You know the Universe right...

[ger_ryan22]

http://s1.postimage.org/1G8GWS-ebd275b858862f43cc10b08b6ba3494b.jpg

My head hurts trying to comprehend all that.

[red4life86]

I have just read all 17 pages of this thread and it has to be the best thread on this site (excluding Babe of the week). Now to buy some astronomy books.

Same here. Fantastic reading and clearly some very knowledgable people discussing the subject. Saw something the other day on time travel and they were suggesting that we could only jump forward in time as effectively you would compress time/space to make two points closer for the traveller while others took the slow path.

True, it was Doctor Who confidential but the theory sounds interesting :o

It would also make sense that we can't travel backwards in time as someone would have already done it by now. Unless of course this period in our planets "history" is boring in comparison with what's to come.

[kopite321]

June 15th, 2010
New Worlds to Explore? Kepler Spacecraft Finds 750 Exoplanet Candidates
Written by Nancy Atkinson


The Kepler spacecraft has found over 750 candidates for extrasolar planets, and that is just from data collected in the first 43 days of the spacecraft's observations. "This is the biggest release of candidate planets that has ever happened," said William Borucki, Kepler's lead scientist. "The number of candidate planets is actually greater than all the planets that have been discovered in the last 15 years."

This is an astounding amount of potential exoplanets from data taken during such a short period of time, however Borucki added that they expect only about 50% of these candidates to actually turn out to be planets, as some may be eclipsing binary stars or other artifacts in the data. But still, even half would be the biggest group discovery of exoplanets ever.

And the exciting part is that 706 targets from this first data set have viable exoplanet candidates with sizes from as small as Earth to around the size of Jupiter. The team says the majority have radii less than half that of Jupiter.

The Kepler team has found so many candidates, they are sharing. They will keep the top 400 candidates to verify and confirm with observations using other telescopes – with observations done by Kepler team members. And today they have released the other 350 candidates, including five potential multiple planet systems.

However, some astronomers are upset about this and think the Kepler team should release all of their findings from the first year, as is typically done with NASA data.

Kepler launched on March 6, 2009, and has been on the hunt for exoplanets. Of course, the holy grail is finding an Earth-like or Earth-sized planet, especially those in the habitable zone of stars where liquid water and possibly life might exist. In the spring of 2009 the Kepler Mission conducted high precision photometry on nearly 156,000 stars to detect the frequency and characteristics of small exoplanets. Kepler studied an area in the constellation Cygnus, looking for the small changes in light that would signal a planet passing in front of its star.

But it takes time to verify candidates and find out if they are actually exoplanets. Usually, confirming the transit of an exoplanet requires observations of three different transits. While NASA’s policy requires astronomers to release their data from NASA instruments in a year, the Kepler team has worked out an agreement with the space agency so they can keep a certain portion of their data until they actually have time to verify this huge amount of exoplanet data. Between launch delays of other telescopes, cloudy nights for Earth based telescopes, and viewing a part of the sky that is only visible from the ground from April until September, they haven't had the observing time they needed to check out all their planet candidates. The extension of the deadline gives the Kepler team the time to make sure they have gone through and found all the false positives and other potential misinterpretations of the Kepler data.

Dennis Overbye in the New York Times has written an article that delves more deeply into this little controversy. What is propriety data, and what is public? It's a tough argument either way: scientists who have put years of their life into building a spacecraft should have the time they need to verify their data. But others feel the science should be open and available, and a policy is a policy: the deadline for releasing the data is here.

Whatever your feelings on open or closed data (and the Kepler team is only getting an extra six months on just part of their data, by the way), you have to be impressed with the quantity of potential exoplanet finds. And Kepler still has at least two years left of observations

[kopite321]

This will make you feel small...

http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gx1G8GWS

[ger_ryan22]

See above mate :)

[Ricky_Blowdeal]

I had an email through Mars is coming closer to Earth and on the 27th August it will visibly be the same size as the moon. An event unlikely to happen again until the 2200s.

[ger_ryan22]

I had an email through Mars is coming closer to Earth and on the 27th August it will visibly be the same size as the moon. An event unlikely to happen again until the 2200s.

Now that sounds cool.

[Taksin]

I had an email through Mars is coming closer to Earth and on the 27th August it will visibly be the same size as the moon. An event unlikely to happen again until the 2200s.

Mate, I'm not sure what this event is, but if Mars ends up the same size as the moon I'll be jumping off a cliff somewhere

[ger_ryan22]

Obviously a hoax of course :)

[dean_lfc]

I was just reading the first page.
If you believe there is life after death would this mean one of the many religions out there maybe true?
I'd love to think that there is life after death, however anything I've encountered I just put down to coincidence or my mind playing tricks on me.
Anybody got any stories where they have felt someone has 'visited' them?

[Ricky_Blowdeal]

Obviously a hoax of course :)

Take it you just googled it. Yes it appears to be a hoax.

[ger_ryan22]

Take it you just googled it. Yes it appears to be a hoax.

No I heard this story about a year ago. I just think it would be cool to see it that big :)

[ger_ryan22]

YIKES! :eek:



Black Hole Blows Big Bubble

Combining observations made with ESO’s Very Large Telescope and NASA’s Chandra X-ray telescope, astronomers have uncovered the most powerful pair of jets ever seen from a stellar black hole. This object, also known as a microquasar, blows a huge bubble of hot gas, 1000 light-years across, twice as large and tens of times more powerful than other known microquasars. The discovery is reported this week in the journal Nature.

[red4life99]

Hi all. Einstein once said, "Only 2 things are infinite-the universe and human stupidity-and I'm not sure about the former"

[mikeiom]

There is a really good series on Discovery on Monday nights called How the universe works. Very intersting

[redrule]

if it's so big and it contains everything, and God created it right, and all the galaxys and planets are all swirling around in it in a big sort of huge gigantic swirling mass of objects creating a super duper sort of galatic symphony thingy...... then why is it that we will only ever see the moon and perhaps some nice images of through hubble telescope?

I mean, why all that effort if it will never be appreciated?

unless when we die we get to fly around wherever we want to you know like to neptune and have a look

on another note, The speed of light, more than 386 thousand miles per second.. How do they know.. what's the speed of dark?

where does all the stuff end up once it's been sucked up into a black hole?????

These things worry me on a daily basis :mad:

Dont take this to personal but ...

Have you ever thought of why the universe is expanding away from you ?

[LFC vs PFC]

Phew I thought it was me , guess I was just standing near him (cosmicly like).

[Ricky_Blowdeal]

Astonomers detect monster star

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10707416

[The Prince]

Sorry, had to remove that image as it was crashing any replies.

Mars reached its closest point a few years ago. You could make out the polar ice caps and some surface features with a small telescopes but it was still a dot in the sky.

[SteelWool]

Not sure if this has been covered but if the universe is expanding, doesn't that mean that it can't be infinite?

So what else is there? What is it expanding into? It can't be 'nothing' because nothing has no properties, but this stuff has the property of being expanded into?

On a side note, not sure if anyone has read 'Moondust' but it's superb.

[The Prince]

It is expanding but the infinite argument stems from the fact that the it's still exploding now. We're still hurtling away from wherever the singularity stemmed from.

There are galaxies flying away from us but there are also some flying towards us (Andromeda being one). This is all verifed by red and blue shifts. Any system with a red shift is moving away and anything with a blue is coming towards us.

Add into this the element of dark matter which hides 90% of the universe and it's no wonder we're confused.

[SteelWool]

So dark matter is the reality of the universe and we're just the fluff. Frightening

So the universe is infinite because it is expanding? But presumably at some point the momentum from the initial singulairty (big bang?) will be lost and it will stop to expand? When that happens, it will become finite? If the Big Bang had infinite 'power' it would still be happening surely?

The fact that it is expanding also implies that there is something so expand into, so what the fuck can that be? Just 'void'?

[thewhitevanman79]

Quite possibly the best thread EVER! Have just read all 19 pages thus far. Only took me about 2 hours lol

I am fasinated by the universe and would love to know more. Anything on Nat Geo or Discovery or even Histroy that has the words Universe or space or even anything remotley similar and I'm glued to it. Funnily enough me and the mrs were talking about space and the universe last night, I felt like i knew quite alot when I was telling her what I knew. But after reading this, and Prince's posts in particular, I realise I know piss all!!!

With my limited knowledge, I have however come up with a theory about where everything came from and how the universe will end.

Everything came out of the Big Bang, this is widely accepted to be true (i dont say it is true fact, as new discoveries are being made every day and what was once thought to be true is proven false). There are 2 main theories as to what will happen at the end of the universe. The big pop (not sure if I got the name right, but it sounds right to me) where the universe keeps expanding and expanding and expanding until it can expand no more and it all just goes pop. Similar to when you blow up a ballon. You can only inflate it to a certain size before it explodes and you have bits of plastic rubber all over the place. The second theory being the big crunch, which Prince mentioned. In this theory the universe reaches a certain size, and then goes into reverse and and returns to the point of singularity.

I however have come up with another theory altogether. I call it the Big Black Hole Theory.

The universe is full of Black holes. As we know black holes swallow up EVERYTHING that is within its gravity. The bigger the black hole, the further its reach. When a black hole gets close enough to another black hole the two merge to form an even bigger black hole. In my theory eventualy (billions and billions and billions of years from now) all the black holes will of merged and swallowed up all the matter in the universe. The centre of a black hole is unimaginably dense. Someone else said exactly how heavy it is, apologies but I can not remember who, and it just crushes and crushes everything. However, no matter how much pressure there is, and how dense the centre of the black hole is. It can not contain everysingle piece of matter in the hole universe. Imagine putting a tin of soup in a press. You slowly add more and more pressure to the tin, and will get smaller and smaller. The soup inside will compress, and althought it will change shape the tin will hold its structural intergrity. Eventualy though, under growing pressure the tin will explode and soup will go all over the place.

This is what I belive happened prior to the big bang and what will happen at the end of this universe.

The big bang happened because a previous universe had been swallowed up by black holes that had merged to become one super massive back hole, but the pressure at the centre of the black hole had become too much for the black hole to hold it, and eventualy it exploded and everything escaped.

The black holes in our universe will once again merge, swallow all the universe, the pressure will become to much for the blackhole to contain and everything will explode out again to create another universe.


Ofcourse this is merely my own uneducated opinion. But I would like to hear all your thoughts on it, and ofcourse our resident Universe expert Prince.


On the subject of time travel. I saw on TV before that the reason we havent been visted by people from the future is not so much because it will never be invented, but more if it is invented, it will be a machine that sends people from one point in time to another. With no machine being present to send some to that period in time, people can not travel to that time. As time travel hasnt been invented yet, we dont have the neccasary equipment to recieve people. Think of it like a fax machine. You cant fax a form to someone who hasnt got a fax machine.

[SteelWool]

@ Whitevanman

Interesting theory, reminds me of Nietzsche's theory of the Eternal recurrence.

There is only a finite amount of matter in the universe but an infinite amount of time. As such over that infinte time every single combination of matter that is possible will become realised and then will repeat eternally throughout time.

So instead of believing in heaven or reincarnation, Nietzche believed that as our particular 'combination' of matter was repeated we would live exactly the same life as we do now. The same in every detail and every action we take.

If the Universe has, as you say an end 'goal' i.e. reaching a terminal mass and then 'popping' or 'contracting' then can we say have Free Will? If the fate of the universe and everything in it is predefined then so is everything within it surely?

[The Prince]

I like that theory as it shows that we only have a certain amount of free will in a tiny environment. Bill Hicks described us a 'virus with shoes' and I like the idea of the universe just being the schrapnel from Big Bang.

The fact that stars form, explode or swell to bursting point and then begin anew could provide us with evidence that the universe does pretty much the same thing. Is this Universe number 1 or 8 trillion?

WVM, I think that the crunch is more likely as even a universal explosion (the bits of rubber lying around) would still constitute the universe or a universe of sorts as while there is matter there is a universe. At a point of singularity there is no diffuse universe, only that one point.

The black hole theory is something that's bothered me before. When I was really into this stuff I wrote to Stephen Hawking and asked if, as most star systems have double or triple star moving around a common sense of gravity (the upper star in the 'twins' of Gemini is six stars that look like one point of light) and that they're as common as single stars, wouldn't it be possible to have two black holes circling around each other if there was enough distance for one not to sucked in by the other. He was good enough to reply by saying that he didn't know but it was possible. Supermassive black holes do exist but one that could swallow an entire galaxy? I don't see why not. It's generally considered that most galaxies have them and it would make sense that they're at the centre of their galaxies. Thing is, wouldn't have it have happened now.

Interesting stuff.

[ger_ryan22]

Have a butchers at this....The Double Slit Experiment. It'll f*ck your head up :)

http://www.highexistence.com/this-will-mindfuck-you-the-double-slit-experiment/

[ger_ryan22]

Delete if too big Karl, thought it was a nice shot

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/LunarAtlas/panoramas/media/images

On second thoughts I'll just leave the link to all the panoramic moon shots. They're awesome as the Yanks would say!

[ger_ryan22]

We're not alone, no way. :)

Nasa's Kepler space probe has found more than just 706 potential new planets — it may also have found five new solar systems.

Buried in the deluge of data sent back by the probe are clear signs that at least five of the 150,000-plus stars it has studied may have two or more planets in orbit around them. Some appear similar to Earth.

Up to 140 of the newly found planets are rocky and Earth-like containing both land and water, conditions which could allow simple lifeforms to develop.

Astronomers are keen to find out how common multi-planet systems are because these are thought most likely to create the stable conditions where earth-like life might have a chance to evolve.

These results emerged from the first six weeks of Kepler's mission. Over the four years of Kepler's mission many more such systems may emerge. The potential extrasolar systems were among 706 candidate planets found in Kepler's first six weeks of operation.

This alone suggests planets are common, although it is not just the number but also size distribution that is important. Nasa has selected 400 of Kepler's finds to follow up using ground-based instruments and Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes. The results are due by February

"The next step after Kepler will be to study the atmospheres of the planets and see if we can find any signs of life," said Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University who is a member of the Kepler science team.

[thewhitevanman79]

I like that theory as it shows that we only have a certain amount of free will in a tiny environment. Bill Hicks described us a 'virus with shoes' and I like the idea of the universe just being the schrapnel from Big Bang.

The fact that stars form, explode or swell to bursting point and then begin anew could provide us with evidence that the universe does pretty much the same thing. Is this Universe number 1 or 8 trillion?

WVM, I think that the crunch is more likely as even a universal explosion (the bits of rubber lying around) would still constitute the universe or a universe of sorts as while there is matter there is a universe. At a point of singularity there is no diffuse universe, only that one point.

The black hole theory is something that's bothered me before. When I was really into this stuff I wrote to Stephen Hawking and asked if, as most star systems have double or triple star moving around a common sense of gravity (the upper star in the 'twins' of Gemini is six stars that look like one point of light) and that they're as common as single stars, wouldn't it be possible to have two black holes circling around each other if there was enough distance for one not to sucked in by the other. He was good enough to reply by saying that he didn't know but it was possible. Supermassive black holes do exist but one that could swallow an entire galaxy? I don't see why not. It's generally considered that most galaxies have them and it would make sense that they're at the centre of their galaxies. Thing is, wouldn't have it have happened now.

Interesting stuff.

Are you asking weather or not my black hole theory would of happened by now? Just because it hasnt happened yet, dosent mean its not going to happen. We know that the universe is expanding as a result of the big bang. Could this expanding be due to matter still accelerating away from the black hole from where it all came? To escape a black hole would of required an enormous, mind boggling amount of energy. Is it beyond reason that the matter has escaped so far away that the black holes are yet to catch up? Once the universe stops expanding, i.e once the energy from the big bang has dispersed, then all the matter would stop moving forward. As far as I am aware (although more than happy to be corrected if wrong) very little is known about black holes. How they form, where they form, do they move or do they merely drag items towards them. If the universe stopped expanding, and everything stayed exactly where it was then black holes would be able to move there way through the universe with move speed, dragging more and more into them, mereging with other black holes, getting bigger and bigger, and more and more powerful.

As for the black holes at the centre of galaxies. I can only assume (again correct me if I am wrong) that you feel that if it was black holes at the centre of galaxies then by now the galaxies would of been swallowed hole. If this is the case, then surely this is what is going to happen eventualy, even to our milky way. It is just the vastness of the galaxy that has stopped it happening so far. Alternatively, the majority of the glaxy could be close enough to be pulled into orbit of the blackhole by its immense gravity, yet far enough away for the gravity not to be strong enough to be pulled into the blackhole. Just as our moon is close enough that our gravity keeps it in orbit, but not too close that it is pulled to earth. Or how we are close enuff to the sun to be pulled around it by the suns gravity, yet too far away for the sun to have enough gravity to pull us into it and burn us all alive.

A thought has just occured to me, and I should warn you that it is forming while I type, so I could be miles off. Could it be possible that the suns gravity is actualy pulling us closer and closer to it each year? But because the pull is so minimal, prehaps millimetres a year, we havent yet moved close enough to the sun from our original position for it to have been recorded as yet?

As I say, that is a brand new thought, and i havent had time to consider it fully yet. But could it be possible? No matter how unlikely, surely it could be possible?

I think the key thing to remember here, is all acts and changes that take place in the universe, happen incredibly slowly. Changes happen over millions of years. With the expection of a sat exploding ofcourse. But even the process building up to that isn't exactly a speedy process.

[The Prince]

Well, I know how black holes form but that’s about it. Stars either puff out their outer layers our explode to become nova/supernovae. When a giant blue or white star (think of an iron in a fire. When it’s hot it turns orange but when the temperature increases it becomes white or blue) can no longer hold onto the force of its own nuclear reactions it explodes – leading to the most violent reactions possible. Sometimes it leave such a dense area where its core use to be that gravity cannot escape it and it rips or bulges downwards forming a black hole. Anything that is nearby goes with it. Fall into a black hole and you’ll become spaghetti.

Our Sun will throw off its outer layers and leave a pulsar or a neutron star – a tiny body that spins as fast as 100 times per second. This too is incredibly dense and one pinhead of material from it would weigh somewhere near 100,000 tonnes. However, that’s not enough to form a black hole. Stand on one of these things and…well, it’s best not to.

Black holes certainly move as everything does. Are you saying that these super massive blackholes will swallow up everything and become a singular point again? That could happen but I’m not sure how it would re-create another Big Bang to start it all off again. The two singularity points in cosmology are black holes and the Big Bang.

I agree that a black hole at the centre of the galaxy may not be strong enough to swallow the nearby star but far away enough to hold the rest of it in a ‘captured’ orbit. Is the black hole’s pull finite or infinite? The more it swallows the more it pull it would have. Tricky one.

As for your Sun theory I’m pretty sure that would be impossible as Mercury and Venus would have gone by now. That said, the asteroid belt is probably due to an object being too close to the pull of Jupiter so you never know. I personally think that the Earth will die when the Sun bloats and swallows the first four planets up rather than a collision.

Jesus, I love this stuff. :D

[thewhitevanman79]

I agree that the sun will die long before any planet got dragged close enough to be burned up by it. Althought saying that, I do believe that when our sun does die, it is going to expand first and swallow up Mercury and Venus, and come incredibly close to earth. It was just a thought that occured to me as I was typing. Could it be possible that slowly, very slowly, maybe 1mm every million years, the planets are being pulled that bit closer to the sun.

Id never actualy considered why the asteroid belt is where it is. So you think that the asteroids are being caught by the gravity of the Sun AND Jupiter and as such being held in a state of limbo? Similar to a ball bearing being levitated by two magnets. Where neither is strong enough to pull the ball bearing to it, but strong enough to stop the ball bearing going to the other magnet, so the bearing is just suspended in mid air caught in two magnetic fields being pulled in opposite directions.

Returning to my black hole theory. My theory is that if all the matter and energy of the whole entire universe is swallowed by one Hyper massive Black hole (sorry, didnt think super massive black hole would cover it, had to invent a new one), then that would be an enormous amount of energy being crushed down. No matter how powerful the gravitational pull of the black hole, my theroy goes that eventually the energy will escape, because the pressure will be too much, even for a black hole to hold. Purely based on the idea that there must be a breaking point. When I original posted this theory, i attempted to demonstrate it by describing a can of soup being crushed. On reflection I dont think that is a very good annalogy. A better one would probably be an orange. You can crush and crush and crush an orange, and it will get smaller and smaller. The juice inside the orange will be put under pressure and want to escape, but the skin will hold it. However if you kept crushing it, eventualy the pressure of the juice on the skin will become to much and the skin will break and orange juice will spurt all over the place.

Now just imagine that the orange is a Hyper Black Hole and the juice is all the matter, dark matter and energy in the whole entire universe.

Now I should reiterate, this is just a theory. However, I believe it to be a highly possible theory.

[The Prince]

Does anyone want to stand next to me and WVM at the match? Jesus, we'd get our own block. ;)

Yes, that could work. Entropy tells us that nothing can stay the same for ever so ultimately even the largest black hole would lose its grip and spill its contents.

Just had a look on Wiki for info about the asteroid belt. I'd have thought that the Sun's gravity would have done the damage but it seems it's Jupiter's.

[thewhitevanman79]

Maybe Mr Hodgson could use us as part of his half time team talk if were playing crap.

"Right that you miserable lot. You had better pull your finger out and start playing like I know you can! Another 45 min like that shower of shite and Im going to get The Prince and thewhitevanman79 off LFConline in here and they can talk universe and black holes at you for 4 hours!" :D

Basicaly then, Entropy is effectivley the scientific background that makes my theory possible? Gives it solid grounding anyway, a bit of gravitas (if youll pardon the pun).

The universe is definitley a fasinating subject.

[Siscouser1975]

Love this stuff, WVM i think your theory of a hyper black hole is a solid and entierly possible alternative to the "norm".

As for us being a virus with shoes, our impulse to travel and explore (spread) is very virus like, multiply, spread, multiply, on to the moon, mars and beyond.

[mikeiom]

Does anyone want to stand next to me and WVM at the match? Jesus, we'd get our own block. ;)

Yes, that could work. Entropy tells us that nothing can stay the same for ever so ultimately even the largest black hole would lose its grip and spill its contents.

Just had a look on Wiki for info about the asteroid belt. I'd have thought that the Sun's gravity would have done the damage but it seems it's Jupiter's.

I thought if 2 much energy or mass enters a black hole it expels it as a quazar (sp?).

[The Prince]

Don't think that's possible.

[Psychoticmonkey]

The fact that stars form, explode or swell to bursting point and then begin anew could provide us with evidence that the universe does pretty much the same thing. Is this Universe number 1 or 8 trillion?

Best thread ever - I have a question that I find particularly mind-bending!

If, at a singularity, all physical laws no longer apply, does that not mean that if the entire universe reached that point there would be no such thing as linear time, anywhere?

Because if so, there could be no concept of Universe 1 or 8 trillion, because time ceases to exist at a singularity. And if time ceases to exist, so does cause and effect... So if our universe collapsed and started all over again as a 'new' universe, the original one would never have actually existed because it has no place in the 'new' linear time.

But then if time does cease to exist, how would cause and effect happen in order for a new universe to form in the first place?

(Basically I don't understand the implications of a singularity)

[The Prince]

Does time exist with the absence of matter? Do they have to be linked?

[ger_ryan22]

Does time exist with the absence of matter? Do they have to be linked?

Karl you need to watch Back To The Future - Doc Brown has some very interesting theories on the space time continuim. ;)

Still can't believe you haven't watched that. Now that's mind bending!

[kopite321]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Laymens terms

In quantum mechanics the most common way to model an evolving system is to use a wave function to represent the probabilities that the system will change in particular ways. The problem with that approach is that our knowledge of the system remains fuzzy and undefined until we make an observation or measurement at which point the wave function "collapses" and the haze of possibilities evaporates away leaving the system in the state when we observed it or measured it.

In the many-worlds (relative state) interpretation of quantum theory, instead of everything being indeterminate and fuzzy until we actually make a measurement or observation, every possible thing that can happen to the system actually does happen but happens separately, each in its own distinct and mutually exclusive universe: universes in this multiverse can overlap but only do so where and when interference takes place between them until decoherence sets in and they separate into non-interacting independent realities!

But here's the real kicker.

With every quantum event that happens you and I and everything else "splits" so that a copy of each of us exists in every universe in which the quantum event has a possible outcome!

Weird and counter-intuitive but mathematically consistent!

[kopite321]

A layman's explanation of the String Theory and D-branes (M-Theory multiverse)
Here is the theory in a nutshell: (very condensed version)

Much smaller than molecules, much smaller than atoms,
much smaller than protons, neutrons, or electrons, on the
planck scale (1x10 ^-33cm), there exist one dimensional
bits of vibrating energy called strings. If the string has one
particular pattern of vibration then it is an electron, if it
vibrates in another way it is a graviton, or a quark, etc. Each vibrational
mode corresponds to a unique particle. The string can be
open ended, with electric charge residing on the rapidly moving
ends, or it can be a closed loop with no charge.
Think of these tiny bits of string as standing waves on a violin
string. Each wave pattern with its complex tones and overtones
corresponds to a different "note", and each note is a subatomic
particle. The unique thing about these vibrational modes is that
they take place in more than our familiar 3 space dimensions.

In order for the mathematics of string theory to work out properly
our 3 dimensions of space are not enough. In fact, the theory
calls for at least 6 additional space dimensions for the math to
be consistent. Where are these dimensions? Presumably they
are extremely tiny and curled up, having never expanded to
macroscopic size when the other 3 dimensions originally did.
But they exist along side our familiar dimensions at every point.
The original 'heterotic string' theory called for up to 26 dimensions,
but it has been replaced by superstring theory (9 dimensions),
and more recently by M-theory (10 dimensions).

One of the problems with string theory is that it is not one theory,
but at least 5. That is, there are 5 theories that are self-consistent based on
strings. But in the 80's, Edward Witten, who is considered the
grandmaster of string theory, proposed that what appeared to be
5 different theories were actually just different aspects of one
grand unifying theory.( Like 5 blind men describing what an elephant
looks like from 5 different perspectives). Witten called his theory
"M-theory", which some people like to call matrix theory.

Another problem with the theory is that it is untestable with any
methods that we have available. The strings are just too tiny and
it would take too much energy to detect them or the extra dimensions
that the theory predicts. We may never be able to test it, which is
one of the reasons that many scientists have abandoned working on the theory in favor of more practical experimental physics.

The reason for having string theory in the first place? It is a way to reconcile
quantum mechanics which deals with the physics of the extremely tiny things,
and relativity theory which deals with large scale physics. Neither by itself is able
to explain what happens within something like a black hole, which combines a very
massive object that has an incredibly small size. Both theories break down under such
extreme conditons. But string theory avoids the mathematical infinities which plague
relativity and QM, by replacing mathematical points of zero size with one dimensional
strings of finitie size. Plus, string theory unifies gravity with the other three fundamental
forces; something which has been very difficult to do. Superstring
theory is the only unified theory that does not add gravity as an
ad-hoc component, but rather the graviton is an essential basic
vibrational mode of the fundamental string. (The graviton is the
simplest vibrational mode of a closed loop of string).

More recently, it has been discovered mathematically that string
theory does not have to be limited to one dimensional strings.
The theory can be generalized to include objects that have two
dimensions, which is equivalent to a membrane-like structure, also
known as a 'brane'.
It can be even further generalized to include
three, or more (denoted as 'P') dimensions. These higher dimensional shapes/objects are called 'P-branes'. Presumably,
particles that correspond to open-ended strings have their
ends constrained to move only on the brane, even though the
rest of the string can still vibrate in the higher dimensions. Closed
loop strings, however, are free to move about anywhere within the
brane (in the bulk), and possibly between branes.

The multiverse theory comes into play from the proposition that
branes exist right next to each other, may even crash into each other,
within some invisible higher dimensional space, yet no communication between branes is possible. In a sense, this would
make them parallel universes; existing side by side, but with no connection to each other. The one possible exception may be those
closed-loop strings that are free to move anywhere off the brane. (Remember that gravity is a closed-loop string). If gravity is free to
escape from the brane in which our universe exists, it may help to explain why gravity is the weakest fundamental force; it is spreading out into more dimensions (more directions)

[The Prince]

Okay. who understood that?

I get the string thing but that's about it.

[kopite321]

Okay. who understood that?

I get the string thing but that's about it.

Some of it... I need to find a simple discription on the Multiverse ....

[kopite321]

This is better

Over the past few decades, the idea that our universe could be one of many alternate universes within a giant multiverse has grown from a sci-fi fantasy into a legitimate theoretical possibility. Several theories of physics and astronomy have hypothesized the existence of a multiverse made of many parallel universes.

"Scientists believe there may be an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happen to live in one of them. These other universes also contain space, time and certainly some type of matter. Scientists believe that these parallel universes exist less than one millimetre away from us. In fact, our gravity is just a weak signal leaking out of another universe into ours.

Greater dimensions

After Einstein´s theory of relativity, science just could not stay the same. It all started when superstring theory, hyperspace and dark matter made physicists realise that the three dimensions we thought described the Universe weren't enough. They assume that they actually 11 dimensions. They also came to the conclusion that our Universe is just one bubble among an infinite number of membranous bubbles which ripple as they wobble through the eleventh dimension." (BBC).

So it means that it is infinite number of universes...and that new ones are created every moment, all the time.

[The Prince]

Ah, gotcha.

Perfectly possible. All adds to our insignificance.

[tk2010]

Scientists believe that these parallel universes exist less than one millimetre away from us. In fact, our gravity is just a weak signal leaking out of another universe into ours.

?? a weak signal of what?? gravity?? where do they get their gravity from?? a stronger signal from another universe?? are we passing a weaker signal to one of our neighbours?? if so are they reall really tall?? where is the source?? my heads spinning..;)

[Ricky_Blowdeal]

Don't know if it has been mentioned (or if its accurate), but heard yesterday that on the 21st Dec 2012 the Sun is going to be at the centre of the Milky Way.

[The Prince]

Nah, sorry it isn’t. The Sun lies on an outer arm of the Milky Way. Ours is a spiral galaxy and we’ll always be on the inside. When you’re looking at the constellation of Sagittarius you’re looking at the centre of the galaxy.

6306

[thewhitevanman79]

I thought if 2 much energy or mass enters a black hole it expels it as a quazar (sp?).

May be wrong, but I think Quasars are something to do with dying stars, or stars being born as opposed to black holes. Like I said I'm not sure, but I've always thought that they are a star at some stage of its life. Quite possible after it has died and has become incredibly small (comapared with its size when alive that is) Similar to pulsars. I think

Best thread ever - I have a question that I find particularly mind-bending!

If, at a singularity, all physical laws no longer apply, does that not mean that if the entire universe reached that point there would be no such thing as linear time, anywhere?

Because if so, there could be no concept of Universe 1 or 8 trillion, because time ceases to exist at a singularity. And if time ceases to exist, so does cause and effect... So if our universe collapsed and started all over again as a 'new' universe, the original one would never have actually existed because it has no place in the 'new' linear time.

But then if time does cease to exist, how would cause and effect happen in order for a new universe to form in the first place?

(Basically I don't understand the implications of a singularity)

Read it the first time and my instant thought was. WHAT NOW :confused:

Re-read it, and I think I get what your getting at. But I think time is a totaly seperate issue all together. Its not like history can be completley wipes, even if the universe does and any evidence of a previous universe has been. Bit like when the Dinosaurs died. For millions of years, there was no evidence of them as all fossils had been buried. Just because all memory and evidence had vanished, dosent mean they didnt exist.

My understanding of singularity has all ways been a simple one. That everything is in one place. Very simplistic I realise, but I (probably wrongly) have never thought that there were any implications of singularity. It was merely a description os an event.

Does time exist with the absence of matter? Do they have to be linked?

Its like the question, If a tree falls in a tree and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? Does noise have to be heard to be noise?

This is better

Over the past few decades, the idea that our universe could be one of many alternate universes within a giant multiverse has grown from a sci-fi fantasy into a legitimate theoretical possibility. Several theories of physics and astronomy have hypothesized the existence of a multiverse made of many parallel universes.

"Scientists believe there may be an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happen to live in one of them. These other universes also contain space, time and certainly some type of matter. Scientists believe that these parallel universes exist less than one millimetre away from us. In fact, our gravity is just a weak signal leaking out of another universe into ours.

Greater dimensions

After Einstein´s theory of relativity, science just could not stay the same. It all started when superstring theory, hyperspace and dark matter made physicists realise that the three dimensions we thought described the Universe weren't enough. They assume that they actually 11 dimensions. They also came to the conclusion that our Universe is just one bubble among an infinite number of membranous bubbles which ripple as they wobble through the eleventh dimension." (BBC).

So it means that it is infinite number of universes...and that new ones are created every moment, all the time.

I thought gravity had been proven as a magnetic field emitting from the centre of a large object. The larger the object, the stronger the magnetic field coming from it, and as such the stronger the gravity. I've always thought of it as a giant magnet anyway, even if it hasnt been scientific proven by boffins in white coats.

[kopite321]

Good Read....

The Multiverse
by William Hamilton

from AstroSciences Website

New concepts and theories of Cosmology postulate multiple universes and multiple dimensions that give the universe its structure. However, the concept of a Multiverse is not new. Ancient Sanskrit and Chinese texts discuss the Multiverse.

“According to Vedic Cosmology, there are countless universes, which are clustered together like foam on the surface of the Causal Ocean. The universes are separated from each other by the shell that envelopes each universe. Although the universes are clustered together, interactions between the universes are impossible. Each universe is completely protected by an enormous shell. Thus, each universe has a boundary. The universe is ball shaped and surrounded by an eight-fold shell.



This shell is composed of primeval material elements in their most subtle manifestation. The shell consists of eight spherical layers in which each successive material element is manifested and stored. If we penetrate the universal shell consisting of these eight spherical layers, we will enter the universal globe and find a hollow region containing all the inhabited planets. “ (1)

The newest theory in physics is string, superstring, and M-theory. The new theories use extra dimensions of space beyond the three we are familiar with, but the 6 extra dimensions are not observable as they are compactified to such small dimensions, curled up in a tiny space less than the Planck length.



However, M-theory, an integration of string theories and beyond postulates extra extended dimensions like our familiar universe. The branes that compose a universe may come in multiples and interact with each other according to some theorists. It is even possible that these branes are spherical and compose shells as pictured in ancient Vedic Cosmology.

These strings can vibrate with different frequencies, and in so doing they create different types of particles. That's comparable to plucking a guitar to generate different notes. When physicists play the music of the cosmos, the faster a string vibrates, the more massive, or energetic, the particle created.

Whether M-theory will turn out as a unified theory will probably depend on the accuracies of its predictions and whether the theory is internally consistent and a reflection of physical processes. The idea of matter frequencies is not new and may give us some insight on another way to view the existence of multiple universes.



Time:

“Time is God's way of keeping everything from happening at once “
--Unknown .

Time is an elusive concept. We speak of the past, present, and future. Our memories confirm the existence of a past world, and our imaginations envision the future. The present is ever fleeting and cannot be caught. We know time subjectively and we measure its passage by the ticking clock, but what is time?

Time seems to be the persistence of space, energy, and matter. We measure this persistence by periodic motions. Any particle or planet that has a regular periodic motion can serve as a clock for the measuring of time. We consider the diurnal rotation of the earth as marking a day and we have arbitrarily divided the day into 24 hours.

We know that the rate of time changes with velocity according to the Special Theory of Relativity and at extremely high velocities we can determine the dilation of a second of time using the relativistic equation. The Time Dilation equation for Relativity is:



In the relativistic equations time is a fourth dimension. Could there be another dimension to time? Some physicists think so, but this leads to further paradoxes.

If we look at how we use time in physics, in units of seconds as determined by the vibration of atoms, then we are treating the vibration as a constant with a fixed period. What if there is a fundamental vibration? A string in M-theory has different modes and frequencies of vibration. Whether a string or ring, these vibrations can determine the character of fundamental physical particles. What if there were vibrations out of phase with our universe? Would they be detected? Could a time frequency define a universe?

Other than an extra extended spatial dimension for another universe, the possibility of frequency universes may also be a hypothesis that could ultimately be tested and allow for communication between universes.

One of the fundamental frequencies that can be attributed to sub-atomic particles is spin frequency. If we combine the energy of a photon and the energy of mass we could derive a spin frequency equation:

F = mc2/h

In this equation h refers to Planck’s constant. Both c and h contain units of time.

If these spin rates vary, it is possible that such matter will not interact with photons and thus be invisible from our perspective. Just like a spinning fan which speeds up until one can no longer see reflection from the blades.

This is conjecture at this point and experiments on changing spin frequency of elementary particles are not something our scientists have a handle on at present. Anecdotal stories of spectral sights that are seen in moments of psychic vision seem to imply the existence of invisible worlds. Metaphysical tradition states that these other worlds are vibrating faster than the world we sense. This is one possibility which can be modeled.



Space:

The extension of objects in space is something that is also fundamental to physics and most hyperdimensional physical theories, such as the Kaluza-Klein theory, string theories, and M-theory deal with the mathematics of extra spatial dimensions.

Spatial dimensions beyond the three of our everyday world are difficult, even impossible to visualize though some mathematicians have tried. If we visualize a cube in three-dimensional space, could we extend this to visualize a hypercube in four-dimensional space? The problem is that we define a dimension as orthogonal to other dimensions and we can only perceive three orthogonal extensions which we have defined as length, breadth, and width. We do not know how to rotate another 90 degrees to point to that fourth spatial dimension.

In M-theory the extra spatial dimensions may form closed loops that are as small as 10-33 cm (Planck length) and are said to be compactified.

“Many physicists hope that string theory will ultimately unify quantum mechanics, the theory of small-scale interactions, with general relativity, the theory of gravity. String theory requires at least nine spatial dimensions, so proponents normally claim that all but three of them are compactified and only accessible in extremely high-energy particle collisions. As an alternative to compactified dimensions, Lisa Randall of Princeton University and Raman Sundrum, now of Stanford University, describe a scenario in which an extra, infinite dimension could have remained undetected so far.

Other researchers have pointed out that if extra dimensions exist, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces and their associated particles might operate within a three-dimensional "subspace" of the higher dimensional world. Like beads on a wire that lies on a table, the particles would be restricted to their own set of dimensions, unable to move beyond them. But gravity is different: It consists of the motions of space-time, which includes all dimensions simultaneously. So Randall and Sundrum imagine a world with four spatial dimensions, where gravity exists in all four, but the other forces --and all of our direct experience-- exist in 3D. They say we live in a "3-brane" located at some specific position along the fourth spatial dimension.” (2)

Many physicists believe that these extra-dimensional theories are very speculative and that ultimately we could not prove the existence of extra dimensions, but the rejoinder is that these theories are successful in predicting particle masses and energies. The future may bring new theories and discoveries.

Continue Here

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/vidaalien_signtimes08a.htm

[tk2010]

how the universe works, the other night was talking about (edit: magnetic fields not gravity)magnetic fields and saying how mars hasn’t got one (anymore?) and that solar winds have blown their atmosphere away, now I’ve always under the impression that at some point in the future some kind of terrforming would/could be attempted on mars and watched an interesting program on it a while back, but surely if mars has no magnetic fields how could the atmosphere be protected? It’s one thing to add plants and algae etc. in a hope of creating oxygen but surely we couldn’t create a magnetic fields?

edited...

[The Prince]

Hmm, you're sort of on my Ignore List if I could have such a thing but, well, Mars has substantial gravity. It has two moons, Phobos and Deimos and its gravity keeps them in a captured orbit.

[tk2010]

Hmm, you're sort of on my Ignore List if I could have such a thing but, well

:D why thankyou for sparing the time for my question, its been an honor sir...

p.s sorry I just realised the mistake not gravity field, magnetic field is what i meant to say, the magnetic field generated by the movement of the core protected its atmosphere just like ours from the suns radiation... apparently when that degraded mars atmosphere was blown away?

[kopite321]

From The Times January 16, 2009

Nasa says methane on Mars offers powerful evidence of lifeLewis Smith, Science Reporter
Powerful evidence that life may still exist on Mars was presented by Nasa last night after the discovery that huge plumes of methane were being spurted into the planet’s atmosphere.

Detection of the gaseous emissions fell short of offering proof of life but indicated to astronomers a distinct possibility that it not only evolved on Mars, but is still there. Most of the gas on earth is created by animals and plants.

Nasa announced the findings at its headquarters in Washington, with Lisa Pratt, of Indiana University, suggesting it was time “to think in terms of present-day life holding on in the subsurface”.

Bursts of methane were first detected by the Nasa team in 2003 and in an analysis of the phenomenon it was concluded that tiny organisms could have been responsible. Microbial organisms are known to exist more than a mile underground in South Africa and would provide a perfect model for similar microscopic life creating methane on Mars, researchers said.

Professor Pratt said the overall quantities of methane were small, so if life exists on Mars it will most likely be in a “thin invisible film”. However, she added: “It’s time to start thinking about active processes as well as extinct processes. It’s such an exciting discovery. We have evidence we need to think about in terms of the possibility of life on Mars.”

Methane was detected using infrared spectrometers in Hawaii but it was impossible to determine whether the gas had been created through biological or geological processes.

Such detailed analysis, said Dr Michael Mumma, of the Goddard Center for Astrobiology, the lead author for the research, will be possible on Mars Science Laboratory mission to the planet which is planned for launch in 2011.

The robotic craft landed on the surface of the planet will be equipped with spectrometers which will allow it to measure the isotopic content of the methane and indicate whether the gas was formed biologically or geologically.

He was also hopeful of using earth-based equipment to seek out other gases in the Martian atmosphere which are associated with biological chemistry.

One point adding weight to hopes of finding life, he said, was that the spectrometers failed to detect sulphur dioxide which would have been expected had the methane been formed during volcanic activity.

Scientists involved in the finds, reported in the journal Science, said that rather than being produced today by live microbes it could have been created by life forms which died millions of years ago. The gas would have been trapped deep underground and only reached the surface recently.

Either way, they maintained, it could indicate life evolved on Mars at some point and that Earth is not unique in developing it.

[kopite321]

Mars has an Atmosphere mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

[kopite321]

Great picture of the Space Shuttle lift off from the Kennedy Space Port Florida

Taken from a U2 which was flying at the edge of space.

http://forums.lfconline.com/picture.php?albumid=34&pictureid=76

[tk2010]

Mars has an Atmosphere mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

thanks,

this was what i was getting at:

Mars' atmosphere is believed to have changed over the course of the planet's lifetime, with evidence suggesting the possibility that Mars had large oceans a few billion years ago.[6] As stated in the Mars Ocean Hypothesis, atmospheric pressure on the present day Martian surface only exceeds that of the triple point of water (6.11 hectopascals (0.0886 psi)) in the lowest elevations; at higher elevations water can exist only in solid or vapor form. Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F), significantly less than what is needed to sustain liquid water. However, early in its history Mars may have had conditions more conducive to retaining liquid water at the surface.

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker martian atmosphere include:

Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[7]

Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;

[8] and On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and solar wind interaction.[7]

[kopite321]

Got you..

[The Prince]

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker martian atmosphere include:

Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[7]

Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;

[8] and On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and solar wind interaction.[7]

I think that is most likely. The large collision would have left Moon (and Mercury) like features with craters etc.

[mikeiom]

I have been watching how the universe works aswell. Never knew how the earths magnetic filed was created or how much it protects the earths atmosphere.

[tk2010]

I think that is most likely. The large collision would have left Moon (and Mercury) like features with craters etc.

so my question is, with that being the case would it still (assuming it ever was) be possible to engineer an atmosphere suitable for life on mars?

[The Prince]

Manufacture one? I'm sure it could be done but have no idea how.

[tk2010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

[The Prince]

It's Perseid meteor shower time again. Here's to clear skies.

[ger_ryan22]

Some more visual stunners:

Trails of Moon, Venus & Jupiter over the Nepean River

http://ubersuper.com/uploads/yapb_cache/3074424826_21db9e7652_o.bt4na47wqpcsgck88kow8gog4. dnfmg7712zw448okk4g48o4cg.th.jpeg

[SteelWool]

so my question is, with that being the case would it still (assuming it ever was) be possible to engineer an atmosphere suitable for life on mars?

I read a couple of years ago that one plan was to twat the shit out of it with nukes.

Not sure, why, or what it would achieve, but the desired result was to warm it up a bit.

[The Prince]

There was some lunatic (do you see what I've done there) who wanted to blow up the Moon a few years back. He researched it but left the bit out about us all living underwater as a result.

[tk2010]

There was some lunatic (do you see what I've done there) who wanted to blow up the Moon a few years back. He researched it but left the bit out about us all living underwater as a result.



and those that where still alive would have 6 hours of day light..

[Eising agreed]

Perseids were a real let down this year, very disappointing.

Took the advice in the papers and found somewhere dark and away from street lights.

Four hours in the cupboard under the stairs, not a jot.

[thewhitevanman79]

so my question is, with that being the case would it still (assuming it ever was) be possible to engineer an atmosphere suitable for life on mars?

I think thats the basis behind the Eden project in Cornwall and Biosphere 1 & 2 elsewhere in the world (not sure where, but maybe nevada or Mexico)

Biosphere in particular are giant self contained totaly sealed off domes. They basicaly re-created life on earth in a series of self contained domes. The theory being that the plants would produce enough oxygen to support life. I cant remember the exact details, but I think a group of scientists survived for 2 years in there without any interference from the outside world. The domes were hermeticaly sealed so no oxygen from the outside could get in. basicaly nothing got in, and nothing got out.

They took this as proof that man could survive on other planets in a manufactured environment.

So in theory, yes man could manufacture an atmosphere of sorts, and survive on mars. In practice though it would all de down to logistics. I think Biosphere 1 & 2 were the size of about 20 Wembleys, possibly larger (unsure of the exact size) and this was to support only a handful of people, may be 5 or so. Any smaller and it would of been too small to support life. So we would be talking a mind boggling size structure for man to actualy live on Mars in significant numbers. This would ofcourse have all the associated construction problems, parts supply issues, construction time and costs. It would all a case of, would the time and money involved be worth the benefit.

[tk2010]

'How the universe works' on discovery channel now for any thats intrested..

[ger_ryan22]

'How the universe works' on discovery channel now for any thats intrested..

In HD too, nice! How do I tell the Wife I've to turn her game off now :)

[tk2010]

In HD too, nice! How do I tell the Wife I've to turn her game off now :)

extra virgin box in the kitchen for me for an extra £5 a month

peace, quite and plenty of sports and documentaries "priceless" ;)

[ger_ryan22]

extra virgin box in the kitchen for me for an extra £5 a month

peace, quite and plenty of sports and documentaries "priceless" ;)

Loner.

:)

[tk2010]

Loner.

:)

:*(

[redsam]

In HD too, nice! How do I tell the Wife I've to turn her game off now :)

Any chance you can upload that.

[ger_ryan22]

Any chance you can upload that.

Upload it from a Sky+ box Sam? I wouldn't know where to begin!

[kopite321]

Rich exoplanet system discovered By Victoria Gill

Science reporter, BBC News


The researchers say the finding marks a new phase in the hunt for exoplanets

Astronomers have discovered a planetary system containing at least five planets that orbit a star called HD 10180, which is much like our own Sun.

The star is 127 light years away, in the southern constellation of Hydrus.

The researchers used the European Southern Observatory (Eso) to monitor light emitted from the system and identify and characterise the planets.

They say this is the "richest" system of exoplanets - planets outside our own Solar System - ever found.

Christophe Lovis from Geneva University's observatory in Switzerland was lead researcher on the study. He said that his team had probably found "the system with the most planets yet discovered".


The discovery could provide insight into the formation of our own Solar System "This also highlights the fact that we are now entering a new era in exoplanet research - the study of complex planetary systems and not just of individual planets," he said.

The research has been submitted for publication to the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Eso's High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher (or Harps) instrument was responsible for the discovery.

Harps measures the wobble of a star; this gives a measure of how much it is being tugged on by an orbiting planet.

"If there is one planet it will induce a little movement - the star will come towards us and move away," Dr Lovis explained to BBC News.

"And what works for one [planet] works for many."

With many planets orbiting the star, its movement becomes a very complex "superposition" of several different planet-induced movements.


“[This] marks the way towards gathering the information that will put our own existence into cosmic context”

Martin Dominik

University of St Andrews
Using Harp, Dr Lovis and his team were able to measure this and break it down, in order to calculate how many planets were in the system, how great each of their masses was, and even the path of each individual planet's orbit.

The researchers said the system around HD 10180 as unique in several respects.

It has at least five "Neptune-like planets" lying within a distance equivalent to the orbit of Mars, making it more populated than our own Solar System in its inner region. And all the planets seem to have almost circular orbits.

Dr Lovis said: "Studies of planetary motions in the new system reveal complex gravitational interactions between the planets and give us insights into the long-term evolution of the system."

False alarm?

So far, the astronomers have picked up clear signals from five planets, along with two slightly "fuzzier" signals. One of these possible sixth and seventh planets was estimated to be just 1.4 times the mass of the Earth; if its presence in the system was confirmed, it would be the lowest mass exoplanet yet discovered.

It is also predicted to be very close to its host star - just 2% of the Earth-Sun distance, so one year on this planet would last only 1.2 Earth days.

Dr Lovis said he was 99% certain that this small planet was there.

"There are five signals that are really strong that we have no doubt, but we have another two with a 'false alarm' probability of 1%," he said.

Martin Dominik, an astronomer and exoplanet hunter from the UK's University of St Andrews said the complexity and structure of this system made it an interesting discovery.

"The richness of the system of planets around HD 10180 with its many characteristic features marks the way forward towards gathering the information that will put our own existence into cosmic context," he told BBC News.

He cautioned against describing this as the "richest system" saying that it was not clear whether other systems that had already been detected hosted further planets.

Dr Dominik added: "I am tempted to consider the detected system as one of the most 'informative' ones.

"Like most discoveries in science, the findings come with more questions than answers; but in my opinion, this is what really advances a field

[kopite321]

NASA to Reveal Big News From Planet
Hunting Spacecraft Thursday

By Denise Chow
SPACE.com Staff Writer
posted: 23 August 2010
04:56 pm ET

NASA is expected to make an announcement Thursday on the progress of its Kepler spacecraft, which has been staring at one patch of space for evidence of other worlds.

The space agency has scheduled an afternoon teleconference with reporters to announce the results from Kepler, which include the "discovery of an intriguing planetary system," NASA officials said Monday.

Participating in the teleconference will be senior NASA scientists and Kepler mission researchers, including principal investigator William Borucki, at the space agency's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.

Kepler space observatory hunts for Earth-like planets around other stars. In June, mission scientists announced it had found over 700 candidates, including five systems that appear to have more than one transiting planet.

The spacecraft monitors stars for subtle changes in their brightness, which could indicate that alien planets are passing in front of them as seen from Earth. To date, astronomers have discovered more than 400 planets lurking around stars beyond our solar system.

NASA launched the $600 million spacecraft in March 2009. It is currently staring at a patch of the Milky Way that contains over 156,000 stars – a star field in the constellations Cygnus and Lyra.

Astronomers have been using the data from Kepler to determine whether orbiting planets are responsible for the variation in brightness of several hundred stars.

Follow-up observations are necessary to distinguish between actual planets and false alarms such as binary stars, which are two stars that orbit each other

[kopite321]

SpaceAliens could operate through thinking robots, astronomer says

The hunt for extraterrestrial life should take into account the possibility that aliens could be operating through sentient robots, a senior astronomer has said.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010

The quest to find alien life so far has generally followed standard rules of biochemistry

Seth Shostak, of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Seti) Institute in California, said humans had a greater chance of picking up signals from alien-operated robots than from the biological lifeforms that had created them.

The quest to find alien life so far has generally followed standard rules of biochemistry, working on the assumption that detectable extraterrestrial beings would be biologically “alive”.

But Dr Shostak said astronomers may be overlooking the existence of “sentient machines” from outerspace.

Writing in Acta Astronautica, the astronomer argued that while evolution can take a large amount of time to produce beings capable of inter-planetary communication, technology could advance fast enough to move beyond the species that created it.

“If you look at the timescales for the development of technology, at some point you invent radio and then you go on the air and then we have a chance of finding you,” he said.

“But within a few hundred years of inventing radio - at least if we're any example - you invent thinking machines.”

[Insidious]

Just to dwell on the size of some items in our universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q&feature=related

(p.s. feel free to embed it, as YouTube embedding never seems to work for me on here)

[ger_ryan22]

Just imagine how far into space them solar flares travel....1000's miles....

Sorry if too big Mods

Link (http://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses/11jul10/Constantinos-Emmanouilidis1.jpg)
http://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses/11jul10/Constantinos-Emmanouilidis1.jpg

[ger_ryan22]

Just to dwell on the size of some items in our universe:

HEheh1BH34Q

(p.s. feel free to embed it, as YouTube embedding never seems to work for me on here)

Hey mate, click the you tube icon instead of the URL one. ;)

[kopite321]

Stunning pic..

[ger_ryan22]

This boggles my mind, I'm no physics expert, shocking I know but I see this puzzle as I see the Universe i.e I can't get my head around it (Like the way they arrange the cheese slices on a Subway sandwich). Lets say for arguments sake that this can actually be performed but take an atom, you split it in half, you keep on splitting one of the the halves, how is it possible to get down to actual nothingness? How can there just be nothing left to split? You get me?

I'll get a coffee whilst you come back with an answer. :)

[kopite321]

Reminder for those of you who enjoy this thread...

NASA to Reveal Big News From Planet
Hunting Spacecraft Thursday

By Denise Chow
SPACE.com Staff Writer
posted: 23 August 2010
04:56 pm ET

NASA is expected to make an announcement Thursday 26th August on the progress of its Kepler spacecraft, which has been staring at one patch of space for evidence of other worlds.

The space agency has scheduled an afternoon teleconference with reporters to announce the results from Kepler, which include the "discovery of an intriguing planetary system," NASA officials said Monday

[ger_ryan22]

Thanks for the tip there Kopite.

Also, how can the Universe just keep going and going? There must be an end, a wall if you will. But even if there's a wall, what happens if you take a brick out of that wall and look through? What's on the other side? There just can't be nothing.

I need a lie down.

[The Prince]

We're still mid explosion

[ger_ryan22]

We're still mid explosion

Thanks Karl, still leaves me in limbo though. :)

[Insidious]

Also, how can the Universe just keep going and going?

It's still a complete mindmelt, but due to it still expanding, I tend to think of the Universe as a balloon being blown up.

As for the metaphorical wall to which you refer, don't think there's going to be any technological advancement great enough for us to reach a speed (not to mention fuel etc) to actually get to the balloon skin for thousands, if not millions of years, by which time the "wall" will be even further away.

Even if we do somehow reach it, how would we "look through" to the other side and, perish the thought, if the balloon idea rings true in any sense, what happens if we "pop" the Universe?

[ger_ryan22]

Stats and facts.

http://www.onlineschools.org/blog/outer-space/outer-space.jpg

[ger_ryan22]

According to Google sky maps on my phone, that is Jupiter a little bit to the right of the moon tonight.

[ger_ryan22]

Stunning.

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/solarsys_09_15/s01_75115754.jpg

Pic below shows the Earth and the Moon side by side from afar (obviously).
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/solarsys_09_15/s03_00000002.jpg

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/solarsys_09_15/s04_4e013421.jpg

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/solarsys_09_15/s07_23e58455.jpg

Plenty more stunning pics HERE (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/09/around_the_solar_system.html)

[ger_ryan22]

What's that bright spot on the Earth (northwest direction)?

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/solarsys_09_15/s11_52489072.jpg

[montypithon]

I read the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy last week, the way it makes you think about the universe makes you feel so small. Basically the universe is so big we cannot even understand how big it is. We think in Miles and Kilometres at most, but we can't begin to picture/ understand just how vast some distances are.

[ger_ryan22]

Nice!

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/09/500x_aurora_salomonsen_big.jpg

[ger_ryan22]

Can explosions move faster than the speed of light?

Good read HERE (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/can_explosions_move_faster_tha.php)

[ger_ryan22]

Good news eh

UN scientists have confirmed that the ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century.

The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations report released last week.

And it claimed that international efforts to protect the ozone layer have averted millions of cases of skin cancer worldwide.

The ozone layer outside the Polar Regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073, reports The Daily Mail.

Ozone in the stratosphere is important because it absorbs some of the Sun's dangerous ultraviolet radiation.

The report was written and reviewed by 300 scientists and launched on the UN International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer.

The reports has been published jointly by UNEP and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

[ger_ryan22]

It's Friday....time for a brain f*ck....

Click here to get your head melted. (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/how_big_is_the_unobservable_un.php)

[redsam]

It's Friday....time for a brain f*ck....

Click here to get your head melted. (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/how_big_is_the_unobservable_un.php)

Makes you wonder why we spend hundreds of thousands of pounds raising a mortgage for some bricks + mortar that we spend most of our working life paying for.

Incidentally I liked this graphic.


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/10/how_big_is_the_unobservable_un/decay.gif

[ger_ryan22]

The Hubble Space Telescope captured this striking photo of the dying star, IRAS 20068+4051, which is located in the constellation Cygnus.

http://i.space.com/images/hubble-IRAS-20068-4051-101123-02.jpg

[Eising agreed]

Am I the only one who gets bored reading about the size of the universe? It's big, it's larger than I can ever imagine, I'm happy enough with that. Most of the universe from my perspective is pretty crap, I'd rather go to Cleethorpes for my holidays.

Give me something that's living and that has evolved in our own little cosy corner of the universe and I'm likely to be amazed. Give me a really big number that I can't ever hope to get my head around and I'm just left cold.

It's a good thread mind you, I can marvel at the beauty of Aurora, supernovae etc but numbers ain't for me.

[user name]

alright pete... check this out for 'numbers'...

right, yer on a beach... u pick up a bunch of sand... it would take u all day to count all the sand in yer hand but u can get yer head around that... right then... imagine all the sand on the beach... fooooking loads, right?

now try to imagine all the beaches in the world... and all the grains of sand on all them there beaches...

THERE ARE MORE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE!!!

numbers? I don't do numbers either mate but that little analogy tells me' the universe is, in fact a pretty big place...


that's why I prefer making 'quality' shell-holders rather than trying to get me head around sums...

:-)

[kopite321]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_To_Announce_Astrobiology_Finding_Major_Impact _On_Search_For_Life_999.html

[ger_ryan22]

Kopite that link doesn't work. Gah! I'd like to read this.

[kopite321]

NASA To Announce Astrobiology Finding: Major Impact On Search For Life


Moffett Field CA (SPX) Nov 30, 2010

NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe.
The news conference will be held at the NASA Headquarters auditorium at 300 E St. SW, in Washington. It will be broadcast live on NASA Television and streamed on the agency's website.

Participants are:
- Mary Voytek, director, Astrobiology Program, NASA Headquarters, Washington
- Felisa Wolfe-Simon, NASA astrobiology research fellow, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, Calif.
- Pamela Conrad, astrobiologist, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
- Steven Benner, distinguished fellow, Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, Gainesville, Fla.
- James Elser, professor, Arizona State University, Tempe

[kopite321]

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Science/Space+Exploration/NASA

[ger_ryan22]

Cheers for that Kopite. Very interesting indeed.

I can see Sky Movies showing ET and what not over the weekend ;)

[Craoibhe Rua]

Nice!

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/09/500x_aurora_salomonsen_big.jpg

is that David bowie and in labyrinth??:D

[Eising agreed]

alright pete... check this out for 'numbers'...

right, yer on a beach... u pick up a bunch of sand... it would take u all day to count all the sand in yer hand but u can get yer head around that... right then... imagine all the sand on the beach... fooooking loads, right?

now try to imagine all the beaches in the world... and all the grains of sand on all them there beaches...

THERE ARE MORE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE!!!

numbers? I don't do numbers either mate but that little analogy tells me' the universe is, in fact a pretty big place...


that's why I prefer making 'quality' shell-holders rather than trying to get me head around sums...

:-)

Ah! I get it now, thanks for explaining all the secrets of the universe to me. Mods, close the thread please.

Thanks also for reminding me of the cockle cosy, probably the most useful invention ever that.

Hope all's well in your shelly, sandy and starry universe Geo.

[user name]

:)

[swred]

did anyone see the programe 'Drakes equation, the search for life' last night on bbc4? quite an interesting watch if you're a closet nerd :D

got me thinking, without wanting to offend anyone, what do the science buffs feel about religion?

[Cubbin]

did anyone see the programe 'Drakes equation, the search for life' last night on bbc4? quite an interesting watch if you're a closet nerd :D

got me thinking, without wanting to offend anyone, what do the science buffs feel about religion?

That its aload of shit?

[swred]

is that a statement or a question?

[The Prince]

'God doesn't play dice'

[Cubbin]

is that a statement or a question?

I was giving what I thought to be the answer but wasn't certain of.

[swred]

fair play, didnt mean to sound rude.

do you think science will ever completly rule out the idea of religion?

[The Prince]

Last time we had this discussion it ended with my being told that the Devil had got me.

[carlito brigante]

Last time we had this discussion it ended with my being told that the Devil had got me.

Your a member of illuminati...........? : o

[Cubbin]

fair play, didnt mean to sound rude.

do you think science will ever completly rule out the idea of religion?

The faithful* will always have an excuse.

* whats the word for someone who believes?

[CODE RED]

did anyone see the programe 'Drakes equation, the search for life' last night on bbc4? quite an interesting watch if you're a closet nerd :D

got me thinking, without wanting to offend anyone, what do the science buffs feel about religion?

I love science and I am a believer.

However, let's not turn this into a thread based on religion as those kind of threads turn nasty (sadly)...:)

[swred]

point taken....

i suppose one day somethings got to be proved one way or the other, doubt i'll ever get to see it!

[The Prince]

I love science and I am a believer.

However, let's not turn this into a thread based on religion as those kind of threads turn nasty (sadly)...:)

Here comes Docmeister ;)

[Rushback]

got me thinking, without wanting to offend anyone, what do the science buffs feel about religion?

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works" Steven Hawking


If God showed up one day, then there would be a heck of a lot of scientists out of work

[Rushback]

I've always been facinated by the speed of light, this really puts it into perspective just how big this place is (the first six minutes, the rest is annoying)

8KPijjKtuK8&feature=grec_index

We're going to need a faster ship people

[redsam]

If anyone has a PS3 I throughly recommend viewing the top 100 photos through photo gallery as a slideshow on the TV.

Brings it all to life, sort of.

[kopite321]

If anyone has a PS3 I throughly recommend viewing the top 100 photos through photo gallery as a slideshow on the TV.

Brings it all to life, sort of.

Link.. Please ....cheers.

[Jove396]

aplologies if this has been posted already.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

Thats freaking amazing!!

[ger_ryan22]

Nice

http://rdmag.com/uploadedImages/RD/News/2010/11/EarthSpace2-large.jpg

[ger_ryan22]

Solar Eclipse 2008.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/vojto1_pub_eclipse.jpg

[AnfieldAura]

Would anyone recommend taking a night course in astronomy?

[ger_ryan22]

Would anyone recommend taking a night course in astronomy?

I wouldn't bother mate. Astronomical fee's.

[The Prince]

You can take basic astronomy courses at colleges and universities. I did mine at Central Lancashire Uni as they have a pretty good telescope there.

[Mel Wood]

Would anyone recommend taking a night course in astronomy?

I wouldn't bother mate. Astronomical fee's.

Day courses are much cheaper but there's bugger all to see.

[Mel Wood]

Nice
http://rdmag.com/uploadedImages/RD/News/2010/11/EarthSpace2-large.jpg

Nah, I think you'll find that's the Nile Ger. The south of France is out of shot, I think.

;)

[AnfieldAura]

Going to sign up for one I think, there's a trip to an observatory included aswell!

[The Prince]

Day courses are much cheaper but there's bugger all to see.

(Considers bringing a telescope to the Wall to project the sun onto the Sandon garage)

[redsam]

Link.. Please ....cheers.

The top 100 photos are earlier in this thread.

[ger_ryan22]

Nah, I think you'll find that's the Nile Ger. The south of France is out of shot, I think.

;)

Just spotted this now, nice one Mel, one of your best :)

[ger_ryan22]

http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/transit_iss_moon_101220_25.jpg

[SteelWool]

Don't know if anyone has just seen the programme on BBC4 called 'Beautiful Equations'

Presenter was a whopper and the camerawork was a bit iffy but it was absolutely fascinating.

Am reading a book about Paul Dirac called 'The Strangest Man' which is about much the same thing. Have bamboozled myself how I've inexplicably become interested in theoretical physics, but for the peeps who are interested in this thread I can't reccomend either highly enough.

[ger_ryan22]

Some things to look forward to...

http://www.makethelist.net/the-top-5-astronomical-events-to-witness-before-you-die/

[The Prince]

This thread is three and a half years old.

[Rushback]

and still no-one's pointed out my mistake in the first post



...On another note, The speed of light, more than 386 thousand miles per second.. .........................................


:mad:



Another thing i've been thinking about though, They say all the building blocks in the Universe were mostly created in the first few milliseconds of the Big Bang and exponentially grew to Billions of Light years in size

Here's what bothers me, The Universe as scientits (spelling intentional hur hur) tell us is at least 60 billion light years from edge to edge (a light year being classed as travelling at the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second for 365 days).. right.. but that would mean the expansion of the Universe in those first few seconds of the big bang would have to amount to more than the speed of light which Albo theorised and Ste the boy Hawing concurred with, is the fastest speed there is

Taking into account that it's said the Universe is around 14 billion years old at 60 billion light years across it's widest plain and including the variable that some say the Universe is still expanding..

..my calculation is the speed in which the Universe expanded in those first few milliseconds after the Big Bang would have to be around 30 odd million miles per second which is a tad faster than the speed of light which means there must be another source of velocity we can measure time and distance with

I'm calling it 'Kenny time' Copyright pending


Also, what's with the Dinosours? A Pterodactyl flying with those stupid wings?

Come on scientists, you must do better than that

[Taksin]

I hope TTWAR 'off topic' will get some credit when everyone realises this significant oversight has occurred.

[ger_ryan22]

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2010/ngc7793/stellar_bh_ill.jpg

[The Prince]

and still no-one's pointed out my mistake in the first post







Another thing i've been thinking about though, They say all the building blocks in the Universe were mostly created in the first few milliseconds of the Big Bang and exponentially grew to Billions of Light years in size

Here's what bothers me, The Universe as scientits (spelling intentional hur hur) tell us is at least 60 billion light years from edge to edge (a light year being classed as travelling at the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second for 365 days).. right.. but that would mean the expansion of the Universe in those first few seconds of the big bang would have to amount to more than the speed of light which Albo theorised and Ste the boy Hawing concurred with, is the fastest speed there is

Taking into account that it's said the Universe is around 14 billion years old at 60 billion light years across it's widest plain and including the variable that some say the Universe is still expanding..

..my calculation is the speed in which the Universe expanded in those first few milliseconds after the Big Bang would have to be around 30 odd million miles per second which is a tad faster than the speed of light which means there must be another source of velocity we can measure time and distance with

I'm calling it 'Kenny time' Copyright pending


Also, what's with the Dinosours? A Pterodactyl flying with those stupid wings?

Come on scientists, you must do better than that

I suppose it's constant now but was faster at the time. There were no rules of science at that point of singularity.

[kopite321]

Great Video of STS-132 Shuttle Atlantis Launch in HD.

LU76jyq8dEY&hd=1

[Psychoticmonkey]

Just found out that the 'Pillars of Creation' in the Eagle Nebula...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg/400px-Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg

...were probably destroyed six thousand years ago.

Very disappointed.

[redrule]

If you are standing on the edge of the universe and it is constantly expanding, is there any chanse you might jump off or is it growing faster than we can make a run for it ?

... :confused:

[Taksin]

If you are standing on the edge of the universe and it is constantly expanding, is there any chanse you might jump off or is it growing faster than we can make a run for it ?


Usain Bolt could probably do it

[redrule]

Yes but it probably be a single Bolt action, so I mean in general ...

[ger_ryan22]

http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/eclipse110104_solar_transit_33.jpg

Can you see why he traveled so far to get this shot? The silhouette of the Moon taking a dark bite out of the Sun is obvious enough, as are some interesting sunspots on the Sun’s face… but wait a sec… that one spot isn’t a spot at all, it’s the International Space Station! This was a double eclipse!

That’s why Thierry sojourned to Oman; due to the geometry of the ISS orbit, it was from there that he had the best chance of getting a picture of the station as it passed in front of the Sun during the relatively brief duration of the actual solar eclipse. But talk about brief; the ISS was in front of the Sun for less than second, so not only did he have one chance at getting this spectacular once-in-a-lifetime shot, but he had only a fraction of a second to snap it!


To give you an overall idea of what you’re seeing here: the Sun is 147 million kilometers away (less than usual because this eclipse happened, coincidentally, very close to perihelion, when Earth was closest to the Sun). The Moon is 390,000 kilometers away. The Sun is about 400 times bigger than the Moon, but also about 400 times farther away, making them look about the same size in the sky. If you’re still having a hard time picturing the scale, take a look at the dark sunspot in the lower right of the big picture: it’s about twice the size of the Earth!

The space station, on the other hand, is 100 meters across (the size of a football field) and orbits about 350 km (210 miles) above the Earth’s surface. So the Moon was very roughly 1000 times farther away than the ISS when this picture was taken, and the Sun 400,000 times more distant. Yet all three lined up just right to make this extraordinary photograph possible.

Thierry has taken some of the most amazing pictures of the station passing in front of the Sun and Moon I’ve ever seen — his shot of the ISS and the Moon shortly before last week’s lunar eclipse was beautiful — but this one really stands out. It took an extraordinary amount of planning, scheduling, travel, and plain old good thinking to make this picture happen. Congratulations to him for getting it, and I thank him for sending it to me!

[The Prince]

If you are standing on the edge of the universe and it is constantly expanding, is there any chanse you might jump off or is it growing faster than we can make a run for it ?

... :confused:

If you were standing on the edge you'd technically have to jump faster than the speed of the expansion which would be impossible.

The universe is still expanding. How do we know that? Well, it's a little thing called red shift. When we look at a galaxy we can see the spectrum. without going ito the quantum theories of light it basically means that if there's a sizeable shift towards the red end of the scale the object if moving away from us. Most objects have a red shift. Those with blue shifts are approaching or just heading in our general directions.

Happy with that? Er, don't be. One of the closest (external) galaxies to ourselves (the Large Magellanic Cloud, visible in the southern hemisphere, is part of our 'local group') is Andromeda. It's the furthest point you can see with your naked eye. It has a blue shift. That baby's heading our way.

[Munkybhai]

If you were standing on the edge you'd technically have to jump faster than the speed of the expansion which would be impossible.

The universe is still expanding. How do we know that? Well, it's a little thing called red shift. When we look at a galaxy we can see the spectrum. without going ito the quantum theories of light it basically means that if there's a sizeable shift towards the red end of the scale the object if moving away from us. Most objects have a red shift. Those with blue shifts are approaching or just heading in our general directions.

Happy with that? Er, don't be. One of the closest (external) galaxies to ourselves (the Large Magellanic Cloud, visible in the southern hemisphere, is part of our 'local group') is Andromeda. It's the furthest point you can see with your naked eye. It has a blue shift. That baby's heading our way.

Can't wait to see how Bruce Willis will stop that!

[The Prince]

With a dirty vest and a scowl. That's his usual strategy.

[Munkybhai]

I suppose it's constant now but was faster at the time. There were no rules of science at that point of singularity.

Or rather we can't deduce what rules might have been in play at that time. There is no absolute speed of light, since it is dependent on the medium it is travelling in (hence refraction as light travels from water to air). Who really knows what kind of medium light was travelling in, and what speed it could be going at when sub-atomic particles were just forming.

[Munkybhai]

With a dirty vest and a scowl. That's his usual strategy.

And one long scream as he is flung through the air by some kind of explosion.

[SteelWool]

I suppose it's constant now but was faster at the time. There were no rules of science at that point of singularity.

I can understand that classical rules of science e.g. gravity would not apply at that point.

But surely quantum laws governing the fundamental particles would still apply? The structure of an atom, the behaviour of electrons etc?

[ger_ryan22]

I can understand that classical rules of science e.g. gravity would not apply at that point.

But surely quantum laws governing the fundamental particles would still apply? The structure of an atom, the behaviour of electrons etc?

Speaking about behaviour of matter etc, I loved this... :)

DfPeprQ7oGc

[SteelWool]

Speaking about behaviour of matter etc, I loved this... :)

DfPeprQ7oGc

Cheers for that Ger, the bit about how the act of observing the behaviour of electrons alters that behaviour is amazing.

[JMcQueen]

Cant watch it at work bus is this the one whereby if you dont directly obseve them, they can appear in two locations at the same time; but the moment you observe them they act as you would expect and hit one location or the other? If so, I find that fascinating. Makes you wonder what else happens when things arent directly observed.

I find the theory that the Universe is a hologram generated by activities at the edge of the universe also interesting and the simulation theory too. Keep meaning to get some of the papers and have a good read.

[ger_ryan22]

:)

With every passing hour our solar system comes forty-three thousand miles closer to globular cluster 13 in the constellation Hercules, and still there are some misfits who continue to insist that there is no such thing as progress.

[Cubbin]

What does that mean?

Is that good or bad?

[The Prince]

It means we're approaching this.

6947

A globular cluster is the equivalent of a suburb whereas a galaxy would be a city. Those M13 wools are going to get it worse than us but it's not going to be pretty.

Steel W, I think that even those basic scientific principles break down at the point of singularity. Everything goes completely tits up as Hubble once said.

Isnt the electron thing the basis of quantum mechanics. It's there but it isn't. This has something to do with the fact that black holes radiate heat when they shouldn't (as nothing can escape a black hole).

[Cubbin]

It means we're approaching this.

6947

A globular cluster is the equivalent of a suburb whereas a galaxy would be a city. Those M13 wools are going to get it worse than us but it's not going to be pretty.


You lost me at globular, mate.

I'll go and educate myself and get back to you.

It is interesting stuff like but when people are in full flow, talking about it, alot (if not all) of it goes over my head.

[ger_ryan22]

uh oh...it's coming....

You know how you sometimes can sense that something is present even though you can't see it? Well, astronomers are getting that feeling about a giant, hidden object in space.

And when we say giant, we mean GIANT.

Evidence is mounting that either a brown dwarf star or a gas giant planet is lurking at the outermost reaches of our solar system, far beyond Pluto. The theoretical object, dubbed Tyche, is estimated to be four times the size of Jupiter and 15,000 times farther from the sun than Earth, according to a story in the British paper The Independent.

Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think data from NASA's infrared space telescope WISE will confirm Tyche's existence and location within two years.

The presence of such a massive object in the solar system's far-flung Oort Cloud could explain a barrage of comets from an unexpected direction, according to a December article at Space.com.

Its 27 million-year orbit could also explain a pattern of mass extinctions on Earth, scientists say.

Brown dwarfs are cold "failed" stars; their dimness and lack of heat radiation can make them hard to detect. Gas giants are huge planets – like Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune – that are made up of gases and may lack a solid surface like Earth's.

Whitmire told The Independent that Tyche will probably be composed of hydrogen and helium and have colorful spots, bands and clouds like Jupiter.

"You'd also expect it to have moons," he said. "All the outer planets have them."

Tyche was first hypothesized in 1984 as Nemesis, a dark companion star to the sun. It's been the subject of astronomical research and debate ever since. In July, another Space.com article said the celestial evidence suggests Tyche could not possibly exist.

To distinguish it from the Nemesis star theory, Matese and Whitmire are calling their object Tyche, after the good sister of the goddess Nemesis in Greek mythology.

Their research is published in Icarus, the International Journal of Solar System Studies.


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/15/t1larg.dwarf.nasa.jpg

[Leviathan]

Speaking about behaviour of matter etc, I loved this... :)

DfPeprQ7oGc

I thought the last minute of that was far too "Fantasy".

There can be a number of simple explanations.

1) The "slits" themselves could be giving off tiny waves of energy or atmospheric displacement. Depending on the materials used these slits could distort the dispersion of something as tiny as an electron traveling at high velocities. For example related to here: Smicer's shot in the CL final in Istanbul. It nearly hit Baros in the arse but didn't, but after the ball passed Baros it seemed to change direction, even though Baros made no contact. The edges of the "Slits" could be having the same displacement effect.

2) The simple matter of "Measuring" may have changed the atmospheric displacement, especially if it was actually tested as shown in the video. If an electrical recording item was placed anywhere near to the slits, it's energy could simply alter the traveling electrons or even alter the displacement of the slits, resulting in a different pattern.

Believe me, I did some work for a company specialising in tiny vapour and mist elimination and there was a lot of material on surface energy and displacement.

It's interesting stuff, but the words "The electrons knew they were being observed and chose to act differently" is complete horse-shit!

[The Prince]

You lost me at globular, mate.

I'll go and educate myself and get back to you.

It is interesting stuff like but when people are in full flow, talking about it, alot (if not all) of it goes over my head.

S'okay. It's just about the number of stars.

Galaxy - vast number of stars collected around a central point. The Sun is on the outskirts of our galaxy, the Milky Way. That's why if you were to look at the constellation of Sagittarius with binoculars you'd see a shit load of stars as you'd be looking into the centre of the galaxy.

Globular cluster - a much smaller group of stars. Sort of a scaled down version of a galaxy. Runcorn to the Milky Way's Liverpool.

This cluster is called M13 Hercules because it's in the constellation of Hercules. On a clear night you can see it a puff of smoke in the sky if you know where to look. It's called M13 after a French 19th century astronomer called Charles Messier who was a comet hunter. He kept thinking he'd found comets in the sky but they were galaxies, nebula clusters and globular clusters that were already discovered. He therefore made a note of 110 of them and gave them numbers so he could get on with his work. The Hercules cluster was the 13th on his list. The Crab Nebula in Taurus (famous post supernovae remnant) was the first (M1), Andromeda became M31 etc.

A few nerdy geeky amateur astronomers (raises hand) have tried to locate all 110 Messiers in one night.

I've got a girlfriend now.

[Cubbin]

S'okay. It's just about the number of stars.

Galaxy - vast number of stars collected around a central point. The Sun is on the outskirts of our galaxy, the Milky Way. That's why if you were to look at the constellation of Sagittarius with binoculars you'd see a shit load of stars as you'd be looking into the centre of the galaxy.

Globular cluster - a much smaller group of stars. Sort of a scaled down version of a galaxy. Runcorn to the Milky Way's Liverpool.

This cluster is called M13 Hercules because it's in the constellation of Hercules. On a clear night you can see it a puff of smoke in the sky if you know where to look. It's called M13 after a French 19th century astronomer called Charles Messier who was a comet hunter. He kept thinking he'd found comets in the sky but they were galaxies, nebula clusters and globular clusters that were already discovered. He therefore made a note of 110 of them and gave them numbers so he could get on with his work. The Hercules cluster was the 13th on his list. The Crab Nebula in Taurus (famous post supernovae remnant) was the first (M1), Andromeda became M31 etc.

A few nerdy geeky amateur astronomers (raises hand) have tried to locate all 110 Messiers in one night.

I've got a girlfriend now.

...I had a reply typed out for each paragraph but if I'm completely honest, if we were to compare what we both know about astronomy, my brain would be a globular cluster and yours a galaxy. *

Alot of what you said was lost on me completely, and when I said I need to educate myself, I meant redo a good 16 years of school on the subject, and probably further education into it.

I'll remain a spectator in this thread.

Haha, just try and dumb it down from time to time.

By the way, is it hard to spot all 110? Any astronomers in that are shocked and appalled at that question; its not my fault, I dont know any better.

* Probably the most informed comment I've ever made on astronomy, and its not even about astronomy.

[Rushback]

If you were standing on the edge you'd technically have to jump faster than the speed of the expansion which would be impossible.



Or would it? If you were standing on the edge, you'd be travelling at a constant speed, the same speed the universe was expanding so in theory, only the slightest jump should take you further

Bit like if you were standing on a roof of a train doing 100mph maybe?

[The Prince]

...
By the way, is it hard to spot all 110? Any astronomers in that are shocked and appalled at that question; its not my fault, I dont know any better.

.


It's tricky as you need a good site, a good time of year (there are loads of them in Virgo but if the sun's in Virgo you've had it) and a decent telescope. Course, if you've got one of those new ones that lets you type 'M110' into a pad thing and then it moves of its own accord you're cheating. Star hopping's much better (this involves pointing the telescope at one star and the doing the old 'up/down a bit, left/right a bit'.

[Munkybhai]

Or would it? If you were standing on the edge, you'd be travelling at a constant speed, the same speed the universe was expanding so in theory, only the slightest jump should take you further

Bit like if you were standing on a roof of a train doing 100mph maybe?

Since the universe is presumably expanding at the speed of light, and since you can't go faster than light, it's unlikely that this is possible.

[Munkybhai]

I thought the last minute of that was far too "Fantasy".

There can be a number of simple explanations.

1) The "slits" themselves could be giving off tiny waves of energy or atmospheric displacement. Depending on the materials used these slits could distort the dispersion of something as tiny as an electron traveling at high velocities. For example related to here: Smicer's shot in the CL final in Istanbul. It nearly hit Baros in the arse but didn't, but after the ball passed Baros it seemed to change direction, even though Baros made no contact. The edges of the "Slits" could be having the same displacement effect.

2) The simple matter of "Measuring" may have changed the atmospheric displacement, especially if it was actually tested as shown in the video. If an electrical recording item was placed anywhere near to the slits, it's energy could simply alter the traveling electrons or even alter the displacement of the slits, resulting in a different pattern.

Believe me, I did some work for a company specialising in tiny vapour and mist elimination and there was a lot of material on surface energy and displacement.

It's interesting stuff, but the words "The electrons knew they were being observed and chose to act differently" is complete horse-shit!

The experiments are for more meticulous than the cartoon represents. Suffice to say, the phenomenon has been reproduced many times and is now a part of science. I'm sure your explanations have been used to try and explain this. No sane person would propose something like "collapsing wave forms" if a simpler explanation was possible.

[SteelWool]

I thought the last minute of that was far too "Fantasy".

There can be a number of simple explanations.

1) The "slits" themselves could be giving off tiny waves of energy or atmospheric displacement. Depending on the materials used these slits could distort the dispersion of something as tiny as an electron traveling at high velocities. For example related to here: Smicer's shot in the CL final in Istanbul. It nearly hit Baros in the arse but didn't, but after the ball passed Baros it seemed to change direction, even though Baros made no contact. The edges of the "Slits" could be having the same displacement effect.

2) The simple matter of "Measuring" may have changed the atmospheric displacement, especially if it was actually tested as shown in the video. If an electrical recording item was placed anywhere near to the slits, it's energy could simply alter the traveling electrons or even alter the displacement of the slits, resulting in a different pattern.

Believe me, I did some work for a company specialising in tiny vapour and mist elimination and there was a lot of material on surface energy and displacement.

It's interesting stuff, but the words "The electrons knew they were being observed and chose to act differently" is complete horse-shit!

Think the cartoon simplifies the process, if the scientists are creating devices which can fire single electrons at a time they'll have considered the simple explanations you mention.

I've just read a book about the early days of mathematical quantum physics (better than it sounds) and some of these chaps, Einstein, Dirac, Pauli were trying to create universal equations to explain the behaviour of electrons and their results based on theory and maths were predicting that electrons behave sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves.

It is horse-shit about the electron knowing it's being watched there's no magic behind it. Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

[SteelWool]

It means we're approaching this.

6947

A globular cluster is the equivalent of a suburb whereas a galaxy would be a city. Those M13 wools are going to get it worse than us but it's not going to be pretty.

Steel W, I think that even those basic scientific principles break down at the point of singularity. Everything goes completely tits up as Hubble once said.
Isnt the electron thing the basis of quantum mechanics. It's there but it isn't. This has something to do with the fact that black holes radiate heat when they shouldn't (as nothing can escape a black hole).

I thought at the point of the singularity those laws would be necessary? E.g. if we consider the big bang to be made up of matter and energy then the particles which comprise matter and energy and the laws that govern those particles must also be present?

What's before is interesting to me. Just an explosion of life in the void. Can't remember the Scorcese film, starts in black and white and the fella lights a bifta and the screen floods with colour. Like that.

[Rossk1992]

Just read right through this thread, probably the most intriguing thread I've seen on this forum. Time well spent! :)

[Babel_Fish]

Can I ask if anyone here any scientific background? A science degree, masters or just general interest and knowledge?

[The Prince]

Not me.

[ger_ryan22]

Not me.

Stating the bloody obvious there Karl! :rolleyes:

[Mel Wood]

Can you see why he traveled so far to get this shot? The silhouette of the Moon taking a dark bite out of the Sun is obvious enough, as are some interesting sunspots on the Sun’s face… but wait a sec… that one spot isn’t a spot at all, it’s the International Space Station! This was a double eclipse!

That’s why Thierry sojourned to Oman; due to the geometry of the ISS orbit, it was from there that he had the best chance of getting a picture of the station as it passed in front of the Sun during the relatively brief duration of the actual solar eclipse. But talk about brief; the ISS was in front of the Sun for less than second, so not only did he have one chance at getting this spectacular once-in-a-lifetime shot, but he had only a fraction of a second to snap it!

I'd have forgotten to take me lens cap off.

[Mel Wood]

Cant watch it at work bus is this the one whereby if you dont directly obseve them, they can appear in two locations at the same time; but the moment you observe them they act as you would expect and hit one location or the other? If so, I find that fascinating. Makes you wonder what else happens when things arent directly observed.


A kettle boils faster, definitely.

[ger_ryan22]

Watched the episode in The West Wing last night where Josh heads out with the NASA scientist into the wilderness to observe the night sky. Stunning. Is it possible to see Jupiter and Mars that clearly with the telescope they used? I haven't a clue what strength scope they used but if that's possible with a scope that size then I'm in. Can I argos it?

[kopite321]

Can I ask if anyone here any scientific background? A science degree, masters or just general interest and knowledge?

Watch this...

o4Z8CqAiYI8&

[The Prince]

Looked like an 8" Meade to me. That's a pretty good scope but they wouldn't appear that good. You'd be able to make out the bands on Jupiter (you can see the moons with a decent pair of binoculars) but nothing like that.

Mars? Well, I saw it with a 4.5" reflector when it was at its closest a few years ago and could make out the icecaps. I seriously doubt they'd be that good in an 8".

Edit: Just found this. http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-9627.html
FOV = field of vision.

[Mozzaretti]

Edit: Just found this. http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-9627.html FOV = field of vision.

Blimey and I thought we were obsessed...

[ger_ryan22]

Looked like an 8" Meade to me. That's a pretty good scope but they wouldn't appear that good. You'd be able to make out the bands on Jupiter (you can see the moons with a decent pair of binoculars) but nothing like that.

Mars? Well, I saw it with a 4.5" reflector when it was at its closest a few years ago and could make out the icecaps. I seriously doubt they'd be that good in an 8".

Edit: Just found this. http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-9627.html
FOV = field of vision.

Cheers for that Karl. I may have to put a purchase on the long finger. Something tells me these 8" Meade's are expensive!

[murii]

This has to be the most thought provoking thread ever.! Just finished reading the 30 pages and i just need more! I hope that when someone dies we get to know all the answers!

[ger_ryan22]

Everything you ever needed to know.....:)

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm

[murii]

Everything you ever needed to know.....:)

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm
great read. But honestly, it just begets more questions. If space is matter (i.e it isn't a form nothingness), and it's expanding, what is it expanding into? Or even, what's it pushing away as it expands?

[Taksin]

great read. But honestly, it just begets more questions. If space is matter (i.e it isn't a form nothingness), and it's expanding, what is it expanding into? Or even, what's it pushing away as it expands?

very good questions

[SteelWool]

great read. But honestly, it just begets more questions. If space is matter (i.e it isn't a form nothingness), and it's expanding, what is it expanding into? Or even, what's it pushing away as it expands?

You're right that space is not nothingness (fantastic grammar there!)

It's alive with fundamental particles an activity 'the electron sea' as Dirac coined it although there are much better recent terms for it.

So I'm assuming that the expansion is the presence of these particles where previously there were none. If they already existed it would mean that everything in the universe is necessary rather than contingent which has huge ramifications in terms of philospophy, maths etc.

You're right though, any thought about it raises more questions. I think it's logically impossible for finite beings such as ourselves to understand infinity.

That said. Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible. Fascinating.

[murii]

You're right that space is not nothingness (fantastic grammar there!)

It's alive with fundamental particles an activity 'the electron sea' as Dirac coined it although there are much better recent terms for it.

So I'm assuming that the expansion is the presence of these particles where previously there were none. If they already existed it would mean that everything in the universe is necessary rather than contingent which has huge ramifications in terms of philospophy, maths etc.

You're right though, any thought about it raises more questions. I think it's logically impossible for finite beings such as ourselves to understand infinity.

That said. Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible. Fascinating.

thanx mate. Still, this is hard to grasp.

[Bandersnatch]

This has to be the most thought provoking thread ever.! Just finished reading the 30 pages and i just need more! I hope that when someone dies we get to know all the answers!

Anyone in particular?

Great thread btw!

[The Prince]

I suppose it's constant now but was faster at the time. There were no rules of science at that point of singularity.

This has bothered me since as someone, possibly Steel Wool, was disagreeing with me. I asked that floppy haired lad.

@ProfBrianCox Outstanding #woti Still not sure if light can go faster than usual in a singularity (Big Bang/black hole) if laws break down.

He replied.

look up 'the river model' of black holes. Nothing goes faster than light in space-time. Space flows, things move in the space


But surely there's a difference between singularity physics and standard space-time physics. I said as much...

@ProfBrianCox Even in a singularity? How did the light at the outer reaches of the Universe get there faster? Thanks for the reply

[ger_ryan22]

You buying this Karl?

Space-time -that plastic fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - may be no more than a mirage, according to Peter Horava. Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity. The focus of last year's Nobel Prize for Physics, graphene, may unlock the solution.
The world's physics community has started using Horava heresy to explain away the twin cosmological mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. Others are finding that black holes might not behave as we thought. If Horava's idea is right, it could forever change our conception of space and time and lead us to a "theory of everything", applicable to all matter and the forces that act on it.

For decades physicists have been stymied in their efforts to reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes gravity, with quantum mechanics, which describes the sub-atomic world of particles and forces on the smallest scales.

Space and time according to quantum theory are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is shaped by the matter within it.

Much of the motivation behind the quest to square relativity and quantum theory - to produce a theory of quantum gravity reflects the need understand what happened immediately after the big bang or what's going on near the event horizon of black holes, where the gravitational fields are massive.

Horava found his solution in the the physics of condensed matter, specifically in a carbon atom one atom thick, called graphene, whose electrons ping around the surface like balls in a pinball machine and can be described using quantum mechanics. Because the graphene atoms are moving at only a fraction of the speed of light there is no need to take relativity into account.

But cool this graphene down to near absolute zero and something extraordinary happens: the electrons speed up dramatically. Now relativistic theories are needed to describe them correctly. It was this change that sparked Horava's imagination. What struck Horava about graphene is that Lorentz symmetry isn't always apparent in it. Could the same thing be true of our universe, he wondered. What we see around us today is a cool cosmos, where space and time appear linked by Lorentz symmetry - a fact that experiments have established to astounding precision. But things were very different in the earliest moments. What if the symmetry that is apparent today is not fundamental to nature, but something that emerged as the universe cooled from the big bang fireball, just as it emerges in graphene when it is cooled?

Horava tweaked Einstein's equations in a way that removed Lorentz symmetry: a property that keeps the speed of light constant for all observers, no matter how fast they move, time slows and distances contract to exactly the same degree. This led Horava to a set of equations that describe gravity in the same quantum framework as the other fundamental forces of nature: gravity emerges as the attractive force due to quantum particles called gravitons, in much the same way that the electromagnetic force is carried by photons. He also amended general relativity to include a preferred direction for time, from the past to the future -the way the universe as we observe it appears to evolve.

"All of a sudden, you have new ingredients for modifying the behaviour of gravity at very short distances," Horava said in an interview with New Scientist.

By breaking asunder the symmetry between space and time, Horava's theory alters the physics of black holes - especially microscopic black holes, which may form at the very highest energies, which means for the formation of these black holes, and whether they are what they seem to be in general relativity "is a very big question."

Horava gravity might also help solve one of the great unsolved mysteries of modern cosmology: the puzzle of dark matter if the equations of motion derived from general relativity are slightly off this could explain the observed speeds of the stars and galaxies without dark matter playing a role.

"It is possible that some fraction of the dark matter picture of the universe could be coming from corrections to Einstein's equations," Horava says.

Ditto for dark energy: theories of particle physics predict the strength of dark energy to be about 120 orders of magnitude larger than what is observed, and general relativity cannot explain this enormous discrepancy. But Horava's theory contains a parameter that can be fine-tuned so that the vacuum energy predicted by particle physics is reduced to the small positive value that is in line with the observed motions of stars and galaxies.

The ultimate answers of course will come with Improved observations of supermassive black holes, which contain regions of intense gravity, which could reveal the necessary corrections to general relativity and prove Horava's theory of quantum gravity, in much the same way that unexplained measurements of Mercury's orbit showed that Newton's laws were incomplete, opening the door for Einstein.

[SteelWool]

Did anyone just watch Everything and Nothing on BBC4?

Ace when telly is that good.

[The Prince]

Saw last week's. Excellent.

[kopite321]

The UK can still do some things well..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/03/jodrell-bank-largest-radio-telescope

[kopite321]

This is interesting also..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/31/goce-maps-earth-gravity

[kopite321]

Nice site

http://www.solarsystemscope.com/#

[ger_ryan22]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1104/teidesky_casado_3000.jpg

[The Prince]

Sagittarius and Scorpius, I think.

[ger_ryan22]

Some truly spectacular pics in HERE (http://richworks.in/2010/08/40-spectacular-images-of-the-stellar-universe-and-beyond-from-nasa/)

[ger_ryan22]

Bumping this unbelievable thread once again with spectacular, and I mean it this time, pics taken of Earth from Space aboard the ISS. Truly breathtaking.

http://triggerpit.com/2011/04/21/beautiful-planet-oh-i-so-want-to-go-to-the-iss/

[Sir Bob - A True Man]

Mid-way through 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. Superb read.

Just read 'Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene. Good book but you need a brain the size of a planet.

[kopite321]

Black Holes

Best picture yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1390367/Black-hole-jets-captured-glory-detailed-image-yet.html?ITO=1490

[ger_ryan22]

I don't think I'll ever see a sky like this from Salford. :o

wFpeM3fxJoQ

[Sim]

That's a spectacular video.

There were points that just made it look like it was generated by a computer.

Any idea what the concentrated beams of orange light were that emerged from the observatories on a couple of occasions?

[Rushback]

Lasers to improve the image

[kopite321]

Very nice have a look...

rj18UQjPpGA

[Rossk1992]

The link to the website with those pictures of earth from orbit are stunning, truly stunning.

Makes you think about how insignificant we really are on this planet and in the universe. Also makes you thankful for the privilege of ever having inhabited this beautiful world :o

I've had a few btw haha

[ger_ryan22]

Very nice have a look...

rj18UQjPpGA

Superb, and all whilst travelling at 5 miles per second! :eek:

[ger_ryan22]

Hole In One!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gallery/albums/phil-creation-4/lro_holeinone.jpg

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has been circling the Moon since June 2008, taking incredibly high-resolution images of our neareast astronomical neighbor. It's photographed craters, ancient lava beds, mountains, and cliffs, but this image really stands out to me: it shows a house-sized boulder which rolled down a hill and landed inside a crater like a golf ball at a Putt-Putt course!

The left side of the picture is a hill which goes downhill to the right. The landscape flattens out in the middle, and you can see bits of rubble and debris from landslides at the point where they meet. A billion years ago or more, something must have dislodged that gigantic rock, setting it rolling down the hill. Not being round, it bounced along in the Moon's 1/6th gravity, leaving ruts dug into the powdery surface. It slowed when it hit the flatter surface, and almost came to a stop just past that 60-meter (200 foot) crater. But it must have teetered backwards (see how that last rut goes past the rock?) and then slid down into the crater itself, where it finally came to a stop.

[ger_ryan22]

Them Japanese eh!

QwIvYwJXObc

[The Prince]

Bumped for a mate.

Post 7.

[ger_ryan22]

I may have mentioned it in here already, I'm not sure, but did anyone see the programme on a couple of years ago about the Mother who was in a coma for years, basically no way of ever coming out of it, that was the professional opinion. Anyway, doctors working on a sleeping pill, dont ask me why but they tried it on the mother and for a temporary period of time she would wake up, she'd be aware of her surroundings and would even recognise and converse with her daughters! I'd just lost my mother a couple of years before that but my word, I had dreams about that for months afterwards. It was so surreal yet very very poignant. To have your mother there temporarily and knowing, aside from the actual bloody coma, she's fine.

Remarkable.

[Cubbin]

I may have mentioned it in here already, I'm not sure, but did anyone see the programme on a couple of years ago about the Mother who was in a coma for years, basically no way of ever coming out of it, that was the professional opinion. Anyway, doctors working on a sleeping pill, dont ask me why but they tried it on the mother and for a temporary period of time she would wake up, she'd be aware of her surroundings and would even recognise and converse with her daughters! I'd just lost my mother a couple of years before that but my word, I had dreams about that for months afterwards. It was so surreal yet very very poignant. To have your mother there temporarily and knowing, aside from the actual bloody coma, she's fine.

Remarkable.

So they'd give her this pill and she'd wake up for a bit? Then she'd go back into a coma until they gave her more?

Is that real?

How long was she awake for?

[ger_ryan22]

So they'd give her this pill and she'd wake up for a bit? Then she'd go back into a coma until they gave her more?

Is that real?

How long was she awake for?

It's real. I found this article in the Guardian from around the time I watched it on TV. The duration depended on the individual I think but could be 30mins up to 1hr 30mins.

Long read but so surreal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/12/health.healthandwellbeing

[Bandersnatch]

Sounds a bit like that Williams/DeNiro movie, Awakenings, which I believe was based on a true story.

[The Prince]

Isn't that based on...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Who-Mistook-Wife-Picador/dp/0330294911

[ger_ryan22]

I've read 2 reviews on that book and I already want it.

[The Prince]

It's fantastic, Ger.

[ger_ryan22]

I've made the purchase.

Thanks for the recommendation Karl.

[Sir Bob - A True Man]

Same here.

Cheers Karl.

[kopite321]

You got to watch this from the ISS.. just amazing footage

http://www.universetoday.com/88998/amazing-timelapse-video-from-the-space-station/?