Jump to content

Astronomy / The Universe


graygo

Recommended Posts

maroonlegions

Nice. :2thumbsup:

 

Cool stories. :2thumbsup:

 

 

 

Off World

Elon Musk Just Published His Plan to Colonize Mars   :2thumbsup:

Must want to make humanity a "multi-planetary species.?

June 16, 2017 

 

 

 

 

 

Off World

The First Targets of the James Webb Telescope Have Been Announced    :2thumbsup:

Even just these first targets promise to drastically expand our knowledge of the Universe.

7 mins ago 

 

 

 


 

 

Off World

NASA Just Discovered 10 Earth-Like Alien Planets   :2thumbsup:

We're step closer to finding another Earth.

31 mins ago 

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cade

    247

  • JFK-1

    195

  • maroonlegions

    191

  • Unknown user

    97

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

maroonlegions

Wonder what the outcome of this investigation on the first interstellar asteroid will be.

 

Seems it's like nothing  seen before.

 

The VLT discovered it this year.

 

 

Here is a snippet from the link provided below.

 

"On October 19th, 2017, the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System-1 (Pan-STARRS-1) in Hawaii announced the first-ever detection of an interstellar asteroid, named 1I/2017 U1 (aka. ‘Oumuamua). Based on subsequent measurements of its shape (highly elongated and thin), there was some speculation that it might actually be an interstellar spacecraft (the name “Rama” ring a bell?).

 

For this reason, there are those who would like to study this object before it heads back out into interstellar space. While groups like Project Lyra propose sending a mission to rendezvous with it, Breakthrough Initiatives (BI) also announced its plans to study the object using Breakthrough Listen. As part of its mission to search for extra-terrestrial communications, this project will use the Greenbank Radio Telescope to listen to ‘Oumuamua for signs of radio transmissions.

 

link;. 

Using the Greenbank Radio Telescope, Breakthrough Listen plans to "listen" to 'Oumuamua to see if there are any signs of alien transmissions.
 
UNIVERSETODAY.COM
 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/05/2017 at 15:31, maroonlegions said:

I see Tabbys Star is at it again.

 

This is all about the sudden dimming of an otherwise unremarkable star 1300 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus. KIC 8462852 or ?Tabby?s star? .

 

It has dimmed like this several times before, prompting some researchers to suggest that the mega-structures of an advanced alien civilisation might be blocking its light.

 

 Of course this has still to be proved but based on new data from numerous telescopes?it?s doing it again, the dimming that is,giving rise to the claim that something is passing by the star that is causing its light to dim.

 

One other theory is that the star is "variable" or is surrounded by dusty clouds or dusty comets or that planets around it had collided  or were still forming  and that was causing the dimming. 

 

 

?This is the first clear dip we have seen since [2013], and the first we have ever caught in real time,? says Jason Wright, an astronomer at Pennsylvania State University in State College. If they can rope in more telescopes, astronomers hope to gather enough data to finally figure out what?s going on. ?This could be the first of several dips about to come,? says astronomer David Kipping of Columbia University. ?Many observers will be closely watching.?

 

KIC 8462852 was first noticed to be dipping in brightness at seemingly random intervalsbetween 2011 and 2013 by NASA?s Kepler telescope. Kepler, launched to observe the stellar dimming s caused when an exoplanet passes in front of its star, revealed that the dimming of Tabby?s star was much more erratic than a typical planetary transit. 

 

It was also more extreme, with its brightness sometimes dropping by as much as 20%. This was not the passage of a small circular planet, but of something much larger and more irregular.

 

link; http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/star-spurred-alien-theories-dims-again

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
2 hours ago, zoltan socrates said:

An object from outwith our own solar system,  might have a left back on it

And a attacking midfielder. :laugh: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zoltan socrates

Dyson spheres would require more matter than the given solar system could offer ,id have thought, which would therefore require efficient quick reusable interstellar travel which could only happen once we have an efficient sustainable way of harnessing enough power, from say a star, but to do that we would have to build a dyson sphere.....

 

nice theory, would love it to be real, cant see it in the real world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zoltan socrates said:

....left back....

 

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

....attacking midfielder....

 

 

Ah lads, the science fiction thread is thataway.  :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
1 hour ago, zoltan socrates said:

Dyson spheres would require more matter than the given solar system could offer ,id have thought, which would therefore require efficient quick reusable interstellar travel which could only happen once we have an efficient sustainable way of harnessing enough power, from say a star, but to do that we would have to build a dyson sphere.....

 

nice theory, would love it to be real, cant see it in the real world

 

Who knows, maybe an advanced race have already done it. :smuggy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zoltan socrates said:

Dyson spheres would require more matter than the given solar system could offer ,id have thought, which would therefore require efficient quick reusable interstellar travel which could only happen once we have an efficient sustainable way of harnessing enough power, from say a star, but to do that we would have to build a dyson sphere.....

 

nice theory, would love it to be real, cant see it in the real world

They’d require more material than this solar system contains.  Not necessarily the case for others.

Or possibly it’s a partial sphere, which may explain the intermittent nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

Back to the  interstellar object. Astronomers are far from being fools. They know exactly when things dont fit into a natural explanation. This object does not fit into one at present. Even if this object is entirely natural , its mere present is a somewhat nice drill for the public, a sort of educational example of how one day tings cold turn out with science facing a genuine unknown as we probe and push our instruments deep into the cosmos. Except this object strangely enough looks like it came on its own accord.

 

 

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jam Tarts 1874

NASA to make a big announcement live at 6pm relating to hunt for habitable planets, will be streamed on NASA website.

 

Discovery by Kepler telescope apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
2 hours ago, Jam Tarts 1874 said:

NASA to make a big announcement live at 6pm relating to hunt for habitable planets, will be streamed on NASA website.

 

Discovery by Kepler telescope apparently.

 

8-discoveryofn.jpg

Discovery of new planet reveals distant solar system to rival our own

 1x1.gif December 14, 2017

The discovery of an eighth planet circling the distant star Kepler-90 by University of Texas at Austin astronomer Andrew Vanderburg and Google's Christopher Shallue overturns our solar system's status as having the highest ...



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-alien-cigar-shaped-asteroid.html#jCp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jam Tarts 1874
12 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

8-discoveryofn.jpg

Discovery of new planet reveals distant solar system to rival our own

 1x1.gif December 14, 2017

The discovery of an eighth planet circling the distant star Kepler-90 by University of Texas at Austin astronomer Andrew Vanderburg and Google's Christopher Shallue overturns our solar system's status as having the highest ...



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-alien-cigar-shaped-asteroid.html#jCp

 

 

I was hoping that Kepler 90 would turn out to be much older than our sun, thereby giving the potential for any life on those planets to be much more advanced.  However NASA are saying Kepler 90 is probably about the same age as our sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horatio Caine
56 minutes ago, Jam Tarts 1874 said:

 

I was hoping that Kepler 90 would turn out to be much older than our sun, thereby giving the potential for any life on those planets to be much more advanced.  However NASA are saying Kepler 90 is probably about the same age as our sun.

 

Ah well!  Means there's the chance of a planet inhabited by arseholes like us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudolf's Mate

Probably been posted however went a page back and couldn't see.

 

I actually watched nearly the whole thing and it's pretty remarkable!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Horatio Caine said:

 

Ah well!  Means there's the chance of a planet inhabited by arseholes like us.

 

If there is life on any of those planets, and it's intelligent life, they are advised to ignore any radio messages from us. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

If there is life on any of those planets, and it's intelligent life, they are advised to ignore any radio messages from us. :wink:

 

:D

 

Personally, with the probabilities involved, I imagine that they already do, under some sort of Prime Directive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
38 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

If there is life on any of those planets, and it's intelligent life, they are advised to ignore any radio messages from us. :wink:

Pity we couldn't send them a copy of the 5-1 DVD .:pleased:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

The first 14 months of data, and information on over 1 billion stars. The Gaia mission is really pulling its weight!

 

Picture below; 

Color view of M31 (The Andromeda Galaxy), with M32 (a satellite galaxy) shown to the lower left.

 

 

The latest scientific finds made from the first release of Gaia data include illuminating images of the Milky Way galaxy's neighbors.
 
UNIVERSETODAY.COM
 

M31_JULY16_20_qhy11_tmb92_5X600_11x300_LRGB_SSP-1024x711[1].jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brick Tamland

Some interesting stuff on this topic that I read for the first time last night. I agree that thinking about it could just drive you insane!

Following some googling I stumbled upon this ‘interesting’ piece on Dogon people and Sirius http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,85285,85357

There’s lots of ‘interesting’ other reading about Sirius too. 

 

 

Edited by Brick Tamland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
maroonlegions

Its stranger than science thought.

 

 

I will add this to though.

 

A recent study on a space anomaly that has perplexed scientists for years has some suggesting that it could be explained by a parallel "bubble universe" — although there are other, more standard potential explanations, as well.

 

 

 

Strange-Universe_v3[1].jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Its stranger than science thought.

 

 

I will add this to though.

 

A recent study on a space anomaly that has perplexed scientists for years has some suggesting that it could be explained by a parallel "bubble universe" — although there are other, more standard potential explanations, as well.

 

 

 

Strange-Universe_v3[1].jpg

:insufferable::Aye:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

:insufferable::Aye:

 

Cheers for that scientific analysis.  :laugh:

 

 

Credit: The Royal Astronomical Society

“This means we can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard model. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations,”  said researcher Tom Shanks in the press release. “Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe.”

 

If more detailed studies support the findings of this research, the Cold Spot might turn out to be the first evidence for the multiverse, though far more evidence would be needed to confirm our universe is indeed one of many.

 

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a multiverse is exotic, but certainly shouldn't be scoffed at.  If there's one thing we've learned about astronomy, is that we shouldn't be too quick to rule anything out.

 

After all, prior to the 20th century, no-one had even thought of wormholes, quantum mechanics, or dark matter.  And most astronomers thought that the universe was static, until the 'big bang' theory was proposed.

 

Finding strong evidence for a multiverse is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
42 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

The idea of a multiverse is exotic, but certainly shouldn't be scoffed at.  If there's one thing we've learned about astronomy, is that we shouldn't be too quick to rule anything out.

 

After all, prior to the 20th century, no-one had even thought of wormholes, quantum mechanics, or dark matter.  And most astronomers thought that the universe was static, until the 'big bang' theory was proposed.

 

Finding strong evidence for a multiverse is another issue.

:thumbsup:

 

Agree , early days yet, time as usual will tell. Every little bit of new data will  contribute to any future breakthroughs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Cheers for that scientific analysis.  :laugh:

 

 

Credit: The Royal Astronomical Society

“This means we can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard model. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations,”  said researcher Tom Shanks in the press release. “Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe.”

 

If more detailed studies support the findings of this research, the Cold Spot might turn out to be the first evidence for the multiverse, though far more evidence would be needed to confirm our universe is indeed one of many.

 

:D

 

It's actually quite weird this thread being bumped. I've been enjoying watching episodes of the Universe and to the edge of the universe. Love it.

 

But fwiw I'm agnostic about multiverse, infinity etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
19 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

:D

 

It's actually quite weird this thread being bumped. I've been enjoying watching episodes of the Universe and to the edge of the universe. Love it.

 

But fwiw I'm agnostic about multiverse, infinity etc...

Seems that  scientific data can be overlooked by  personal bias but such is human nature in all its multiverses.  :laugh:

 

New scientific  breakthroughs in regards to astronomy can be weird but not in relation to this thread, the ever ongoing changes to what science current knows about our solar system  never mind the possibles of multiverses is an ongoing saga. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Seems that  scientific data can be overlooked by  personal bias but such is human nature in all its multiverses.  :laugh:

 

New scientific  breakthroughs in regards to astronomy can be weird but not in relation to this thread, the ever ongoing changes to what science current knows about our solar system  never mind the possibles of multiverses is an ongoing saga. 

It's just like god, I don't think multi verse can ever be proven. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm not biased with things like this. I just don't accept their pish. Prove it, not simulation agenda, prove it. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

It's just like god, I don't think multi verse can ever be proven. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm not biased with things like this. I just don't accept their pish. Prove it, not simulation agenda, prove it. 

 

Prove what.:laugh:

 

I take it you read the link in which it states that more data is required and that the articule has credible scientific sources.

 

The proof you need is an ongoing one as has been pointed out. Its  early days but the multiverses has scientific substance, small but its there.

 

This has nothing to do with religion and wee green men. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Prove what.:laugh:

 

I take it you read the link in which it states that more data is required and that the articule has credible scientific sources.

 

The proof you need is an ongoing one as has been pointed out. Its  early days but the multiverses has scientific substance, small but its there.

 

This has nothing to do with religion and wee green men. :laugh:

Have people moved between said multi verses, that's what I mean by proof, not some thesis on a bit of paper/computer simulation. Technically we can prove the existence of multiverse and infinity.

Oh really on you go, on u go where? On you go to said multi verse. Eh we Cannae actually go.

Pish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Have people moved between said multi verses, that's what I mean by proof, not some thesis on a bit of paper/computer simulation. Technically we can prove the existence of multiverse and infinity.

Oh really on you go, on u go where? On you go to said multi verse. Eh we Cannae actually go.

Pish!

 

There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but you have to accept that not everything in science has to be proven in a laboratory before it becomes true.

 

For example, Albert Einstein rarely set foot in a laboratory.  He did his most famous work, his theory of General Relativity, with nothing more than a pencil and paper.  That wasn't pish then, and it isn't pish now.  What he proposed consisted purely of mathematics, but countless observations since then have confirmed the accuracy of what he calculated.

 

Similarly, when Copernicus proposed the heliocentric solar system, it was all mathematics.  You don't have to "actually go" somewhere to make him right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but you have to accept that not everything in science has to be proven in a laboratory before it becomes true.

 

For example, Albert Einstein rarely set foot in a laboratory.  He did his most famous work, his theory of General Relativity, with nothing more than a pencil and paper.  That wasn't pish then, and it isn't pish now.  What he proposed consisted purely of mathematics, but countless observations since then have confirmed the accuracy of what he calculated.

 

Similarly, when Copernicus proposed the heliocentric solar system, it was all mathematics.  You don't have to "actually go" somewhere to make him right. 

Now I'm no physicist so correct me if I'm wrong, but those equations contain the cosmological constant, a concept that was roundly rejected pretty quickly after publication. However, as the maths didn't work without it, it was left in.

I don't see how you can prove anything when you have to leave a made up number in to make it work - sounds like pish to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Now I'm no physicist so correct me if I'm wrong, but those equations contain the cosmological constant, a concept that was roundly rejected pretty quickly after publication. However, as the maths didn't work without it, it was left in.

I don't see how you can prove anything when you have to leave a made up number in to make it work - sounds like pish to me!

 

I'm no physicist either so I can't correct or enlighten you.  Although Einstein added the constant to make his theories work (in the days before he or anyone else realised the universe was expanding), in modern times the constant is considered to be zero.  And his equations still work ... or so I'm told. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm no physicist either so I can't correct or enlighten you.  Although Einstein added the constant to make his theories work (in the days before he or anyone else realised the universe was expanding), in modern times the constant is considered to be zero.  And his equations still work ... or so I'm told. :wink:

I believe it was considered to be 0 until the 90s, but I'm not going to pretend to understand it or why it changed!

 

I've just never been able to understand why we hold the theory of relativity in such high esteem when it needs a made up number to make it work. We don't know why it has to be there or what phenomenon it represents (although it's definitely not the one that was intended!) and that the value of that made up number has had to change to make the whole thing continue to work!

 

Yep

 

videotogif_2018.01.29_23.13.24.gif

 

*worth pointing out at this point that I'm still not convinced by electricity 

Edited by Smithee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I believe it was considered to be 0 until the 90s, but I'm not going to pretend to understand it or why it changed!

 

I've just never been able to understand why we hold the theory of relativity in such high esteem when it needs a made up number to make it work. We don't know why it has to be there or what phenomenon it represents (although it's definitely not the one that was intended!) and that the value of that made up number has had to change to make the whole thing continue to work!

 

Yep

 

videotogif_2018.01.29_23.13.24.gif

 

*worth pointing out at this point that I'm still not convinced by electricity 

 

Yeah, it's all well above my pay grade too.  But I believe that the number has changed as new observations are made.  But I wouldn't pretend to understand any of it.:conf11:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yeah, it's all well above my pay grade too.  But I believe that the number has changed as new observations are made.  But I wouldn't pretend to understand any of it.:conf11:

It just seems so daft! 

 

"Check my equation, I've proved everything, beauty eh?"

"Actually, the universe isn't constant, it's always moving"

"No worries, make that triangle worth 6 and Bob's your auntie's weekend persona. Ta daaaa!"

 

 

To quote the Office: "a mistake plus keleven gets you home by seven"

 

Or understanding of the universe is held together by a bloody keleven!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mere fact that a "constant" can vary leaves me asking :wtfvlad:

 

BTW, there's a small book out by Neil DeGrasse Tyson called "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry".  He attempts to explain what we've been talking about.  Well, I'm not in a hurry, which maybe explains why most of it is 'way over my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

The mere fact that a "constant" can vary leaves me asking :wtfvlad:

 

BTW, there's a small book out by Neil DeGrasse Tyson called "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry".  He attempts to explain what we've been talking about.  Well, I'm not in a hurry, which maybe explains why most of it is 'way over my head.

I would but I just don't have the wits for it, which is fine by me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Gentleman
9 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yeah, it's all well above my pay grade too.  But I believe that the number has changed as new observations are made.  But I wouldn't pretend to understand any of it.:conf11:

It's actually the 'Hubble Constant' which is used in modern astronomy/astrophysics. It's a unit of measurement which tells us the rate of expansion of the universe. If, for example, one observation informs us the universe is doubling in size every 10 billion years and a later one informs us it's now taking 8 billion years, then clearly the rate of expansion is increasing exponentially. Which is exactly what's happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the universe is expanding then WTF is it expanding into? Are new planets and stars magically invented when this new part of space appears?

Edited by AlimOzturk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Gentleman
1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

If the universe is expanding then WTF is it expanding into? Are new planets and stars magically invented when this new part of space appears?

It's expanding into more of its own space-time 'fabric'. It's not happening at the 'peripherals', because there are none. It's happening everywhere else though. The distance between galaxy clusters, for example, is increasing but not because the clusters themselves are moving due to some energetic force, it's because the space-time between them is expanding exponentially. Science does not understand why, as space-time expands, its properties (whatever they are) do not 'dilute' as would be expected. One of the two great unexplained mysteries; the other being 'dark matter'.

No, there aren't any 'new' stars or planets being magically invented. New stars, galaxies and planets are generated from existing matter as a result of gravity. All the matter there is, and ever will be in this universe, was created at the Big Bang. The universe is effectively a mind-bogglingly, vast recycling plant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Gentleman said:

It's expanding into more of its own space-time 'fabric'. It's not happening at the 'peripherals', because there are none. It's happening everywhere else though. The distance between galaxy clusters, for example, is increasing but not because the clusters themselves are moving due to some energetic force, it's because the space-time between them is expanding exponentially. Science does not understand why, as space-time expands, its properties (whatever they are) do not 'dilute' as would be expected. One of the two great unexplained mysteries; the other being 'dark matter'.

No, there aren't any 'new' stars or planets being magically invented. New stars, galaxies and planets are generated from existing matter as a result of gravity. All the matter there is, and ever will be in this universe, was created at the Big Bang. The universe is effectively a mind-bogglingly, vast recycling plant.  

Dark Matter yes, but let’s not forget the hypothetical entities of ‘Inflation’ and ‘Dark Energy’.

The theory relies on these fudge factors and can’t survive without them.

No doubt the ‘Big Bang’ will go down in history as a stepping stone to a greater understanding of the universe.

However it’s implied that the ‘Big Bang’ model explains the origins of the universe, when that is not the case.

Edited by alfajambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...