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
Space Race vol. II by Rudolph Minkowski - Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:37:46 EST ID:hdztUjP6 No.56357 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1472866666013.jpg -(363879B / 355.35KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 363879
Some of you probably know about this already, but I was casually scrolling down the science section of Reuters, and I noticed that there seems to be some kind of race to the space going on these days. The hour is upon us.

>China to launch "core module" for space station around 2018


>China shows first images of Mars rover, aims for 2020 mission


"Advancing China's space program is a priority for Beijing, with President Xi Jinping calling for the country to establish itself as a space power."

>Luxembourg sets aside 200 million euros to fund space mining ventures

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Joseph von Fraunhofer - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:34:37 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was a facebook satellite so I'm, not too bummed about it. Launch enough rockets and one is bound to explode.
George Gamow - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:05:01 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If anyone thinks we are developing recoverable rockets just to save on rocket fuel, they are entirely missing the point. The current recoverable rocket basically just tries to do what a normal rocket does in a new way, but it is the stepping stone to completely new kinds of space vehicles where we can put a lot more effort and expense into the vehicle itself because we know we will be able to recover it. It is not an end in itself.
Fred Hoyle - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:30:08 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56433 Ignore Report Quick Reply
People who care about advancing space technology.
Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:57:09 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.56434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1473991029741.jpg -(56079B / 54.76KB, 650x409) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Because the vehicles can be reused.
Fuel only accounts for like 1% of a rocket launch.

The Space Shuttle was supposed to have a far lower cost per launch, but then they ended up with a bunch of extra requirements and the design when through a bunch of mutations, and the end result required so much work between launches that it would have been cheaper to stick with totally-disposable rockets.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:53:13 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
when it lands you don thave to buy another? sort of the key feature.

Proxima B by Johann Bode - Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:37:51 EST ID:Y3T9nNnZ No.56342 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1472582271909.jpg -(375675B / 366.87KB, 1920x1247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 375675
So it looks like Proxima Centauri has a planet in the habitable zone. It has an earth-like mass.

Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf that's about 4 light years away, and is as close as other stars get to us. We could maybe drive a small satelite there in about 25 years without scifi tech. http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a22567/interstellar-travel-proxima-b/

It will make an interesting target for upcoming telescoper.
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Tycho Brahe - Sun, 04 Sep 2016 01:11:14 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Laser communication. Read the actual proposal. (Breakthrough Starshot, google it I'm not your secretary)
William Fowler - Sun, 04 Sep 2016 01:37:57 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56400 Ignore Report Quick Reply
lasers are still light speed though. I could use a string and two cups to speak over long distances but it's still going to go at the speed of sound.
Tycho Brahe - Sun, 04 Sep 2016 01:39:15 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56402 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, but the ship isn't traveling at lightspeed. It takes 20 years to get there because it's only going ~20% the speed of light, Proxima is only 4 light years away.
Anders Angstrom - Tue, 06 Sep 2016 17:24:16 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
and it still takes a 5 second delay to talk to the moon and it's just right there.
I mean the delay alone isn't enough to derail the mission. Just look at all the Mars rovers. The delay is variable pending on the phase of the orbits of Earth and Mars yet they plan ahead and lay out a course only after surveying the area and doing at home tests. The same could be applied to this fight but the end delay is going to be huge both ways. Meaning it's going to take longer to plan and set course. But this time there is a time limit and that limit is a burn window. Miss it by even a second and the entire mission is fucked.

The challenges here are larger than any thing previously attempted. Not that it's impossible at this tech level it's just going to be really hard.
John Bahcall - Tue, 06 Sep 2016 20:26:01 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56409 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Breakthrough Starshot doesn't depend on probes with the kinds of capabilities you're talking about and doesn't have the same problems. The probes are a swarm of very tiny instruments propelled by laser pulses, so the problems of small errors in vector setting or micro collisions are negated by the size of the swarm; some will get through. Likewise being so small they will probably only be capable of the most limited telemetry and so there would be no need to wait for 8 year round trip control, it would probably just transmit until it lost power.

I think spaceflight in general falls under the category of things that are 'really hard to do', but thankfully it is a field where success or failure is an entirely technical matter, so sooner or later we will get it right.

EP=EPR by Paul Goldsmith - Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:50:46 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56313 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1471485046285.gif -(869344B / 848.97KB, 200x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 869344
Holy fucking shit guys, my mind is blown.
The unification of QM and GR is HERE!!?!?!


tl;dr: Susskind says spooky action at a distance IS wormholes and the Copenhagen Interpretation and Many-Worlds Interpretation were the same thing all along from different perspectives. HOLY FUCK
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Allan Sandage - Sat, 27 Aug 2016 01:49:43 EST ID:1xERvVrq No.56330 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>worm holes or warp drive. What is more likely to happen?
I would love to see the race between trying to collapse entangled particles into entangled blackhole for wormhole versus trying to synthesize negative mass from Casimir effect for Alcubierre drive.

>Now suppose Alice and Bob, universally acknowledged to be the most capable quantum experimenters ever imagined, start collecting these real entangled particles in the vacuum. Alice takes one member of each pair and Bob takes the other. They fly away separately to distant realms of space and then each smushes their particles so densely that they become a black hole. Because of the entanglement these particles started with, Alice and Bob have now created two entangled black holes. If ER=EPR is right, a wormhole will link those black holes; entanglement, therefore, can be described using the geometry of wormholes. “This is a remarkable claim whose impact has yet to be appreciated,” Susskind writes.
>Even more remarkable, he suggests, is the possibility that two entangled subatomic particles alone are themselves somehow connected by a sort of quantum wormhole. Since wormholes are contortions of spacetime geometry — described by Einstein’s gravitational equations — identifying them with quantum entanglement would forge a link between gravity and quantum mechanics.
Edward Pickering - Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:02:15 EST ID:gRBEStbH No.56332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Leonard Susskind space is entangled with space
Johannes Kepler - Sun, 28 Aug 2016 00:08:42 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Fascinating (if a bit dry) talk. I wonder if he deliberately did not go into other properties of black holes that might negate the limitations he described, or doesn't think they are relevant. Specifically I mean that we know we ultimately can get (all of) the information out of a black hole ultimately as it evaporates due to hawking radiation, could we then not (especially if we are creating a black hole from scratch and thus can make it as small as we want) project entangled particles into the entangled black hole and thus receive information out of the entangled black hole partner in the form of the hawking radiation it emits?
Johannes Kepler - Sun, 28 Aug 2016 00:31:39 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56334 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just thinking about it some more (nb for double post) wouldn't it even be possible to get information out without hawking radiation by manipulating the size of the black hole? If the two black holes share the same singularity then putting mass into one increases the mass of the other, and so if you dumped mass into one it would alter the rate of evaporation of the other which could then be measured.
Russel Hulse - Fri, 02 Sep 2016 23:49:51 EST ID:d5o+epTm No.56363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1472874591251.gif -(2904316B / 2.77MB, 300x170) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

damn shit nigga thats some crazy shit, my mind is bending trying to get a full grasp on the implications

Forgive me but... by Tadashi Nakajima - Thu, 26 May 2016 21:42:57 EST ID:VjH9pXwP No.56190 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464313377750.jpg -(328323B / 320.63KB, 960x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 328323
...I was thinking about Dark Matter. My understanding is that in analyzing the universe, they detect there should be like 3-4 times as much matter as we can account for with stars and such. It just reeks of "luminiferous ether" to me

What if though, there's no invisible matter, but the universe is actually made up of 3-4x more stuff, stuff that is just accelerating away faster than we can see it (faster than the speed of light?). Or is that what is meant by dark matter?
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Mike Brown - Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:41:29 EST ID:f/Tl+D5o No.56283 Ignore Report Quick Reply
According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second.

Smaller than an electron.. das it mane from outside of our universe
Johannes Kepler - Sun, 14 Aug 2016 01:01:10 EST ID:XEWmPjnl No.56311 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what if the discrepancy between the expected and actual amounts of matter in the universe is explained by highly advanced sentient beings entering our universe from a separate universe and bringing matter with them (bringing a planet or a ship or building their own custom galaxies or something) ?
Paul Goldsmith - Thu, 18 Aug 2016 00:41:20 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56316 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But the actual value is less than the expected value, not more.
Fred Hoyle - Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:10:47 EST ID:qyc9lsem No.56324 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There's no dark matter. It's just the opposite reaction to the universal constant.

Alan Guth - Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:20:11 EST ID:rszf0FN0 No.56325 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, according to LCDM dark energy *is* the cosmological constant. Also if dark matter/energy comprise 97% of the universe, how could 3% of the universe generate an opposite reaction almost two orders of magnitude greater (and also where is the room for ordinary matter in this model?)

FIRST by Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:47:51 EST ID:hnyGB63L No.56176 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1461941271509.jpg -(73000B / 71.29KB, 680x992) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 73000
Which crime will be the first to occur in a non-Earth environment, rape or murder?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Edwin Hubble - Sat, 23 Jul 2016 18:05:19 EST ID:dkpHUKZj No.56289 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If that was true it would be impossible to maintain an erection while doing a handstand.
Rudolph Minkowski - Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:37:49 EST ID:eY06FJul No.56290 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1469320669985.jpg -(94396B / 92.18KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I don't understand. If gravity causes a little extra blood pressure, I'm not saying that it does, then why would it matter if you are doing a hand stand? Are you implying a handstand will negate the force of gravity?
Johann Encke - Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:52:13 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.56293 Ignore Report Quick Reply
He's saying if you can achieve an erection on earth while doing a handstand, then you'll definitely be able to achieve an erection in space where you don't have gravity acting against your dick.
Clyde Tombaugh - Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:12:11 EST ID:3t/weoS/ No.56295 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I'd assume you'd loose your hand-standing erection eventually as blood flows into your upper body, though you might pass out before that. Zero-gravity is known to cause a sizable reduction of blood pressure, which is the reasoning behind the claim that getting a boner in space is difficult.

Interestingly NASA sits on data like this but refuse to reveal it thanks to their policies on funny business.
Walter Adams - Sat, 13 Aug 2016 01:03:53 EST ID:KgKlYmGv No.56309 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's because they send some old saggy cunts over there that have difficulty with getting a boner send me over there and show me some pussy it's gonna be the fastest space mission you'll see

Actual photo of earth ? by Giuseppe Piazzi - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:40:57 EST ID:a9VttgPi No.55637 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1440628857139.jpg -(94020B / 91.82KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 94020
Sry if this seems like tinfoil but i just cant get it.
So we have sattelites with further orbit than moon right?
Please give link to an actual photo of earth not some composed bull shit.
Something is going on and this might be the best brain wash ever. Not saying flat earth but hidden land or we just cant get further of some point. Also alot of the other NASA images ...you know, are fakes , there is documentation on this do your research. So a simple request , a photo of earth please :)

Have a nice day :) !
55 posts and 19 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Caroline Herschel - Mon, 01 Aug 2016 06:02:00 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56301 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1470045720420.jpg -(553903B / 540.92KB, 2389x2306) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
let's zoom out on that now.
John Bahcall - Thu, 04 Aug 2016 20:21:13 EST ID:nEPqqao+ No.56302 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Einstein's a faggot who got some things right and now everyone's too scared to take down the legend to admit that General Relativity is flawed as fuck. Show me a reference frame in real life and then suck my dick and get me a sandwich.
George Gamow - Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:39:14 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56303 Ignore Report Quick Reply
doesn't showing that require near light speeds? we can't do that.... yet. wait till the hardon collider forms stable micro singularities we can use to power a warp core.
Grote Reuber - Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:10:50 EST ID:3t/weoS/ No.56304 Ignore Report Quick Reply

So you're claiming that spherical objects are in fact mathematically flat in our universe?

Not hanging you out here or anything, I'm genuinely curious as it's an interesting claim.
. - Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:07:05 EST ID:Q+36SNgx No.56305 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I love space by Plofressor chez - Sat, 23 Jul 2016 05:42:59 EST ID:p24Ges2t No.56286 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1469266979554.jpg -(3372909B / 3.22MB, 3069x3006) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3372909
I first became interested in space exploration because of this website nearly eight years ago. Over that time space has piqued my curiosity enough that my dream is to work in a large observatory, or in a lab constructing instruments for spacecraft. I've spent a lot of time learning about the universe, and have simultaneously become interested in philosophy. I'm just really interested to learn new things about reality. It's such a marvelous and incredibly complex place, teeming with things to be discovered.

I want to know whatever is possible to know. Some things we might never be able to know, but I'm most certain that curiosity, as well as necessity, will drive our species towards distant planets in search of answers and new ways to survive as we go out. I really do hope that's how it plays out. Out of all of the possibilities, I think we'll always have a desire to travel into the next greatest frontier. We might travel inwards with digital worlds and biosynthetic machinery, but I believe the physical domain will continue to hold some deeper allure.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Rudolph Minkowski - Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:46:10 EST ID:eY06FJul No.56291 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Study astronomy, which is basically physics and astrophysics.
If you wanna build shit then you need to study engineering.
Or you could study all of that + philosophy without a formal education and never accomplish anything in your life.
A man who chases two hares will catch neither, in your case you are chasing three.

Be prepared for inferior job security in your desired field even if you do get a doctorate in astronomy or engineering. You were born in the wrong time.
Space won't be hyped until long in the future. You would have loved the Cold War space race if you were around though.
Irwin Shapiro - Mon, 25 Jul 2016 01:54:54 EST ID:nAYFwE81 No.56292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1469426094150.jpg -(29779B / 29.08KB, 580x326) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Hell, imagine if you seeded Venus

She's just asking for it.
Walter Baade - Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:16:23 EST ID:ma/jJXS2 No.56297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Terraforming isn't a thing yet. Besides, how can we even think about terraforming another planet when the one we were born with which already supports life is being killed by us.
Hannes Alven - Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:26:26 EST ID:73EoqW+9 No.56298 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1469748386686.jpg -(365218B / 356.66KB, 540x2559) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Alright take it easy green peace, the earth is more than capable of supporting life indefinitely
William de Sitter - Sat, 30 Jul 2016 09:27:05 EST ID:tQX5ylFX No.56299 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But Venus is toted as the prime example of what could happen to our world if it got choked completely. Seems more likely a good idea to learn to live indefinitely in artificial environments like stations or Moon bases. In the long run that will be the most common living space moving forward into the cosmos.Terraforming is in the distant future and by the time we could do that we would already be able to live in orbit of every major body in this system if not leave it already.

Interstellar by George Airy - Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:11:01 EST ID:FWszKHrA No.54647 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1415661061349.jpg -(225767B / 220.48KB, 1047x1572) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 225767
Thoughts on this fucking terrible movie?

its about space chill out mods
43 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Paul Goldsmith - Fri, 05 Jun 2015 03:55:37 EST ID:A1E2ozZS No.55383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What the fuck is your problem /SAGAN/? You want a 150 million dollar movie made solely for people who understand everything in astrophysicism? It's a freaking hollywood science fiction movie made for broad audience, what do you expect? Of course it could've been better, but you make it seem like it's fucking Armageddon 2: Superluminal Fireball of Death.
Paul Goldsmith - Fri, 05 Jun 2015 03:59:37 EST ID:A1E2ozZS No.55384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1433491177027.jpg -(40351B / 39.41KB, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
And by astrophysicism, I meant astrophyisics, apperantly astrophysicism isn't a word. Huehuehue
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 22:19:14 EST ID:9Jg5Dok5 No.55388 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But it was marketed as "realistic" sci fi and people actually give it high notes on that merit alone

John Riccioli - Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:20:21 EST ID:A8umB7n3 No.56282 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Edmond Halley - Wed, 27 Jul 2016 04:39:06 EST ID:pjhpxsvC No.56294 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I guess I'm just not a big fan of Nolan himself. I couldn't sit through Inception even though I tried to watch it at least 3 times. These kind of movies rely too much on short, loud, shocking, and emotional scenes to keep the audience captivated and I can't stand that shit.

Wait what? Did we see the same Inception? Inception didn't have any emotional scenes. It only had scenes where people were being emotional.

The whole film was a dry emotionless philosophical stroll through a virtual reality hidden in a virtual reality hidden in a virtual reality hidden in a virtual reality...

microscopic telescope by Galileo Galilei - Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:11:48 EST ID:nsJ3UhuK No.56285 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1469207508500.png -(11018B / 10.76KB, 798x294) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11018
I just wondered, I have never heard of a microscopic telescope. By this I mean a device along the lines of a large nature-style camera lens or traditional telecope that is able to zoom in to the target area of a physical item and produce a 3d environment of that area through the lens? Surely theres an infinite amount of detail from a physical item We have all this advanced astronomical technology these days to look at things that lie in the distance. What would happen if technology was put into microscopic telecopes thanks everyone

TLDR: a lens of intricately layered magnifying glasses that self multiply
Johann Bode - Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:39:53 EST ID:aZptiHhB No.56287 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The resolution of a telescope can be limited by a few things, diffraction, the atmosphere, the quality of the optics and the sampling of the camera. You suggest adding a microscope, in optics that concept already exists as focal extenders which increase the effective focal length of the telescope increasing the magnification. The problem is more magnification will only improve the resolution of a telescope if it's resolution is sampling limited, that means the pixels are too big to capture the full resolution. The vast majority of telescopes are not sampling limited, generally they are limited by the atmosphere or by diffraction if they are in space or use adaptive optics. No matter how much you increase the magnification you will never beat those limits. There is not an infinite about of detail you can achieve, there are physical limits such as diffraction. A telescope like Hubble is diffraction limited what you suggest would not improve it's resolution. You can only improve on diffraction buy building a bigger telescope or using shorter wavelengths.

You can't use this to make a 3D map either.

First telescope..? by Galileo Galilei - Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:07:05 EST ID:ZvL5JrzH No.56129 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1458068825227.jpg -(11180B / 10.92KB, 236x197) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11180
Hi guys.
When I'm high at night, I love to watch moon/stars/...
So I figured it would be nice to look at it with a telescope ...
The problem is that I know absolutely nothing in astronomy !!!
I need some advice for choosing a telescope not too expensive (Max budget: $200)
>What can I expect to see with that?

(I live in a small town without light pollution)
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ejnar Hertzprung - Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:23:06 EST ID:hnyGB63L No.56160 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1461633786831.jpg -(54813B / 53.53KB, 1192x292) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Vera Rubiin - Wed, 04 May 2016 01:18:27 EST ID:Y1TcIOce No.56182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Edward Pickering - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 21:11:32 EST ID:qdIfo3Zb No.56218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1465261892951.jpg -(13475B / 13.16KB, 474x1053) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I know it's been a few months, but maybe you'll see it if you haven't bought one yet. I have a Celestron NexStar 102GT and it is awesome. It has the capability to track objects and it has decent magnification. It was right in the $200 range iirc, but I bought it years ago. I'm able to see the rings of Saturn(though it just looks like one ring). A couple of nights ago i realized Jupiter was in the sky and I was able to actually see some of the differing colors of the cloud bands. That was really cool. Pic is a snapshot from a video I took using a mount for my phone.
Edward Pickering - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 21:13:53 EST ID:qdIfo3Zb No.56219 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Well shit, picture looks worse on the computer than it does on my phone, but you can still make out the different colors.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Sat, 02 Jul 2016 05:42:36 EST ID:hj23kf14 No.56259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1467452556297.jpg -(68246B / 66.65KB, 453x539) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Grey goo by Karl von Weizsacker - Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:30:57 EST ID:ityObSKZ No.56249 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1466688657928.png -(609926B / 595.63KB, 700x991) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 609926
Do you think somewhere grey goo is destroying everything?
Joseph von Fraunhofer - Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:57:26 EST ID:A260M6iH No.56250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If you mean leaving their planet, it means that they would have to behave intelligently enough to travel in space. I don't know if that's a realistic expectation but I also never read that book by that guy so I'm not an expert.
Otto Struve - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:05:23 EST ID:x7oDvr/y No.56251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I hope so because that would be neat. I for one welcome our gooey new overlords.
Alan Guth - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:18:56 EST ID:3t/weoS/ No.56253 Ignore Report Quick Reply

All you need is to program the goo to build Von Neumann probes from asteroids and them using to spread.

Can't imagine any species would do such a thing but hey humans are crazy enough for nukes and M.A.D. so who knows?
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:02:45 EST ID:sMBupno1 No.56254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
goo cant melt steel beams
William Fowler - Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:20:28 EST ID:x7oDvr/y No.56255 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your steel beams have been assimilated; all is goo, all is good.

Living Organisms as White Holes by emily - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 23:40:16 EST ID:6lTk9kB6 No.56212 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1465098016694.jpg -(880241B / 859.61KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 880241
I have deduced that all living organisms are White Holes. I call this the Living Organisms as White Holes Theory.

Evidence :
  1. when the cells of a living organism divide, it emits minute levels of light.
  2. living organisms create and excrete their own matter.

Please help me compound on this theory I want to talk to a real scientist. I have more to add but I need to go do chores. More later, like being four dimensions opposite of zero. (thought. The final frontier)
21 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Chushiro Hayashi - Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:54:27 EST ID:6lTk9kB6 No.56243 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wow. All Im saying is it has never been tested before.
George Herbig - Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:02:01 EST ID:3t/weoS/ No.56244 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Every time you eat something it's tested. Or when you're exposed to background radiation for that matter. Which itself has been grounds for extensive study.

In short there are no such thing as closed systems.
Walter Adams - Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:16:50 EST ID:AR+FDxN1 No.56245 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I used to think that maybe a life form is like a bubble of negative entropy. All around the universe matter is getting less organized as systems disperse their energy, but in life matter harnesses energy to organize itself temporarily. But I was wrong. It doesn't make any sense to think of life as a closed system. We radiate so much heat and excrete so much shit that there isn't any logical boundary to call a bubble. There is temporary organization, but it is constantly part of the greater universe. Everything is causally linked. Especially EM waves. Photons are being absorbed and radiated by your cells. In a trippy way, doesn't that make you a physical part of your surroundings?
Jan Hendrik Oort - Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:32:53 EST ID:3t/weoS/ No.56247 Ignore Report Quick Reply

As far as I understand entropy, clustering of energy like in the form of planets or lifeforms is in fact a part of it. A zero-entropy universe would be stable, or in other words uniform.
Russel Hulse - Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:44:04 EST ID:pjhpxsvC No.56248 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1466541844221.gif -(919891B / 898.33KB, 200x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I wouldn't say that all living organisms have white holes, but caucasian girls certainly have white holes, if you know what I mean...

Biology is one hell of a science.

<<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.