# Difference between revisions of "Talk:2014: JWST Delays"

(Note on Berlin Airport) |
|||

Line 27: | Line 27: | ||

2017 2022<br> | 2017 2022<br> | ||

[[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | ||

+ | :[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bau_des_Flughafens_Berlin_Brandenburg#cite_ref-136] 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) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.35|162.158.91.35]] 09:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC) | ||

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |

## Revision as of 09:27, 4 July 2018

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 2020.162.158.63.88 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? 108.162.216.16 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)

Von Foersters's doomsday is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) 162.158.89.175 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? --172.68.211.10 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Why do you think that Trump will get only 1 term?141.101.76.70 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) --162.158.91.35 09:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration 172.68.59.24 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder what this chart would look like for new york's 2nd avenue subway. 162.158.75.130 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least there _is_ a slope. How about Trump's wall? 173.245.52.151 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)