A few nebula, some galaxies, the Moon(may need a filter), the Sun(needs a filter), fuzzy planets(mars is a reddish blob with hardly any surface detail.), and maybe your hot neighbor upside down if your scope is un-pimped.

You can google around "4in(or 110mm) telescope photography" and find a bunch of images taken with that size scope. Keep in mind that the cameras used have a longer exposure than your eye so things will not be as bright or detailed.

>>42406
Also remember that many images are composite images and colors are almost always false.

Jupiter and Saturn are always the best, you can make out Saturn's ring and both of the moon systems.

DICKS EVERYWHERE

>>41946
Thank you.
I have my lucid moments.

OMG put some ponies!

"smoke weed everyday"

"To the makers of music — all worlds, all times"

>>42477
I wondered that too, but 15X compared to 25,000X seemed like a stretch.

So I did a little Wiki sluething, and have concluded that the blog post I linked is full of shit :P

The planet in question is HAT-P-2b. Its apparently got 8.65X the mass of Jupiter but is 0.95X smaller than Jupiter. If the Wiki is any more correct, it has 25X Earth's gravity.

Not sure if I'm doing this right, but if Jupiter is 318X the mass of Earth, and this planet is 8.65X Jupiter.....that would make it.....318 * 8.65....about 2750X Earth's mass? Do those numbers multiply? That would make a 150lb human weigh....what, 3,750lbs?? So yeah, assuming there's a solid surface to that planet (not likely) you'd be a very very thin smear of organic molecules.

Also >>42476 HOW THE FUCK??? that has to be more than just the difference between atmospheric pressure and a pure vacuum.....right?

>>42480
Nope. Just a ridiculous vacuum it seems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM

if you guys ever want to actually calculate the acceleration due to gravity
F=ma
F=(GMm)/R^2
a=GM/R^2
where a is acceleration, G is the gravitational constant, M is the Mass inside of your radius, and R is the Radius of the object you're on.

What you'll find is that the number of G's is to do with density then with mass, any terrestrial planet should have gravity between 0.5 and 2 of Earth's.

There's always neutron stars and anything short of a black hole.
If you were, like, pre-crisis Superman or Son Goku, training on some kind of degenerate-matter object would probably give you a good workout you couldn't get anywhere else without rearranging large parts of the local solar system.

>>42471
He's a super sayin. hurrhurr

>>42493
I don't think you really believe stars are made of bacteria.

Hopefully someone better educated will come along, but I'll try to answer your question.

From your question, it seems like your understanding is that bacteria somehow forms in a star, and after that star explodes, some of that bacteria lands on a habitable planet. You've got the basic principle down, but you're mixing up the theory of how planets are formed with the idea of panspermia. Stars are far too hostile for life to emerge, and the earliest life wasn't nearly as complex as bacteria.

Heavy elements form within stars (inside their cores, I think), and after those stars explode, the heavy elements coalesce and smash into one another in orbit around a new star. They eventually form into planets. I'll skip the evolution of the planets themselves (since I know jack shit about it) and get to the more interesting part.
In the case of Earth, various organic molecules mixed and combined with one another in the pools of so-called "primordial soup." At some point, a molecule formed that could replicate itself. It was the ancestor of DNA. The rest was evolution and natural selection. Carl Sagan explains it wonderfully in episode 2 of Cosmos. I'm just repeating what I learned from him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJMh_QoKTEE

I strongly encourage you to watch the whole episode (the whole series, in fact). But if you don't have time, he explains the origin of life at 16:52 and considers the emergence of life (including extraterrestrial life) at 47:38.

In another episode, can't remember which...maybe episode 10 or 11, he discusses the Drake equation, which attempts to predict the probability of extraterrestrial life. The odds are good, but the odds that a life-bearing planet is anywhere near us is very slim at best. And the values attributed to several variables in the equation are sheer speculation.

Whoa. That was longer than I planned. But to get at the heart of your question, research the origins of DNA and the Drake equation. And watch Cosmos. Plenty of Cosmos.

>>42496
Holy shit thanks for this, I've watched a few clips of Carl Sagan but never an actual episode of Cosmos yet, shit is very informative.

All about elements heavier than helium man, made in the cores of massive stars!

posting threads without watching the whole Cosmos series twice (once sober, once stoned on acid comedown) should be a bannable offence

>>42489
cause theres no other known solvent that can support stable self-replicating molecules.

>>42491
Not yet at least.

>>42489
Astrobiologists do no such thing.
What they're saying is that Earth-like life will be based on water (this is by definition true), and that water is so much more common than other possible solvents of theorized alien biochemistries. The latter is an observed fact, and water-based life being way more common is a very good educated guess.

Most of those scientists don't think life necessarily needs water; they think that it's easier and more cost effective to search for signatures we know to look for, especially because we don't yet know if any alien biochemistry is physically possible in our universe.

>>42497
All right, thanks for the information.

>>42383

>>42474
There's no way for you to go to another universe. Travelling in this universe is what we're stuck with.

No. Traveling to other universes is likely to be impossible. There may be some forces that can be detected IN other universes, but physically moving between universes would be impossible. And even if you did, you would only be moving through universes, not space. So you would likely end up in an area of decreasing similarity, depending on how 'far' the universe is from you. Perhaps you might even cross paths with another you, who is going to visit another universe (maybe yours!). Or maybe I'm just really high.

robinson crusoe scenario is for the secretly optimistic too. true pessimists will be dead

>>42474

>Would it be easier to just go to another universe instead of flying around our own, simply because travelling huge distances within our own takes so long?

Well... in overly optimistic scenario, we travel outside of spacetime, but it won't be "another universe" and it's just another aspect of this universe.

Since many many condensed matter systems exhibit phenomena which are identical to general relativity, some take a wild guess (big if) that spacetime itself could just be another such system, like a "world crystal", which we might (big if) eventually find ways to "jump" out of spacetime, travel, and "land" back. The news around superluminal neutrino temporary bring a buzz to the world crystal, but it's too early to tell.

>>42449
You propose that it is no less correct to refer to it as Sol than it is the Sun. When you are speaking English it is absolutely less correct to do so.

>>42450

>I prefer to use the term Sol as well, all other Solar system objects are referred to in Latin and I appreciate the consistency.

So you of course use Mercurius or Saturnus. English has long been the international language of astronomy.

A typical 1 solar mass star will lose 40% of it's mass to a planetary nebula, this is not a rule of thumb though, 4 solar mass stars will lose more than 80% of their mass. They are about a light year across but there is a lot of variation within that. The ISM around the sun will not form a star forming region, it isn't dense enough.

>>42450
Are there any pictures of planetary nebulae being absorbed by or merged with
star forming nebulae? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a planetary nebula interacting with anything other than the parent star.

>>42458
You obviously have never read anything by any notable English author...ever. Especially from around the 17-18th century. Tossing non-english words and phrases in is perfectly common and acceptable in English. Its very flexible that way.

No bump, because this is silly and you're making a much bigger deal out of this than is called for.

Actually yes bump, as I want to thank >>42450 and >>42460 for the info on planetary nebula. I was in awe at how large of an ejection those can be, I thought it was much smaller shell of gas. But then I did some googling and realized that the nearest star is somewhere on the magnitude of 250,000 AU away, which would still leave our nebula very alone.

Any bets on how much of that matter Jupiter (in its by then well expanded orbit) could sweep up? I highly doubt it could gather enough to become a legit star, but I'd be interested in seeing how far down that path it could go.

>>42468
that would be badass if Jupiter became Sol 2.0

>>42455
Good god, no! Not at all!

>>42455
The gravity of the visible mass in our solar system is sufficient to explain the local arrangement of bodies. The problem is on a much larger scale - dark matter is suggested to speed up the orbits of stars in a galaxy, since we see them moving faster than gravity alone would explain. This is well-known as the galaxy rotation curve problem. There are also other observations which support the idea of invisible mass, like the Bullet cluster.

unicorn poop, I say

>>42446
Those theories are these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

>>42467
Hah, I thought that was what was going to come up. Those aren't theories, they are the ramblings of lunatics spattered with some untested hypotheses.

Mortal Realm

Eric has a big penis

I think alot of people will refer to us as 616. Any avid marvel comics reader will, anyway - the 616 universe is the main timeline.

Nah dude, nah, I feel like we're way too insignificant to label the entire universe, it wouldn't feel right, it would disrupt the very flow of the universe itself

Unless we name it Chicken

>>42466
They say everything tastes like chicken, so maybe the universe is really a big fowl?

>The pic shows on the left some major gold mines and on the right impact craters, you will notice there are gold mines where there are absolute no craters.

Gold is irrelevant. We're talking about platinum group metals.

>Which is false.

Yes, and I acknowledged that.

>>42415

There's Darwin Crater, though it isn't near any mines as far as I know. In addition, the following link suggests that osmiridium deposits in Tasmania may have arrived there as ejecta from a larger impact in Australia: http://www.austhrutime.com/mapcis.htm

What if by some chance they find a highly reactive metal or a new element, or mineral that could just exponentially evolve our race, surely it's a long shot, but surely out there, there must be some type of minerals we don't know about.

>>42451
not likely. the combinations of protons neutrons and electrons have been extensively studied and theres no way for stable elements that we're unable to create with energies of accelerators to occur naturally on asteroids with the energies available after the creation of solar system (they would have had to be created from the same cloud and with the same processes as solar system, and theyre not present on the planets we studied or feasible in our supernovae predictions)
anyway, elements lighter than hydrogen arent possible, and all the stable ones heavier than ununoctium, even if they did exist, would be in the suns core getting masacred thanks to gravity.
minerals are combinations of elements, and even if there exist some that cannot be found (or synthesised, or imagined) on earth, they probably wont exponentially evolve our race, whatever that means.

>>42451
still, simply the benefits we'll reap from space mining (i like the phrase), once it becomes profitable, will aid the general exponential curve of civilisation development, if not directly "evolve" us.

>>42451
What about if they like find some fucking scifi metal.

That'd be fucking cool.

Like, I could start an alien metal cult army and try to conquer the world nigga!

>>42300
Well more aperture is better for viewing DSO, so go with the 10" if you can. I have no experience with light pollution filters, but if you're buying a scope that size you need to think about how you're going to move it around and take it out places. No sense buying that just for your back yard.

>>

I have a friend with a truck willing to drive, so transportation is not a problem.

I've wanted that telescope for years :'(. Better enjoy it. I'd say get the one without the tracker. It'd be cheaper and it's more fun to just look for things yourself.

It was an asteroid that broke up.

>>42377
It's a meteoroid. To be an asteroid it has to be larger than 10m, and you'd know if it was.