been a disaster. Prove me wrong!

28. scientists did end up messing with the picture of neptune for scientific study reasons, which made it look much more blue than it is in reality

29. I'm a fluid in a bag, in a way.

30. Thank you for pronouncing “ap-helion”, rather than “affelion”. Yes, both are considered valid because English can pronounce a “ph” as an “f”, but that totally ignores the origins of the word in this case. The “helion” part of aphelion and perihelion refer to the sun, so converting the ph created by adding the “ap” prefix into an “f” is just wrong.

31. I just saw a video that claims James Webb has been able to see galaxies beyond the traditionally defined "observable universe." Is there any truth to this claim?

32. to get rid of most diffraction spikes? take a second picture after rotating the telescope slightly and blend the two images ?

33. Brightburn is a dark evil take on superman

34. Massive telescope arrays are coming.
    They’re cheaper, local, and might just outshine the legendary solar gravitational lens 😎☀🛰

35. Diffraction spikes caused by spider vanes are annoying and reduce object separation. Chinese 2-meter space telescope Xuntian will be off-axis, with Field Of View ~1.1 deg^2, ~2026. Before Roman ~0.28 deg^2, ~2027. I wish for more off-axis telescopes.

36. Have rainbows ever been observed on Venus, Titan, or any other planets or moons in our solar system? What would they look like?

37. So I recently started using a diffraction grate on my seestar to add diffraction spikes to the stars in my pictures and my second night imaging the pelican nebula, the grate must have been very slightly off because I just ended up with double diffraction spikes on the brightest star. Just amazes me how people can image night after night with newtonians and not get multiple spikes.

38. Couldnt you just set up a precessing solar orbit that uses gravitation slingshots to sucessively increase its distance from the sun.

    In that way, with maneuvaring thrusters, would allow u to slowly rotate the gravity lens to a different point on successive orbits. You could combine the "Oberth maneuver" and that thing where you effective get out to so far and then just drop back toward sun. Maneuver around the sun, get out to wherever you are going to get, repeat. The successive distances quickly start adding up as each successive coming back in has more gravitational potential energy.

    Yeah youd have to get closer and closer to the sun as your speed increases to make the exit widow effectively the same. Lol

39. Don't liquid mirrors require gravity to form their shape, otherwise all the material will just form a torus at the outer edge of the container.

40. LENS NOT MIRROR

    oops, you answered question about a lens as if he meant mirror.
    11:00 minute mark question. thumbs up so Fraser sees this.
    Caps for readability, not shouting.

41. The abberation in the mirror of Hubble ?? was correted with an algorithem . Why the need for accuracy to begin with.

42. To make a concave mirror from a liquid, don’t you need a downwards force as well as a rotating force? On earth its gravity + rotation. In space it would need to be linear acceleration + rotation?

43. I get it the metric system is not as complicated but it hard to judge the distance when you have an imaginary view

44. Use the standard system and not just the metric system of measure please

Comments are closed.