Talk:2014: JWST Delays

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! Cosmogoblin (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." GODZILLA (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree to the current sentence saying "and compares the universe’s accelerating expansion to the apparently ever-delaying schedule" but were the hell comes the conclusion that "the JWST will have enough delays to fill a universe"? This does not make any sense. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Does today's prediction of 2026 count? If that is included in the data set, it would then skew the best-fit line to be steeper. If a new prediction is made using that new best-fit line, that would further skew the line, and so on, causing the acceleration the title text anticipates between 2018 and 2020. 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't count, because it's just prediction, while the data set is of (official) planned launch dates. -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia data (taking the midpoint for ranges) fits a linear function with slope 0.660618 and intercept 687.739. This implies convergence at 2026.45, which is why Randall is predicting late 2026 for the actual launch. 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Von Foersters's doomsday is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? -- 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Why do you think that Trump will get only 1 term? 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same chart for the new airport in Berlin. Sadly its slope is not less than one, it is indeed accelerating...
2006     2011
2010     2012
2012     2013
2013     2014
2014     2016
2015     2018
2016     2018
2017     2022
Fabian42 (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

[1] says that the planned launch date from December 2017 is in October 2020 (not 2022). That would make the slope slightly less than 1 (unless you ignore the 2016->2011 data point, as outlier) -- 09:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a 2022 prediction earlier in 2017, I took the maximum value for each year. And honestly, 2202 sounds more reasonable than 2020 for me. Fabian42 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you plot out the least-squares fit as it changes over time (i.e. repeat Randall's graph as each new data point was added), it fits a quadratic quite well. And converges to a 2025 date.

I wonder what this chart would look like for new york's 2nd avenue subway. 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least there _is_ a slope. How about Trump's wall? 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Two more lines are coming together... the year and the XKCD index. 2018 should happen next week. IonFreeman (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The last three data points have a slope greater than one. Just sayin'. Redbelly98 (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)