Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Let us not forget...

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:53:43 EST Z0dqdxc5 No.55789
File: 1446584023256.jpg -(149151B / 145.66KB, 630x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Let us not forget...
... who started it all.

Star showing signs that could be (probably aren't) alien constructions.

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:00:07 EST ruKNVqHw No.55749
File: 1444842007788.jpg -(1059519B / 1.01MB, 1400x788) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Star showing signs that could be (probably aren't) alien constructions.

> “Aliens should always be the very last hypothesis you consider," Penn State astronomer Jason Wright told The Atlantic, "but this looked like something you would expect an alien civilization to build.”

Basically Kepler has observed a star with dips in it's luminosity exponentially larger than any planet would cause. Even a Jupiter-sized planet would only account for a 1% drop. But the object or objects observed by Kepler cause a drop of up to 22%, indicating an object or cluster of objects roughly half the width of the star itself.
19 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Alan Guth - Sun, 25 Oct 2015 08:37:11 EST sky71Ye7 No.55777 Reply

Man, if this turns out to be alien stellar engineering, it would be fucking nuts!
Jan Hendrik Oort - Sun, 25 Oct 2015 09:09:54 EST ruKNVqHw No.55778 Reply

Links below, but it's now moot. The statement from Gerald Harp of SETI about a repeated signal has been removed from the first link despite being present earlier yesterday. And the second link has another statement from Harp claiming his first statement wasn't accurate and there haven't been any signals at all. So we have two conflicting statements from the same man with the second statement confirming the first ones existence despite attempts to erase it.

Probably just crappy reporting, but backpedaling of this nature happens so often in regards to aliens that a little tinfoil may be permitted. It's up to you what to take from this.

Alan Guth - Sun, 25 Oct 2015 09:32:39 EST sky71Ye7 No.55780 Reply
>Awaiting more accurate information about the way the signal before, but from an interview by "UniverseToday.com" by Dr. Gerald Harp from the SETI Institute, shows that it is a "weird periodic signal", " which although potentially natural origin but there is clearly value to examine it more closely. " Besides the natural explanation, so stressed "Universe Today", prefer Harp but also "a distant intelligent source" into consideration.

Google translated it, so sorry for the weird wording. It's interesting though, but a bit surprising that they'd discover a "weird periodic signal" so easily from 1500 light years away just like that. I'm no astronomer or anything though, so what do I know?

About the back-pedaling: I work at a university communication department, and I'd say it's likely to be a journalistic citation error. The paper isn't peer-reviewed yet so there is probably an embargo on details from the SETI study results, which would explain Harp rescinding his earlier statements. As the comment came so early in the publishing cycle of the article they're likely to yet check for errors or anomalies in the study, so making a comment about a detected signal at this point would be very unwise.

Idea for launching small payloads to obrit.

View Thread Reply
!lwriJ94kMg - Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:33:15 EST 3KDKAApy No.55685
File: 1443234795649.jpg -(16847B / 16.45KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Idea for launching small payloads to obrit.
I've always wanted to build a real rocket that could go to space, but it's far outside of my peasant like budget. So I've thought of what seems like a good idea for a cheap solution to launch vehicles to space.

Use a balloon to lift a small stabilized platform that has a rocket on it. The rocket launches from there into orbit.

And when I use the word platform I don't literally mean a flat launch pad but something that sort of looks like a missile launcher...idk what the technical term for that is...turret?

You could also scale this idea up for conceivably larger loads.
One problem I can see though is when the balloon goes up it would drifts away from the launch site and possibly fuck up your launch.
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
John Wheeler - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:18:27 EST Y//WNNPR No.55743 Reply
I believe what they are saying is: this type of flight is not really possible from a simple rocket (unless you happen to have a strong AI laying around and the ability to get it to pilot your rocket, I guess). There are a lot of measurements that have to be taken throughout the flight for numerous different reasons, NASA, et al, have the ability to shine lasers at and from their rockets, along with all sorts of other atmospheric sensors both on the vehicle and on the ground to get very precise measurements which are used during the flight to make sure the vehicle is doing exactly what it needs to be doing at each moment.

A dumb rocket, even one that can generate the speed to get into orbit, is going to have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting into orbit because it can't make any corrections mid flight; you'd have to get super lucky and have innumerable atmospheric factors be completely optimal for your rockets design for such to work.

Remote piloting or autonomous piloting could be possible if your ship also had the sensors to collect the needed data, but that's far outside of the hobbiest realm.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:58:46 EST 3KDKAApy No.55744 Reply
Fuck all that I'll just let it dumb fire and land where it may, weather it's on an orphanage or an embassy. I don't care.

Jokes aside I guess you're right about all that stuff though.
I guess this would be really only useful for short sub orbital flights.
You know, like for sending a go pro or small rodent way up there for pictures and science.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:52:47 EST 3KDKAApy No.55745 Reply
After thinking about this more, if I'm only doing sub orbital flights then GPS data should still be useful and viable since it would still be below all the sats.

Theoretic Astrophysics

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:09:31 EST 5ViW/6q0 No.55720
File: 1443661771886.jpg -(61531B / 60.09KB, 500x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Theoretic Astrophysics
my new theories in the creation of, and ultimate fate, of our universe. As well as what dark energy really is; and POSSIBLY has something to do with where gravity is permeating into our universe from, since it is weaker than it should be compared to the other forces, even though that really wasn't intended to be included with the rest of the theories. I could be totally wrong on all accounts, but I do love the ideas.Here we go! (Keep in mind that we don't know what the inside of a black hole is like, certainly not a 4D black hole.. the 'polar ends' talked about here could give off gravity due to strange possibilities, like space within space... the 4D black hole that is theorized here to give us our 'spacial plane' could also be sitting inside a spacial plane itself, and it's so large that it reaches the maximum edge of its bending - on the outside of the 4D black hole)

BUT ANYWAY AGAIN, here we go.

Outside of our universe it is theorized that energy is being formed and popping out of existence continuously, at the planck scale. It's theorized this is where our quantum singularity came from. Through quantum tunneling, that tiniest of energy became the singularity that eventually birthed our universe. The problem is we don't know why it expanded in the first place, or why there was more matter than anti-matter as for us to have enough matter, a significant enough amount, as to form galaxies and the universe we know. They believe there are infinite universes, or a multiverse, with every possibility of physics realized. But I'm only concerned with our own, and the answers to these questions. Continue to read and you might agree that it is much easier for our exact universe to continuously be recreated with the exact same amount of matter as this one; which would be highly significant if true because that means the physics that produce life would also be eternally renewed, and without much time needed for it to happen in comparison to random universes. And what a pleasant thought that is.
It is my theory that not only does energy at the planck scale pop in and out of existence, but also multiple singularities constantly coming into existence as well. Keep in mind we don't have, what I call, a spacial plane yet. The singularity must first give birth to that plane. But why does it expand and how does it create that spacial plane? We go back to the multiple singularities. For some reason, there are more created of regular matter than anti-matter. First off though it takes a long time for a singularity to come across another singularity, and with no spacial plane yet there would be no gravity to bend it and draw them towards one another for these collisions. But after enough time, there was a singularity of enough matter that came to being through collisions with singularities of likewise regular matter. Eventually it collided with a singularity of significant amounts of anti-matter so that the energy released from them both did something amazing. The anti-matter destroyed as much matter as was its own equivalent, but from the force of it all an unimaginably large black hole was formed and it sucked all the leftover matter back into itself, with none escaping. This is the theorized 4D black hole, published by another scientist; although I'd had the theory months before him - that there was an original black hole that were reside inside. But being 4D adds much significance to my original theory, so I thank him for that. Moving on. The matter sucked into this 4D black hole was smeared across the surface of its inside. So our universe is a 3D plane inside a 4D object, and it is this 4D black hole that is our 'spacial plane' on which matter can bend the plane with its mass, giving our universe the properties we see today. Like a black hole in our universe shooting gamma ray bursts from two opposite ends instead of all directions, so does this 4D black hole similarly have 'polar ends'. While the first singularities were ultra dense, this point in the 4D black hole is even denser. With so much energy and force released from that first collision of opposite singularities, the leftover matter sucked in expanded out instead of staying a singularity at the 'polar end' of the 4D black hole. The matter was thus able to escape its point of origin of the first polar end, and made it far enough that the opposite polar end of the black hole began to pull us towar…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Robert Dicke - Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:22:31 EST cTrnVs8H No.55735 Reply

Why don't you go to school to be a theoretical physicist and then YOU will be that somebody in the field.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:54:10 EST N+uGi0dP No.55739 Reply
can I ask if this fits along with an idea I had where all the planets are mathematically "flat" but they bend away from you the further you go from them?

Like those old drawings of a series of flat disks on top of each other but there are 4D ways to transition from any disk to any other disk without having to go through them (going around planets after they appear sphere like due to distance bending)

I tried

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:01:19 EST NCcXgNdu No.55692
File: 1443409279643.jpg -(116934B / 114.19KB, 2592x1728) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. I tried
✓ Overcast
✓ Too late to set up tracking
✓ Sensor needs cleaning
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Viktor Ambartsumian - Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:29:43 EST 9+WA5MM9 No.55725 Reply
1443731383998.jpg -(643705B / 628.62KB, 2000x1333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Margaret Burbidge - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 06:22:01 EST UwTIku3P No.55737 Reply
1443954121436.jpg -(116215B / 113.49KB, 500x661) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Using ✓s instead of s
Ban this heretic
George Gamow - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:53:54 EST NCcXgNdu No.55738 Reply
Satellites would only appear to move in one direction. It was probably some high altitude aircraft or weather balloon.

In the year 2069

Locked View Thread Reply
- Thu, 01 Oct 2015 01:09:01 EST WHXsRUFD No.55722
File: 1443676141681.jpg -(77479B / 75.66KB, 800x425) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. In the year 2069
If humans are going to build a city on the moon this century it should definitely be done in 2069, if they do it in 2068 or 2070 instead it will go to waste.

It'll go down as a historical fact until the end of time that the City/Colony was founded in 2069. IMO Earth's Moon is the most romantic spot in our galaxy so it might as well be associated with 69ing.

Becoming a multiplanet species, breaking free from nations.

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:52:15 EST P+fSJ1RL No.55648
File: 1441054335956.gif -(2406963B / 2.30MB, 256x170) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Becoming a multiplanet species, breaking free from nations.
I want to start a discussion of becoming a multiplanet species. Weather that be on Mars, or one of the many Earth sized exo planets. for those let's assume a way to use the Alcubeirre equations has been invented To me moving out of our home planet is an inevitability. What I'm not so sure on is our penchant for clinging to imagined borders.

What is it going to take to break free from that? I could see Mars ending up being its own nationality so to speak. From a governance stand point I can see the practicallity, each planet will mostly be responsible for running it self. The alternative or events leading to that style would be akin to the Roman empire becoming too big to manage.

So yeah, general ideas, hopes, anticipation for how things will be. Discuss becoming a multiplanet species and the evolution of governance that will soon follow.
14 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
!qCv3kE3pMI - Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:27:37 EST M7NMNbPp No.55675 Reply
1442377657015.jpg -(389862B / 380.72KB, 1280x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
gas vapor fed plants and printed meals, who wants to go there when being there is "there"?

p.s. nanana
Daniel Kirkwood - Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:09:14 EST P+fSJ1RL No.55676 Reply
It sounds like a dim prospect. But with enough off hours with allowances for extra activities and maybe even EVAs for no O2 worlds. Could be fun, might be covered by shitty mega corps, but those involved will have to know that they signed up to head a new place to live. They get to forge a new planetary culture, even one day claim sovereignty. The galaxy is a large place and likely hard to govern.
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:42:00 EST AlxomEpB No.55698 Reply
Might not be a corporation though. It could be ideological or some psudeo religious movement.

First telescope

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:34:55 EST 6SPuxxpR No.55682
File: 1443144895835.jpg -(728331B / 711.26KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. First telescope
Hello, I'm looking for some advice for a first time telescope buyer. I was thinking about buying the Celestron 76mm Firstscope as its not to expensive and if I find that if astrology is not for me it's not really a big loss. Any advice or other telescopes would be great thanks.
Allan Sandage - Sat, 26 Sep 2015 04:08:14 EST NCcXgNdu No.55686 Reply
Dobsonians are going to be the best bang per buck. The larger the aperture, the more light gathering capability it will have. Plan to spend several thousand dollars for astrophotography minus the SLR or CCD to take pictures with. The mount is almost more important than the scope here. A heavy GOTO mount (equatorial pref) with tracking capability is important for taking long exposures although you can take many shorter exposure images and stack them in Photoshop. Store bought refractors are generally garbage. If you really want to go that route Explore Scientific makes some nice refractors. Newtonians are a different story. My nephew's other pop bought him a store bought Celestron Astromaster, and although the mount could blow over like a leaf, the optics on the scope were pretty good. Dobsonians are Newtonians on a lazy Susan like bottom mount with two forks. You can get a large aperture here for comparatively very little cash. The only downside is that it doesn't really lock in place. Besides refractors and newtonians, there are catadioptric cassegrains. These are reflectors like the newtonian, but they are compact and expensive.

tldr: the AstroMaster 114EQ is $200 at opticsplanet.com
Eyepieces cost $50 dollars. Don't start off with a scope that costs the same as an eyepiece.

Star Gazers

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:30:58 EST NCcXgNdu No.55650
File: 1441182658167.jpg -(447181B / 436.70KB, 1600x1001) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Star Gazers
Any other star gazers out there with telescopes? How far do you have to drive to get to a Bortle scale 2 environment? White being 9 Black being 1.

Charles Bolton - Thu, 03 Sep 2015 02:43:21 EST lHGvTKQL No.55651 Reply
I just have to drive for about 25-30 minutes west on I-70 to get to a Level 1 area out in the middle of Nowhere, KS. There's even some small towns and farming communities nearby where you could get some gas and snacks.

One of the perks of Kansas I suppose.
Jacob Kapteyn - Sun, 06 Sep 2015 06:20:10 EST NCcXgNdu No.55655 Reply
My astronomy club has a dark site, but I have to drive 2 hours to get to it. They have a bunch of concrete slabs where you can set up and they're wired for electricity if you need to power servos on your mount. Some people have their own mini domes set up and there's a small building with a 16" scope and dome. I wish I lived closer to the sticks so I didn't have to drive so far to get a good view of nebula. My dad is originally from Nowhere, KS. I drive through there to pay respect to ghosts occasionally. I wouldn't mind buying a bunch of land and retiring there when I get old.

orbiter 2010

View Thread Reply
!lwriJ94kMg - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 05:01:27 EST yA35CPLh No.55604
File: 1440061287082.png -(741213B / 723.84KB, 870x636) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. orbiter 2010
Inb4 telling me to post this on /vg/. It's a simulator not a video game. It's serious bzns and no fun is allowed. Besides I've posted it there before and no one there is cool enough to go to be interested in it.

Any one here ever try this out? I got pretty into it a while back. I've used various Delta glider models to launch from cape Canaveral, dock at the iss and then land on the moon at the fictional moon base. I've even made the trip home, but I can't re enter the atmosphere with out computer assistance. I either explode or bounce off the atmosphere every time.

I cant get my head around planning interplanetary trips. The MFD is too obtuse of a tool for me to plan that sort of trip. I wish there was kerbal maneuver node mod that let me visualize the trajectory vissualy with a 3d image rather than a 2d circle on a plane and some numbers.

I haven't tried it in a while and my gaming pc is dead, my lap top wont handle it. I recomend every one check it out as it's free.
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:05:00 EST yA35CPLh No.55617 Reply
3d cockpit. My phones auto correct has been taking some creative liberties lately.

Math problem

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:29:27 EST vUNowU0Q No.54441
File: 1411756167954.png -(17766B / 17.35KB, 640x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Math problem
Anyone want to help me out with this problem? I'm new to astronomy/physics and I haven't the faintest.
8 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Paul Goldsmith - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:11:43 EST euFuFwSC No.55558 Reply

> A mass is dropped directly on top of a half circle. As it rolls of the side...

Top lel
Edwin Salpeter - Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:06:20 EST OMGzRHpD No.55646 Reply
1440997580737.jpg -(163342B / 159.51KB, 483x572) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
is mass M a sphere or a cylinder? that changes the moment of inertia and the angular momentum of mass M. you said no friction but it's rolling so I'm lead to believe we are operating under the rolling-without-slipping regime (translational speed 'v' = radius of the mass M 'r' x 'omega', the angular velocity).

set up a force diagram for the mass at location X. the weight force 'mg' points straight down, we'll split into components in a moment. The normal force 'N' of the hemisphere on mass M points radially outward (in this case north-east). We'll be solving for the condition where N --> 0 (i.e., it juuust loses contact with the hemisphere)

Edwin Salpeter - Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:26:04 EST OMGzRHpD No.55647 Reply
now the weight force 'mg' can be split into components. one component points radially inward from X with value mgcos(theta). the other component points in the direction of mass M's velocity vector, tangent to the hemisphere or south-east, with value mgsin(theta). the first component balances with the normal force N and provides the centripetal acceleration for mass M. the second component does the accelerating of mass M down the hemisphere.

As >>54457 said, now do the conservation of energy. The translational kinetic energy 1/2mv^2 plus the rotational kinetic energy 1/2Iomega^2 will equal mg(R-y) where y is the height of location X. if you want it dimensionless (R=1) then R-y = 1-sin(theta). make the v = r x omega substitution and solve for v.

the inward radial componenet mgcos(theta) provides the centripetal acceleration v^2/R. So mgcos(theta) = mv^2/R ... too distracted to finish the rest but solve for the max v that the inward radial component can still provide a = v^2/R, then you can solve for the value of cos(theta)

frikkin relativity

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:56:50 EST Du35j2Lj No.55576
File: 1438559810297.jpg -(295824B / 288.89KB, 1041x1041) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. frikkin relativity
This has certainly been asked here before but please help me understand this.
A space ship travels around earth near lightspeed. I understand that velocity makes
time aboard the ship seem slower to a spectator on earth. And when the ship stopped moving the crew would have aged less then this spectator. But here's what i dont get. Why does the spectators time also seem to move slower to the crew on the ship? Wouldnt earth look like someone pressed fast forward? But lets say earth time seems to move slower, what happens when the ship slows down, does light from everything that happened come towards it like a flash?
I know i sound dumb, but that's okay.
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 06:26:06 EST v2I6+0VG No.55579 Reply
That's not a dumb question at all. In special relativity, there is no preferred reference frame. If a rocket ship is travelling past the Earth, from the rockets perspective, the Earth is travelling past the rocket. So each will see the other's clocks as ticking slower to their own. This symmetry only holds for inertial reference frames though (no acceleration or deceleration). In your example, the space ship is constantly accelerating to move in a circle, and this destroys the symmetry. A more illustrative example is the one of the twin paradox. In the twin paradox, the ship leaves Earth and travels near the speed of light for a while and then turns around and returns to Earth. One twin is stays behind on Earth, and the other travels on the ship. The one who stayed behind on Earth has aged more than the voyager twin. It's a seeming paradox, because each twin witnesses the same thing: the other twin flies off at breakneck speed and returns at the same speed. The difference is that the space ship twin feels an acceleration. It's this acceleration that causes the jump in time - known as gravitational time dilation. This is an aspect of general relativity - beyond the scope of special relativity. So yeah, as soon as the ship starts accelerating or decelerating (as in your example), the events on Earth will play out in fast-forward from the ship's perspective.

Grote Reuber - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:00:44 EST Du35j2Lj No.55580 Reply

Thanks you! That clears my thoughts somewhat. It's still hard to grasp though.
Fred Whipple - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:42:03 EST P+fSJ1RL No.55636 Reply
Don't worry. Our brains didn't evolve with innate knowledge of spacetime. Our universe has been what we see for a long long time. Recent science and tools have shown us more cogs of the universe we may never have other wise been made aware of.

That people here can even explain these things is incredible in itself. SpaceTime is no simple algebra that's for sure.

Night v/s day

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:12:00 EST Fk84gn/u No.55620
File: 1440468720383.jpg -(149638B / 146.13KB, 778x740) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Night v/s day
Hey, so just as here on earth we've got longer days in the summer and longer nights in winter, is there a possibility for a planet, any earth-sized planet, to have a 6 hour day and, I don't know, a 40 hour long night?
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 05:31:05 EST yA35CPLh No.55625 Reply
This reminds me of Time cube for some reason.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.