420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Juno Close-Up of Jupiter by Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:49:08 EST ID:unNII3om No.57129 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513453748388.jpg -(117513B / 114.76KB, 1041x586) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117513

These pictures alone are worth the 1 billion dollars of the mission.
Edwin Hubble - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 00:13:35 EST ID:GzPfXXE4 No.57159 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516425215727.jpg -(165760B / 161.88KB, 1041x884) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Totally worth it. Fuckin love jupiter
Galileo Galilei - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 07:34:49 EST ID:8caD3Z7Z No.57161 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516451689471.jpg -(1387428B / 1.32MB, 1041x1239) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Nasa bitches be trippin

Red Dwarf ayy lmaos by William Hartmann - Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:34:12 EST ID:y3vStdZD No.57154 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1516041252879.jpg -(66050B / 64.50KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 66050
In this thread ITT we discuss the habitability of red dwarf systems
Scientists have theorized that these planets could be habitable despite being tidally locked with their stars. They believe there would be enough convection between the light and dark sides to maintain oceans, an atmosphere etc.
I think it would be interesting how life would evolve on such a world, particularly intelligent life. Imagine how the material conditions of the world would affect culture, technological development, geopolitics etc.
Robert Wilson - Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:50:40 EST ID:vw5K93xT No.57156 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's mostly just an exercise in science fiction, but I'll bite. You'd think most life would tend to populate the 'twilight zone' between the light and dark sides. Unless the planet had a moon (which it couldn't, I guess?? or at least it would also be tidally locked) any lifeforms there wouldn't have any concept of large scale biological cycles, or if they did, they couldn't rely on solar events. There wouldn't even be seasons on such a world, so their notion of time, if they developed sentience, would probably be somewhat different from ours. They would probably be dependent on observing stars to measure the passage of time at all, which means that, for example if they had a stratified society, with some living on the dark side and some living on the light, the night side would tend to host the time-keepers, and perhaps be the host of academic disciplines in general, since only they could see the stars to tell time. Likewise, the day side is the only side awash with energy, so would presumably be the home of the resource-extracting underclasses.

Other than that, if such a planet indeed had a stable enough thermal environment to support life, I don't see that there would be many obstacles more significant to them than exist for life existing in general.
Maximilian Wolf - Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:26:36 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57157 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think tidal locking can be a good thing if you don't want to live on the planet but deconstruct it to build artificial habitats along the same orbit of the planet around the star.
Imagine fusion powered mass driver ejecting material straight "up" from the planet surface directly into the orbit of the star.
Or even better an orbital ring facing the star lifting material from the surface and the using centrifugal force to to the same, but in all directions which ALL point directly to the orbital plane. You could create a Dyson swarm with nothing else.

Wow thinking if that turns out to be viable a tidal locked planet might turn out to be prime real estate in a Kardashev II+ society...
James Elliott - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 03:52:20 EST ID:8u+dSE/5 No.57160 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't see why such a planet wouldn't have a moon. In fact it'd need one to have a magnetic field, which would be necessary to stave off the brutal solar winds.
I like the idea of lunar and stellar time keeping.
I also figured the extreme points on the light and dark sides would be largely uninhabited with underground communities. These could be centers of intellectual and religious life for various reasons.
Another thing worth noting is that the weather would be very consistent on such a world. I think this would accelerate development. Imagine using wind power and knowing where the winds will come from, their strength etc.
The geopolitics of such a planet would be very interesting, especially as societies developed. I imagine there would be wealthy, advanced societies in the terminator zone that would come to dominate the light and dark sides.

NASA is lying. by - Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:08:23 EST ID:rguyQexW No.57030 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1507799303267.jpg -(29527B / 28.83KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 29527
>Earth is flat.

This picture proves the globe is a lie.

Prove Globe Earth in this thread.
65 posts and 38 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Rudolph Minkowski - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:52:57 EST ID:iA4t4YDd No.57151 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1515570777167.jpg -(69303B / 67.68KB, 500x647) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>So flat it could bite a wall.
Thomas Gold - Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:23:01 EST ID:p73EfNkl No.57152 Ignore Report Quick Reply

yo nigga you should research this thing called gravity
William Hartmann - Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:18:57 EST ID:y3vStdZD No.57153 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>taking flat earthers seriously
So next will we have an anti-vax or creationist thread in the science board?
Or maybe time cube?
Viktor Ambartsumian - Wed, 17 Jan 2018 03:05:07 EST ID:C9HAnUuw No.57155 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Time cube is the only viable theory imo
Giuseppe Piazzi - Fri, 19 Jan 2018 22:23:35 EST ID:o/bBhW9G No.57158 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516418615975.jpg -(35413B / 34.58KB, 700x524) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The erff is round yo.l

Revolutionary new theory disproving gravity and our understanding of the cosmos by William Lassell - Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:07:45 EST ID:Wzm4xeu3 No.57104 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1511719665892.jpg -(70190B / 68.54KB, 1000x707) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 70190

What if the heavens we have gazed in wonder for so long are not so vast...but in fact smaller than the landmass we inhabit?

Unlike the ridiculous flat earth theory, which makes no sense, this new theory makes a lot of sense, and not only that, it manages to combine science with religion in a rational, logical way.
7 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Tue, 05 Dec 2017 22:13:01 EST ID:2ov/AXi5 No.57119 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sorry chap, that didn't disprove anything, and you're a fucktard!
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Tue, 05 Dec 2017 22:13:02 EST ID:2ov/AXi5 No.57120 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sorry chap, that didn't disprove anything, and you're a fucktard!
Edward Pickering - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 11:03:40 EST ID:pyme3SEs No.57121 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Disprove a bag of shit, onk.
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:12:29 EST ID:unNII3om No.57122 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Easy. Who would seriously put shit in a bag besides dog-owners?

Check mate nb
Wilhelm Beer - Mon, 01 Jan 2018 12:27:22 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is this the "Elon Musk is Satan" guy that spammed /high/ full of his schizophrenic retard shit a few months ago?

Fucking ECLIPSE thread! by Irwin Shapiro - Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:50:15 EST ID:KgS57XEk No.57006 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503258615031.jpg -(263261B / 257.09KB, 1932x1932) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 263261

Come on! Get excited for this!

I got a cheap solar filter sheet and put it in front of my 300mm lens. Which is plugged into a 2x teleconverter. 600mm to grab the eclipse.

Took some test shots today and got to see some sunspots! Which are freaking cool (well, RELATIVELY cool...LOL!)

Post eclipse shit here people!
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
James Christy - Tue, 22 Aug 2017 02:54:41 EST ID:nHAT7Ro+ No.57009 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can you share your footage pretty please with dank moon rocks on top?
Russel Hulse - Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:47:49 EST ID:unNII3om No.57010 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Didn't see shit.

Born too north and east to experience it, and it's like ages until the next proper eclipse over my country.

Hope you niggers enjoyed it, and avoided being like wow eclipse well whatever dude I wonder what's on youtube?
Bruon Rossi - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:04:53 EST ID:cP2dPTDR No.57011 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just got back from watching it in Casper, WY. It was amazing and felt so unearthly. It's really weird to look up in the sky and see something so different. You can't help but laugh and be in awe at the big ring of ghostly white light in the sky.

The difference between 99% and totality is unreal. Until that last bit of sun is covered, it's neat, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Then totality clicks in and the whole character of everything changes. If you missed seeing this one, def try to get to the one that runs from Texas to Maine in 2024.

Also, for the next one, make sure to check out the shadows on the ground as you approach totality. The dappled light/shadow under a tree acts as hundreds of pinhole projectors. You'll see hundreds of projections of the moon passing in front of the sun. The patches of light will all turn fishscale-shaped. It's pretty great.
Alan Guth - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:20:56 EST ID:fsTyqOA+ No.57013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Was down in Greenville SC visiting my parents for it. Truly surreal, is the only way I can describe it. The most radical part was how the sun was still too powerfully bright to look at until absolute totality.

Down in Greenville totality lasted for what felt like a minute exactly. It is the most bizarre thing, it was getting visibly dimmer on the ground, and approaching totality it was near twilight. Up until exact totality though, you cant look at the sun. It was just that bright still. Then, totality, saw some Baileys Beads, even saw some sun snakes (atmospheric turbulence you can see on sidewalks as totality approaches).

Once totality was over, the sun came to the other side of the moon, and BAM, bright as fuck again.

It gave me a respect for how fucking powerfully bright that big plasma ball really is.

Annie Cannon - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:09:30 EST ID:2C/bTB2T No.57134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also viewed in Casper, WY

Astronomy Club by Ejnar Hertzprung - Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:02:26 EST ID:dWt9NTso No.57017 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1505318546672.gif -(181264B / 177.02KB, 197x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 181264
I'm trying to make an astronomy club but I don't know what it would be about or what to do. Everyone else who likes astronomy are just shy like me and we all refuse to talk. Logically I know that the club show be at night because astronomy but what do you think I should do at such a club. Thank you
Dr. Mario !gWLn19/oKs - Thu, 14 Sep 2017 21:49:37 EST ID:9UftK+wR No.57018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
definitely smoke weed together. lots of weed. thats a given
Jocelyn Bell - Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:26:08 EST ID:2H001r1f No.57020 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Alrighty !
Karl Swarzchild - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:46:21 EST ID:sywMqW4i No.57025 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>the club should be at night
>what do you think I should do at such a club

well gee, ill tell you what i think
Galileo Galilei - Sat, 23 Sep 2017 21:07:05 EST ID:7bk1TGPO No.57028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
maybe you could look at stars and talk about them
Tycho Brahe - Fri, 22 Dec 2017 01:13:32 EST ID:mZKzn5Lt No.57133 Ignore Report Quick Reply
in my highschool astronomy club we participated a lot in SETI

That FTL means time travel meme by Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:22:45 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57130 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513480965587.gif -(117244B / 114.50KB, 323x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117244
I have a question regarding this:
If you look at this gif it shows you "backwards" travel:
The first "jump" after the first acceleration points into the direction that corresponds to the lower left quadrant of the previous reference frame leading to backwards time travel.
However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legal which would imply forward time travel. This would imply that direction you are moving in space would dictate the direction of the "time travel" which seems entirely non-sensical to me.
I guess this is also the point but I still get the feeling I'm missing something here.

https://www.celestron.com/products/powerseeker-127eq-telescope by Joseph von Fraunhofer - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 04:35:05 EST ID:UEOi/cKA No.57111 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1512293705978.png -(193419B / 188.89KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 193419
Im looking for a telescope in the 150-180 range for my cousin
can someone knowledgable help me

some of these have more "zoom" I am retarded but are some are cheaper and some have less and are more expensive so I don't get it?
Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:14:31 EST ID:Wnqom/n1 No.57128 Report Quick Reply
Go for something with a larger aperture size. This collects more light, allowing lenses with more zoom to be used without everything fading out.
I'd recommend something with a 4"+ aperture. It will come with at least a 40mm eyepiece, and if your cousin wants, they can get other lenses that will zoom more.

Fermi Paradox... why? by Henrietta Levitt - Thu, 22 May 2014 00:54:34 EST ID:ILYTISHs No.53812 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1400734474447.png -(111524B / 108.91KB, 400x325) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111524
Another thread made me start thinking about this. The Fermi Paradox states (thanks, Wikipedia):

>The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
>Some of these stars probably have Earth-like planets which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
>Presumably, some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now, such as that used in the proposed 100 Year Starship;
>At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

If that's the case, why haven't we been colonized already, or at least seen evidence of intelligent life somewhere in our galaxy?

My take: either A) Life takes a long time to develop, and somehow, improbably, we're the first planet to develop an intelligent civilization in our galaxy, or at least one of the first. We don't see anyone else because there isn't anyone else to see... yet, or we're all still too far apart.

Or b) Given the size and composition constraints of a planet able to foster and sustain life (as far as we know, "habitable zone," big enough to have an atmosphere, small enough to still be rocky, etc.) and continue long enough for said life to begin to explore the galaxy, the home planet simply runs out of resources before meaningful headway can be made. I think this is more of a slow-death kind of thing where maybe we get to do some exploration within the solar system and maybe a bit beyond for a while, but overpopulation, war, disease, famine, and whatever else causes us to realign our priorities from space exploration to merely sustaining life on our own planet. A civilization that had the foresight to know something like that was happening could theoretically, if they had the goal of galactic expansion from the start, avoid this situation, but the problem is that NO civilization has that kind of 10,000 year plan from the get-go, and they all sputter out right before they could have pulled it off. There's not a textbook on "how to succeed as a species" that gets handed out to a life form when it develops self-awareness,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
306 posts and 72 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Tycho Brahe - Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:39:56 EST ID:unNII3om No.57097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1510965596105.jpg -(15898B / 15.53KB, 240x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Please stay in your designated thread.
Edward Pickering - Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:44:22 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57101 Ignore Report Quick Reply

what if biodiverse planets with unique life structures are the purpose of the universe and humanity's effort to mechanize and automate and digitize the universe is cancerous and bad from a higher/wiser perspective? maybe humanity spreading throughout the universe is a negative?
Caroline Herschel - Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:19:07 EST ID:unNII3om No.57102 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Well how should we know that?

If it's true, at least we get to be the enemy of the gods, instead of becoming a thin plastic film spread across the geological strata of Earth.
John Riccioli - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:29:48 EST ID:NWuHYIye No.57108 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1512260988883.jpg -(165191B / 161.32KB, 1080x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Yeah, I don't really place any value on the opinions of outside influences like that. The universe could be a big ol' data storage device for some extra-dimensional lifeforms, but that doesn't affect my decision processes in the here and now. We're here, we get to decide what we do with this place, insofar as that is possible.
Henrietta Levitt - Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:08:47 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1513098527755.png -(5149B / 5.03KB, 584x33) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Russel Hulse - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 10:43:51 EST ID:efSQObtJ No.57112 Ignore Report Quick Reply
None of that justifies a big crunch model. If we're gonna posit something based on lack of evidence, I'd rather go with space fairies. They're cute.
Charles Bolton - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:29:31 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57113 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1512336571668.jpg -(32665B / 31.90KB, 1100x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Friedrich von Struve - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 23:36:09 EST ID:2O5lO8M8 No.57123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well I'm not going to make an argument for the Big Crunch because I don't think it will happen, it's Big Freezes all the way down. However, I would make an argument for their nonetheless being an infinite number of Big Bangs, and thus the universe having a cyclic quality without any need for a Big Crunch.

The argument for this is simple, one based on a priori logic rather than a posteriori empiricism, as well as the Copernican principle: our universe, apparently, arose from nothing at all into the universe we perceive today. If we believe in the Big Bang, we must minimally accept this. We must take nothing to mean really nothing, as extension in no qualities of any kind. In this way the moment immediately after the Big Freeze is the same as the moment before the Big Bang -- time ceases to exist for an infinite amount of non-time, because what time is is a measurement of change, and in nothing, there is no change at all.

Because we know it is possible for the universe to arise from nothing, and know it is going back into nothing, and we know that nothingness can exist for an infinite amount of time, it would be a violation of the Copernican principle to assume that our vantage point is the only time ever that nothingness would generate a universe. No, that would imply a violation of causality and us having a privileged perspective, so we must reject it.

If nothing really is nothing, and the universe can come from nothing but also inevitably goes into nothing, then there's nothing about nothing that can stop universes from infinitely eternally being formed out of it. Since there are an infinite number of universes, there will also be an infinite number of identical universes, eventually. Thus, cyclical universe.
Jan Hendrik Oort - Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:52:12 EST ID:JrU5uOl/ No.57124 Ignore Report Quick Reply

like a pac-man screen
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:00:03 EST ID:JaX78I2e No.57125 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You don't understand galactic scales; Relativity is a bitch thread by Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Thu, 04 May 2017 18:10:19 EST ID:unNII3om No.56931 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1493935819961.png -(221879B / 216.68KB, 521x311) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 221879
So imagine you have two cannons firing their cannon balls away from each other, and their muzzle velocity is the speed of light.

You'd think the relative speed of one cannon ball to the other would be 2x the speed of light, right?

Nope. The equation for relative speed between two objects looks like this:


Where v1 and v2 are the speeds of the two cannon balls and c is the speed of light.

So as the velocity of the cannon balls approaches the speed of light, their own speed doesn't matter and the limit of light speed is dominant. Relative speed of 2x speed of light is thus impossible.

Or in other words: wat.

You guys got some other relativistic mind-blowers?
20 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
William Hartmann - Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:15:57 EST ID:kRyBQtrI No.57015 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1505150157380.jpg -(29845B / 29.15KB, 500x376) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
But you're helpful otherwise.
Fred Hoyle - Sun, 15 Oct 2017 20:38:36 EST ID:lQ9q0NgK No.57061 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>causal violations are not a problem in relativity. They are in fact expected and on multiple levels
I would disagree with this sentiment. Although violations of causality certainly may be possible, I would argue that the general (excuse the pun) theories of S.R. and G.R. rely heavily on the notion that causality is inviolable. In example of separate observers witnessing events, you are confusing causality with simultaneity. This is only possible for events that are causally separated (spacelike). If events can be perceived as simultaneous in some reference frame S, then they must be causally separated if there is nonzero distance between them (in S). Special relativity and causality allows you to boost to some frame S' with nonzero velocity relative to S such that the events occur out of order, however no matter how fast you go in S', the events will never occur in each other's light cone without exceeding the speed of light, and therefore cannot be causally related. tl;dr: violating simultaneity is not violating causality.

>There's a limit to the rate of causality, that makes the speed of light, but causality itself is not necessarily inviolable
Central to relativity is the notion that the speed of light is the same in any reference frame and cannot be exceeded. As you alluded to here, causality is defined by the speed of light (if event b occurs before light from event a could have reached it, then a cannot have caused b because the information that a has occurred will reach b after b happens). Therefore in order to violate causality, you must exceed the speed of light, which is forbidden in relativity.
With that said, that paper is certainly an interesting read, but it is investigating possible mechanisms of causal violation that would modify or extend the existing theories of relativity. It is well known that quantum mechanics and general relativity don't get along, and thus a theory of "quantum gravity" will have to violate some well established principals, but this is just the nature of science. I'm trying not to argue that causal violations are impossible, just that the notion that causal violations are expected by conventional relativity is …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:39:24 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57072 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wromholes don't mess with time because you bend space. Time still flows through the wormhole.
George Hale - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:29:49 EST ID:unNII3om No.57075 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Um no? It's known as the one most likely way of traveling through time dude. Remember time and space are two sides of the some coin. You bend one you bend the other.
Charles Bolton - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:31:39 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57114 Ignore Report Quick Reply

then how did Tasha Yar have a daughter?

Ayy-lmao! A steroid! by Christiaan Huygens - Fri, 27 Oct 2017 23:01:24 EST ID:RH1VsRBv No.57067 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1509159684326.jpg -(13365B / 13.05KB, 400x227) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13365

>All the asteroids and comets astronomers have ever spotted in our celestial neighborhood appear to come from somewhere else in the solar system and orbit the sun, just like Earth.

That is, until the University of Hawaii's Pan-STARRS 1 telescope last week discovered what appears to be the first ever seen "interstellar object" -- an asteroid (or maybe a comet) that escaped from the gravitational grasp of another star and fell through the roof of our solar system.

That makes the object currently designated A/2017 U1 an alien of sorts around our corner of the cosmos.

The foreign space-something is less than a quarter-mile (400 meters) across, but is moving super fast at 15.8 miles (25.5 kilometers) per second. That's over three times faster than Asteroid 2012 TC4, the rock that gave Earth a close shave earlier this month.

"This is the most extreme orbit I have ever seen," said Davide Farnocchia, at NASA's Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS). "It is going extremely fast and on such a trajectory that we can say with confidence that this object is on its way out of the solar system and not coming back."
Maximilian Wolf - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 03:25:09 EST ID:iHcy51j9 No.57068 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A little eerie.
Nicolaus Copernicus - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:51:08 EST ID:XdfxkLaX No.57085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Imagine the shit that goes faster than that tho.

Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.