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
cause science by Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Sat, 09 May 2015 05:30:50 EST ID:PbKyoTEf No.55282 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1431163850929.jpg -(94545B / 92.33KB, 900x473) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 94545
Maybe I'm just too uneducated of a pleb in the realm of physics to see why this isn't the case, but can someone explain to me why, if we need to adjust our models with something that is 97% at least partially empirically unsubstantiated (dark matter-energy) then why don't we question first if there is some flaw in our model or bias in our thinking?
Thought experiment to exemplify: for the most part, we as biological beings as well as our most advanced instrumentation can detect faster than light particles in only the most abstruse ways; our perception, as is perhaps natural given our evolutionary heritage, is tuned to light. Might the supposition that no (or only special) particles go FTL be an example of circular thinking? Could not the existence of small but significant portions of the universe moving faster than light at any given time, such as ships from interstellar civilizations, or perhaps natural ftl phenomena which is invisible to our photon based instrumentation, account for the observed matter-energy discrepancy (given that an ftl object would disporportionately displace and deflect photons compared to any object moving in normal space, and that, if such ftl worked on means of creating geometric distortions in spacetime such as the Alcubierre drive, produce a net distortion on the observed mass of the universe by the fact of their mass negating local spacetime frames. )
This idea is cobbled together from wikipedia articles, some post-sec hard sciences, watching too much star trek and being turnt the fuck up. If someone more versed in physics can explain to me why there is a very good reason this cannot be the case, I'd very much like to hear it.
19 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Caroline Herschel - Tue, 12 May 2015 11:44:32 EST ID:vm/hJ7FL No.55314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not >>55309 but,

>> I am not calling them arrogant for no reason, but a very specific reason; the way they distribute the expenditure of their time and resources between pursuing the current prevalent theory, and investigating possible alternatives.

Pray tell, why would a field, any field, deviate very far from what their data and evidence is telling them? Alternate theories should be searched for yes, but in the confines of what the evidence is saying, not wasting time and money on a wild goose chase wherein the goose might not even exist.
Edwin Hubble - Tue, 12 May 2015 19:04:26 EST ID:RVWMYu65 No.55315 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Don't lie, you asked why is dark matter the hypothesis that's winning. In order to explain that I need to tell you about the standard model.

>I am not calling them arrogant for no reason, but a very specific reason; the way they distribute the expenditure of their time and resources between pursuing the current prevalent theory, and investigating possible alternatives.

People who disagree with you are not arrogant. Cosmology is plenty diverse but you only get money for big experiments when you have something to show for it. It is not anyone else's job to spend their career on bullshit to satisfy your need to "diversity" the field. I you have a wacky idea go test it yourself. Alternatives exist and are tested.

>my claim of massaging was directed as a claim of potential bias throughout the system of statistical science, owing to observational and heuristic effects

Backtracking and handwaving. Massaging the data is not experimental bias, it is active and conscious manipulation to mislead. You are not confusing terms you are making extremely serous accusations without a shred of evidence. The reason I come back to methodology is because you made started throwing around slander like this.

>How is pointing out potential bias unhelpful?

You're not pointing to bias. You're pointing to the idea that bias could exist. NO FUCKING SHIT. Sating the obvious is not helpful. If you were actually pointing to a source of bias I would be happy but your pointing to the concept.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Edwin Hubble - Tue, 12 May 2015 19:14:35 EST ID:RVWMYu65 No.55316 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not exactly. Dark energy is most commonly explained by the presence of a cosmological constant. It's a term in Einstein's GR which falls out in the derivation, Einstein famously used it to fix a relativistic universe to be static when really the equations would predict a collapsing or expanding universe in the presence of matter only. The cosmological constant seems perfectly capable of doing the job but there are concerns with it and particle physics. In a sense the cosmological constant is gravity as we understand it today.

The next idea is to remove the issues with particle physics and set the cosmological constant to zero. It is replaced with modifications to Einstein's gravity at large scales. These other gravitational models can also describe dark energy as it is observed.

The other idea is of course 5th forces like quintessence. These are often harder to test but predictive models of them do exist.

This is why dark energy experiments are so big right now because cosmology has built a bridge to particle physics and the fundamental forces can be tested on the largest scales.
Daniel Kirkwood - Fri, 15 May 2015 16:17:06 EST ID:AKbZww5z No.55320 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I agree, this is a waste of time. This thread has clearly already come to it's conclusions, mostly through just reiterating your own thoughts so loudly that any idea I was articulating got drowned out. For all the shit you know, you are really fucking dumb as a brick and painfully -- dangerously -- narrow minded. If you can't see the circular arguments in your own statements, I feel sorry for you son. Keep worshipping at the scientism altar for as long as you like. Good luck with that.
Nb because this thread was shittrolled into never really discussing the matter of the OP.
Annie Cannon - Sun, 17 May 2015 19:05:23 EST ID:X4AXKa/R No.55323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your entire argument is circular as I pointed out. When pressed for evidence all you do is dig the hole deeper and deeper and gradually add insults as sophism fails.

Spacecoach by James Elliott - Mon, 11 May 2015 03:37:52 EST ID:1ALY54rn No.55304 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1431329872054.jpg -(98274B / 95.97KB, 636x602) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 98274
Anyone else hear about this idea, I think its pretty clever. Building non-atmospheric water ice/liquid inflatable craft and using the water as a low thrust high impulse engine fuel. This design also, potentially, solves other issues like hull integrity, radiation shielding, self-sustainable life support and maybe even supplying oxygen and hydrogen gases.


Why aren't we building a moon base yet? by Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:51:23 EST ID:2JDq4Uoe No.55162 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1427248283576.jpg -(157411B / 153.72KB, 640x654) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 157411
So hear me out guys, getting on the moon is seriously important.

Why is it so expensive and difficult for us to send things to space? It's because of 2 things, breaking free from the Earth's gravity and surviving re-entry into the atmosphere. All of our rockets, satellites, space probes, etc. have to have a massive amount of fuel and ablative armor.
The moon is located in a strategically beneficial spot, right at the top of Earth's gravity well. Once we spend the initial capital to establish a permanent or semi permanent settlement on the moon, the door to space really opens.
We can then design our spacecraft without the need for massive thrust and armor, and wont need to spend nearly as much fuel to get around out there. It doesnt take much to move an object through space, and breaking free of the moon's gravity is exponentially easier than breaking free from Terra. And moving resources from the moon to earth is even easier, just a little push and they fall back to earth on their own. With even a tiny colony on the moon to act as a port of sorts, the trouble of monetizing space mining is essentially solved. Not to mention the insane amount of solar power that can be gotten from the raw, unfiltered power of the Sun.

We need to do this guys, we're quickly running out of several natural resources, rare earth metals in particular, which we're only just beginning to rely heavily on (theyre used in just about any battery, especially phone batteries and electric cars) and they can all be found in the asteroid belt. The Moon is the answer, and it's right at our doorstep. If we could get there in the 60's with the computing equivalent of a dollar store calculator, then we have no excuses to not go with today's technology.

>TL;DR- fuck solving world hunger or social issues, lets just go to the moon.
20 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Robert Wilson - Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:17:46 EST ID:hfHw2FxQ No.55243 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's the rub. We need robots to set up all the essential resource harvesting before we get there. Of course if we can do that it's that much more difficult to convince the short sighted that humans need to go at all.

Besides that, present day humans just aren't suited to space. Homo Transfiguro (the cyborgs and bioborgs) will remake their puppets to suit the environment they're moving to as much as possible, and they'll (mostly the cyborgs) have much lower requirements for food, water and oxygen.
Bernhard Schmidt - Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:43:38 EST ID:sky71Ye7 No.55244 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Homo Transfiguro

And even then I have a feeling those that go out into space will only be people with special interest. When you got a system wide automated infrastructure delivering resources to Earth, why go out there at all?
Robert Wilson - Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:39:12 EST ID:hfHw2FxQ No.55245 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1429223952878.gif -(2024434B / 1.93MB, 400x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Do you think the "Earth will not be habitable forever, we need to move on" message will get through to the politicians and other idiots? Nevermind the religious nuts who want the apocalypse to happen.
Walter Baade - Tue, 05 May 2015 09:56:18 EST ID:vRWwm6cm No.55277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You still have to get all the fuel and stuff to the moon, and assemble it there. May as well just do the same thing with LEO if you're going to space anyway.
Fritz Zwicky - Thu, 07 May 2015 09:07:36 EST ID:llcsDD25 No.55280 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1431004056504.gif -(93822B / 91.62KB, 721x483) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
But that's wrong Walter, it's already there. There's an initial investment of resources sure, but that's true of anything.

sonic booms collide by James van Allen - Mon, 01 Dec 2014 04:15:48 EST ID:BvXkbDPl No.54742 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1417425348666.gif -(330351B / 322.61KB, 280x177) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 330351
what would it be if two sonic booms "collided" into each other?
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fred Hoyle - Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:35:35 EST ID:t1vMK9Uc No.55062 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You could sequence break from the first stage into the credits then
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:48:16 EST ID:sky71Ye7 No.55063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Depending on the waveforms they would either cancel each other out, or merge into one hell of a sonic which in turn would please all autists of this world.
George Airy - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:45:49 EST ID:a5zMFg9h No.55152 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Consider what a sonic boom actually is: a pressure wave.
Matter waves pass through one another unaffected.
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sun, 12 Apr 2015 17:33:31 EST ID:A9+znK2f No.55226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
a sonic boom colliding is redundant because a sonic boom is all ready the over stacking of sonic waves, isn't it?
Riccardo Giacconi - Tue, 05 May 2015 23:56:06 EST ID:9S1uGKA/ No.55278 Ignore Report Quick Reply

But what if two jet planes traveling mach 1+ pass by each other, would the two groups of stacking sonic waves even interact with each other? or like the other guy said and pass through each other.

I for one, hope that they would create a MEGA boom.

the flow chart would be as such
super->mega->ultra->SHIT NIGGA YOU CRAZY

Theories on black holes/universe by Walter Baade - Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:39:25 EST ID:g7PRBuUF No.55225 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1428842365640.jpg -(20997B / 20.50KB, 540x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20997
What are some curious theories on what this all is? Existence in the universe is mind blowing when I sit down and think of what we are really a part of. What are your own theories about what we call 'space' is? Like, what's going on from a bigger perspective? Or smaller?
4 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jan Hendrik Oort - Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:41:54 EST ID:mbKbCBAF No.55246 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1429328514984.jpg -(278124B / 271.61KB, 1280x1032) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
OP here. very cool thoughts you all have. I am comforted by most of these ideas. I have changed once or twice in my life in such a way that upon looking back at my old life, I could only call it a dream of another perspective. I try to apply that feeling to the universe. I can hold onto my ego, or I can let go and be filled with whatever is right here and flow. Ceaseless action, ceaseless eternity, ceaseless vibration. Change.
Giuseppe Piazzi - Sun, 19 Apr 2015 03:03:45 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55247 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1429427025695.gif -(2997052B / 2.86MB, 200x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Here's my theory in a nutshell.

The universe is a high-dimensional object constantly rotating within itself.

A complete rotation takes the duration of the life of every universe in existence (current evidence only supporting one), with the big bang being the start of a new rotation. Matter and energy are the result of fluctuations within the universe as it rotates, physical laws are descriptions of how it rotates. Time restarts with each rotation, rotations end and restart after the heat death.
Daniel Kirkwood - Sun, 19 Apr 2015 10:11:48 EST ID:kJab1AwD No.55248 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1429452708795.jpg -(1818505B / 1.73MB, 3264x1836) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Alan Guth - Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:32:10 EST ID:9uY/b809 No.55262 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Am I the only one who thinks we are in the cosmic space turtles dream? Fuck.
Clyde Tombaugh - Mon, 04 May 2015 10:53:18 EST ID:6YVGyMb+ No.55275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1430751198999.jpg -(563368B / 550.16KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I made up a story for school. Where the universe is a gaint being thats further then the 4th dimension and we live like microbes inside of it and only scens this being in a 3th dimensional way . But its on a scale so big we cant understand further than intended,just like microbes we just live our purpose but cant visualise the being where in. And black holes are like a chemo killing microbes or problems that harm the universe.

End of the universe by Thomas Henderson - Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:22:45 EST ID:ZJgVev/f No.55263 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1430443365769.jpg -(9277B / 9.06KB, 306x164) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9277
I know science doesn't care about our feelings, but tell me of any alternate theories other than everything freezing to death or being ripped to shreds that allows something, anything to keep on going and surviving.

Can we eventually develop the technology that allows us to "jump" to a new, younger or possibly truly unending universe with different laws of thermodynamics to carry ourselves on?

Hold me, /sagan/.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Johannes Kepler - Fri, 01 May 2015 00:33:40 EST ID:Sa5XPNCk No.55265 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You should take comfort in the fact that you as an individual will die long before any of these things come to pass! So ultimately in the story of Thomas Henderson none of these horrible fates will come to pass, because you will be super duper long dead.
Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Sat, 02 May 2015 03:26:30 EST ID:maTIq9B/ No.55267 Report Quick Reply
In his late 90s book Hyperspace, Michio Kaku mentions (vaguely and briefly) the possibility that our universe is split between a 4/6D pair of universes contained within the larger 10D universe, and that by the time heat death occurs (or a Big Crunch) occurs, any surviving society might be sufficiently advanced to harness the power of the collapsing universe and create a wormhole into the other one.

The biggest problem is the sheer amount of energy it takes. Mind bogglingly vast, and likely to be near impossible to control.
Russel Hulse - Sat, 02 May 2015 08:14:19 EST ID:q5dc4YUL No.55269 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Michio Kaku
God I hate that guy
Charles Messier - Sat, 02 May 2015 20:39:07 EST ID:6TbPsH2/ No.55271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The fact that anything exists at all is pretty much the biggest - well, it's technically the only problem in science.
Yeah, some scientists say things like "nothingness is unstable" and that may well be true. But if we can't figure out how nothing can turn into something - and why it turned into quarks, atoms, stars, planets, galaxies instead of something entirely different - there's no way we can say what will eventually happen.

But whether we're made out vibrating strings or just condensed balls of energy the only thing you need to know is,
William Lassell - Sun, 03 May 2015 23:39:59 EST ID:3SVtd7YR No.55273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
maybe the collapse of the underlying universe can cause such things,

Don't believe the hype. by Mike Brown - Fri, 01 May 2015 21:46:57 EST ID:4GGSsMJY No.55266 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1430531217860.jpg -(424453B / 414.50KB, 2048x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 424453
My roommates are misinformation masters and even though I know you guys are smarter than this, but they are crafting a masterful troll work about how the ISS is damaged beyond repair. Look for it online. Lives lost money lost. Death on parade. Thy are some fucking idiots.
Bernhard Schmidt - Sat, 02 May 2015 03:53:51 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55268 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks for the heads up but I gotta say the ISS is lame as shit, we can do better than that.

How about a spinning ring station tidally locked between our moon and the earth?
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 02 May 2015 13:06:30 EST ID:XJHlYsmW No.55270 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, ISS is fine.

There was however an ISS-bound Progress cargo ship that got damaged on the way up somehow and is tumbling uncontrollably. That may be what they're thinking of.
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar - Sat, 02 May 2015 22:34:50 EST ID:ihYE5feE No.55272 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1430620490040.jpg -(669013B / 653.33KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
yeah, that would be way better.

I think ISS is situated so that they can ditch it if they want to stop paying for it though.
the ring station would probably stay up a lot longer.

but to be fair it is the most expensive object ever created by mankind and arguably one of our greatest acheivements.

Kind of a dumb question. by Harlow Shapley - Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:53:14 EST ID:m296zImB No.55048 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1424256794604.jpg -(148947B / 145.46KB, 800x837) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 148947
To live on another planet would the sun and the atmosphere be exactly like earth's? Or could we survive near a red dwarf if the planet was just at the right distance to maintain earthlike temperatures?
41 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Riccardo Giacconi - Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:35:38 EST ID:jOF47H5F No.55233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The end goal is universal supremacy and immortality.
William de Sitter - Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:32:05 EST ID:XJHlYsmW No.55234 Ignore Report Quick Reply

No. Evolution is not conscious. Evolution is a process. Evolution doesn't necessarily make things "better", it makes things more "adapted" to their present circumstances.
Kip Thorne - Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:11:17 EST ID:CtuAeZIA No.55237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Dude, I know this is a drug board, but come on here...
Margaret Burbidge - Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:32:45 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.55238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you the guy claiming solipsism, therefore the Egyptians had advanced understanding of the universe in /b/?
Harlow Shapley - Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:23:31 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55239 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I guess personally I do actually believe there is a formal point of life in the grand scheme, but that's sci fi stuff. I didn't realize it came out so much, but I still stand by it.
There must be natural rules to alien life, universal forms, just like the formation of mountains. If evolution is dictated by the environment, similar environments should create similar life. We are more related to horses than we are to deer, but similar habitats, similar place in the food chain, and similar food sources created similar animals, at least morphologically.

Nourishment in space by Arthur Eddington - Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:40:12 EST ID:y7G/p//a No.54944 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1422297612558.gif -(898330B / 877.28KB, 256x192) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 898330
We won't be having hamburgers in space.

Or milk or eggs, for that matter. For every cow slaughtered for food there must be an incredible amount of food grown to sustain the cow. In space stations this may not be feasible due to limited space and resources. We'd be better off focusing energy on hydroponics and a vegan diet would probably be necessary in a long term colony or space station.
26 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Antony Hewish - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:13:37 EST ID:4HbkLal6 No.55159 Ignore Report Quick Reply
why cant we engineer spherical cows, that are entirely tenderloin?
Rudolph Minkowski - Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:19:15 EST ID:OXINl/7g No.55216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1428373155849.jpg -(72081B / 70.39KB, 500x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
42 Years at Bernie's - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 04:51:37 EST ID:0FbY93Uu No.55217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1428396697224.jpg -(251005B / 245.12KB, 1536x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Sometimes I think Stephen Hawking doesn't even really know anything about space
William Lassell - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:08:44 EST ID:vv5qCj4m No.55218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1428426524165.gif -(2091407B / 1.99MB, 250x343) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
As a carnivorous man I have never tasted jizz.
42 Years at Bernie's - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:11:18 EST ID:0FbY93Uu No.55219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Don't dip the pen in the company ink my man
Have a good day

Destroying planets by Paul Goldsmith - Wed, 25 Mar 2015 01:03:03 EST ID:kbd81O3H No.55163 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1427259783354.jpg -(39309B / 38.39KB, 1133x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 39309
Why would you want to destroy a planet?
In the movie Dark Star, they blew up entire worlds because "instable planets" could threaten the future colonization of other planets.
Is it viable to blow up a planet to mine it as with asteroids? What other use could it have? Elimination of gravitatory perturbances in an Interplanetary Transport Network?
Blowing it up wouldn't send tons of material into chaotic orbits?

Sorry for too many questions. I just read about asteroid mining and thought about why not Jupiter with all that hydrogen?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Clyde Tombaugh - Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:00:24 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.55168 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1427313624225.jpg -(443380B / 432.99KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>why not Jupiter
Because Jupiter is terrifying. Anything that approaches it gains ~134,000 miles per hour. To get away you have to give ~that much back.
To maintain an orbit just above the atmosphere, any craft would be going 90,000 miles per hour relative to the planet itself.
The difference in jupiter's gravitational interaction with the galilean moons' periapsis and apoapsis keeps their cores molten.
The ionizing radiation Jupiter emits constantly ablates the surfaces of its moons, giving the larger ones an atmosphere that's constantly lost to space and maintains a detectable ring of plasma from ionized particles that can't escape.
Maximilian Wolf - Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:08:40 EST ID:HrEw5VUc No.55169 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Is it viable to blow up a planet to mine it as with asteroids?

no because you could just mine the planet instead of turning a single planet into millions of projectiles

>Elimination of gravitatory perturbances in an Interplanetary Transport Network?
i imagine transport would be more drastically completed by makes tons of asteroids whose paths are unknown

> just read about asteroid mining and thought about why not Jupiter with all that hydrogen?
we don't need that much hydrogen
Grote Reuber - Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:04:33 EST ID:CB4800qQ No.55177 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1427493873374.jpg -(19162B / 18.71KB, 428x214) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Too bad Galileo failed to ignite Jupiter.
Galileo Galilei - Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:49:03 EST ID:jOF47H5F No.55181 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's never too late.
Rudolph Minkowski - Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:16:50 EST ID:OXINl/7g No.55215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Is it viable to blow up a planet to mine it as with asteroids?
That would take a lot of energy, a ton of which would be released as heat. I think the debris would be too hot to be useful or mine-able for a LONG time.

I would be awesome if that dishwasher-sized satellite was the last tiny bit of mass needed to collapse Jupiter's core and start the fusion reaction.

Early space programme by Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:00:34 EST ID:A1E2ozZS No.55144 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1426701634395.jpg -(25279B / 24.69KB, 350x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 25279
I recently realised that I'm completely fascinated with the early space programmes / the early space technology / the early space race. I would say from the very beginning until the end of the 80's.
My request: recommended information, books, documentaries, websites, cheesy anecdotes.. Anything really.

Thanks a lot.
Annie Cannon - Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:11:03 EST ID:/FJQtAXr No.55145 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Galileo Galilei - Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:48:16 EST ID:KlwZpL5U No.55147 Ignore Report Quick Reply
maybe he is European, he cant help it
William de Sitter - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:02:07 EST ID:CB4800qQ No.55160 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1427230927705.jpg -(26506B / 25.88KB, 299x324) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I found one of the early motivating factors for the space race.
Joseph Lockyer - Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:41:19 EST ID:YbQiwQ8y No.55161 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Check out Werner von Braun and his V2 rocket built first for the Nazi party, then Americans extradited him to the US (clearing him of any war-crime charges) and put him to work. There is also a Modern Marvels episode called 'Satellite'. Goes pretty in depth about the whole space race etc...
Stephen Hawking - Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:13:04 EST ID:d7Dhf0QA No.55211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you laughing at him for using the correct spelling?


black hole the size of 12 billion suns found, debunks all theories of the universe by Urbain Le Verrier - Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:38:03 EST ID:GFgbSSMF No.55071 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1424997483202.jpg -(32556B / 31.79KB, 534x401) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32556
This article tripped me the fuck out, and scared me a bit. I don't like that something this scary is visible from Earth.
13 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Charles Messier - Wed, 18 Mar 2015 02:14:57 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55143 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Correct, however I must add that we can't perceive 3 dimensions because it requires time to perceive.

And nothing is truly 3 dimensional in this universe because even though an object may look stationary and very rigid, it's molecules are moving and the object is never permanent.

We live in a 4D Spacetime, at least.
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:41:53 EST ID:JIt5A3UU No.55148 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i got curious and decided to calculate the force of gravity from this bitch. I got 7.85*10^28 Newtons and what the fuck.

This means Earth should be accelerating toward the spot where it once was at 13 km/s.

Or is that not how gravity works? Does this mean gravity is instantaneous? Am I stupid?
Harlow Shapley - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:18:57 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55149 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think you're fine, just didn't take in angular momentum of the earth and time doesn't become a factor until you use relativity
Charles Bolton - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:39:27 EST ID:jScv5urc No.55151 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your math horribly wrong. I don't think you have calculated the distance correctly.
Urbain Le Verrier - Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:32:14 EST ID:JIt5A3UU No.55153 Ignore Report Quick Reply

No, I am stupid, forgot to square the total distance. Total force between the two bodies is 557 N, we gud

<<Last 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.