Technology has advanced and the time has come to put up a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.  NASA is well on the way to a next generation space telescope but to my horror, they've chosen to call it the James Webb Space Telescope!

"Who the hell is James Webb?" you might ask.  Well, he was a lawyer and a bureaucrat. He happened to be the top administrator of NASA through the glory years of Gemini and Apollo, but he was not a scientist.

Is anyone else offended by having a piece of advanced technology named after a bureaucrat?  I'm fine with putting his name on a government building, but I think the next generation space telescope should be named after a scientist - perhaps Carl Sagan.

Should we protest?

Views: 645

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Experiments on interference made with particle rays have given brilliant proof that the wave character of the phenomena of motion as assumed by the theory does, really, correspond to the facts.
(Albert Einstein, on Quantum Theory, 1954)

And, the point was that he did account for subatomic actions and not just massive objects.

And his work is what lead to nuclear devices, GPS, etc.  His predictions about special and general relativity changed the world.

So, I'm NOT dissing Newton, the guy was amazing, I'm just saying Archimedes, Einstein, etc, also changed THEIR worlds.

And, again, Newton did not address atomic levels, and, was insufficient for multiple or complex orbits...and every single aspect that Newton addressed was also addressed by Einstein...and then some.

Newton could not have done what he did without the babylonians and greeks, etc, before him, and neither would Einstein...all of  science progressively stands on the shoulders of those before them.

Einstein considered Newton to be a superman, if that helps.


And, again, Newton  [...] was insufficient for multiple or complex orbits

There was no closed form solution to the general 3 (or more) body problem back then.

There still isn't.

That's a problem with the state of the art in mathematics, not an issue with Newton's theory (and the same problem exists with general relativity).  The only way such problems are solved is for special cases (like the restricted three body problem) or numerically, by having a computer take small time steps and integrating.  Again, that's NOT a flaw in either Newton's or Einstein's formulae, it's just that you can't solve the equations algebraically.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service