Starry-Eyed Hubble Celebrates 20 Years of Awe and Discovery

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

NASA's best-recognized, longest-lived, and most prolific space observatory zooms past a threshold of 20 years of operation this month. On April 24, 1990, the space shuttle and crew of STS-31 were launched to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope into a low Earth orbit. What followed was one of the most remarkable sagas of the space age. Hubble's unprecedented capabilities made it one of the most powerful science instruments ever conceived by humans, and certainly the one most embraced by the public. Hubble discoveries revolutionized nearly all areas of current astronomical research, from planetary science to cosmology. And, its pictures were unmistakably out of this world.

At times Hubble's starry odyssey played out like a space soap opera, with broken equipment, a bleary-eyed primary mirror, and even a space shuttle rescue/repair mission cancellation. But the ingenuity and dedication of Hubble scientists, engineers, and NASA astronauts have allowed the observatory to rebound time and time again. Its crisp vision continues to challenge scientists with exciting new surprises and to enthrall the public with ever more evocative color images.

NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) are celebrating Hubble's journey of exploration with a stunning new picture, online educational activities, an opportunity for people to explore galaxies as armchair scientists, and an opportunity for astronomy enthusiasts to send in their own personal greetings to Hubble for posterity.

NASA is releasing today a brand new Hubble photo of a small portion of one of the largest seen star-birth regions in the galaxy, the Carina Nebula. Towers of cool hydrogen laced with dust rise from the wall of the nebula. The scene is reminiscent of Hubble's classic "Pillars of Creation" photo from 1995, but is even more striking in appearance. The image captures the top of a three-light-year-tall pillar of gas and dust that is being eaten away by the brilliant light from nearby bright stars. The pillar is also being pushed apart from within, as infant stars buried inside it fire off jets of gas that can be seen streaming from towering peaks like arrows sailing through the air.

http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/13/full/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. ~Edwin Powell Hubble, The Nature of Science, 1954

I think Mr. Hubble would be ashamed of all the bafoons out there who dismiss scientific theories.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Couldn't agree more. I know a few here who dismisses scientific fact.

Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. ~Edwin Powell Hubble, The Nature of Science, 1954

I think Mr. Hubble would be ashamed of all the bafoons out there who dismiss scientific theories.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Couldn't agree more. I know a few here who dismisses scientific fact.

No such thing. I guess you didn't pay attention, or you were mislead. Science is based on observation, not dogma.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No such thing. I guess you didn't pay attention, or you were mislead. Science is based on observation, not dogma.

Scientific theory isn't dogma. Not even close. Denial of scientific theory is more liken to people believing the earth is flat or the moon made of cheese.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Good joke!

The more of this nonsense, the more I will bash religion to a pulp.

No such thing. I guess you didn't pay attention, or you were mislead. Science is based on observation, not dogma.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[Peikko 1,575]

No such thing. I guess you didn't pay attention, or you were mislead. Science is based on observation, not dogma.

If 'every time I cool water to below 0 degrees it freezes' is merely an 'observation' can I expect that some day, water will not freeze at that temperature?

Edited April 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If 'every time I cool water to below 0 degrees it freezes' is merely an 'observation' can I expect that some day, water will not freeze at that temperature?

Believe, or not, yes. The least impurity will depress the freezing point of water. The next set of observations would be how each substance does that, and to quantify the results. To confuse you even more, pressure will also affect the melting and boiling of water, as anyone that has tried to boil an egg at high altitude has found out.

[Peikko 1,575]

Believe, or not, yes. The least impurity will depress the freezing point of water. The next set of observations would be how each substance does that, and to quantify the results. To confuse you even more, pressure will also affect the melting and boiling of water, as anyone that has tried to boil an egg at high altitude has found out.

Keeping it simple to make a point, but congratulations you have enhanced my point, these things are predictable not simply observable. We know exactly how many degrees of change of pressure will cause a change in the temperature at which water will change its form from gas to liquid to solid and we can predict accurately the temperature required based on the other two measurements. If it was merely something 'observable' we could not make any such predictions because we simply would not know the correlation between pressure, temperature and the physical properties of CO2 or if indeed there was one.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Keeping it simple to make a point, but congratulations you have enhanced my point, these things are predictable not simply observable. We know exactly how many degrees of change of pressure will cause a change in the temperature at which water will change its form from gas to liquid to solid and we can predict accurately the temperature required based on the other two measurements. If it was merely something 'observable' we could not make any such predictions because we simply would not know the correlation between pressure, temperature and the physical properties of CO2 or if indeed there was one.

And how did they reach those predictions? By observation and analysis. They created models to explain why what they observed occurred. All that is fine until something comes along that the model can't explain.

Further, these models generally explain ideal objects acting under ideal conditions. For instance, PV=nRT is the Ideal Gas Law. It demonstates how as ideal gas should act based on pressure, volume, number of molecules, and temperature. Yet, no gas can be observed acting exactly the way the Law predicted.

The is a certain amount of uncertainty built into any model, partially due to the mere act of observing an event, and partially due to Scientific Error. More accurately, scientists deal with probability and engineers talk about levels of confidence. Just think of everything you take for granted, until the one time things don't go as planned. Science is very much like that.

Edited April 24, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I love how Bill knows so much about science but lacks a basic understanding of scientific theory.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. ~Edwin Powell Hubble, The Nature of Science, 1954

Edited April 24, 2010 by ##########

[Peikko 1,575]

And how did they reach those predictions? By observation and analysis. They created models to explain why what they observed occurred. All that is fine until something comes along that the model can't explain.

Further, these models generally explain ideal objects acting under ideal conditions. For instance, PV=nRT is the Ideal Gas Law. It demonstates how as ideal gas should act based on pressure, volume, number of molecules, and temperature. Yet, no gas can be observed acting exactly the way the Law predicted.

The is a certain amount of uncertainty built into any model, partially due to the mere act of observing an event, and partially due to Scientific Error. More accurately, scientists deal with probability and engineers talk about levels of confidence. Just think of everything you take for granted, until the one time things don't go as planned. Science is very much like that.

Mathematical models work because the events they describe are 100% predictable. There is no 'n' factor built into every equation to account for the fact that 'sometimes' the predictable doesn't happen. I think you are mistaking our inability to observe and measure everything accurately at the molecular level with unpredictability.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

P = Pressure

V = Volume

n = Number of molecules (in moles)

R = Constant

T = Temperature

Models may be predictable. It depends on the nature of the equation(s)/algorithm(s) used. The relationship between a mathematical model, and what is actually observed, can be a frustrating one at times. Model equals theory, and the best models are but an approximation of reality.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bill must have lost his notes on scientific theory...

What Is a Scientific Theory?

Scientists don't use the term "theory" in the same way that it's used in the vernacular. In most contexts, a theory is a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work — one with a low probability of being true. This is the origin of complaints that something in science is "only a theory" and so isn't credible. For scientists, a theory is a conceptual structure used to explain existing facts and predict new ones. To be considered a scientific theory by most scientists and philosophers of science, a theory must meet most, if not all, of certain logical, empirical, sociological and historical criteria.