That FTL means time travel meme View Thread Reply Hide Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:22:45 EST hGyQlc1t No.57130 File: 1513480965587.gif -(117244B / 114.50KB, 323x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 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. 20 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:55:44 EST 3nlPOKZc No.57456 Reply >>57130 >> Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:42:04 EST 9RKOIT3O No.57459 Reply >>57130>However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legalEqually illegal? ;)>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.These diagrams are entirely symmetrical in terms of all dimensions, as in choice of 'left' and 'right' just as 'up' and 'down' is arbitraryI feel there is an ambiguity in what constitutes time travel. As in, the intuition we typically may have about this being '2018-09-30' -> '2008-09-30' same place.But in terms of general relativity, any travel with speed >c is time travel. This is called moving in a 'timelike curve' in 4D spacetime - as opposed to 'spacelike curves' which we (and all we know) typically move on. On the GIF all curves within yellow area are spacelike and blue area timelike.So for example if you 'teleported' a light year away from your current whereabouts, that'd be considered time travel. Because if you send a light signal to earth, and teleport back - you will not see it for another year. So you influenced the future without exactly 'changing' the date on your calendarMind you if you simply travel half a year back/forward keeping your position fixed, you'd arrive in some different place because likely the earth, sun and entire galaxy would've moved away. >> Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:55:02 EST 9RKOIT3O No.57460 Reply or maybe better example:you travel a year back in time from now to 2017you end up a light year away from initial position2017 you wants to send stock market results to 2018 youat best 2017 you will be able to send them with speed of lightlight takes a year to arrive to 2018in that case, the information you're sending arrives in 2018 and you haven't actually managed to send it back in time, because it still has to make up for the distance before it reaches youif you change space distance from 1 light year away to 0.5 light year away however, you will be able to send information to 'past you' (with speed of light) so it arrives mid-2017 (and either you're filthy rich or paradoxically disappear hehehe)
>> Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:42:04 EST 9RKOIT3O No.57459 Reply >>57130>However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legalEqually illegal? ;)>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.These diagrams are entirely symmetrical in terms of all dimensions, as in choice of 'left' and 'right' just as 'up' and 'down' is arbitraryI feel there is an ambiguity in what constitutes time travel. As in, the intuition we typically may have about this being '2018-09-30' -> '2008-09-30' same place.But in terms of general relativity, any travel with speed >c is time travel. This is called moving in a 'timelike curve' in 4D spacetime - as opposed to 'spacelike curves' which we (and all we know) typically move on. On the GIF all curves within yellow area are spacelike and blue area timelike.So for example if you 'teleported' a light year away from your current whereabouts, that'd be considered time travel. Because if you send a light signal to earth, and teleport back - you will not see it for another year. So you influenced the future without exactly 'changing' the date on your calendarMind you if you simply travel half a year back/forward keeping your position fixed, you'd arrive in some different place because likely the earth, sun and entire galaxy would've moved away.
>> Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:55:02 EST 9RKOIT3O No.57460 Reply or maybe better example:you travel a year back in time from now to 2017you end up a light year away from initial position2017 you wants to send stock market results to 2018 youat best 2017 you will be able to send them with speed of lightlight takes a year to arrive to 2018in that case, the information you're sending arrives in 2018 and you haven't actually managed to send it back in time, because it still has to make up for the distance before it reaches youif you change space distance from 1 light year away to 0.5 light year away however, you will be able to send information to 'past you' (with speed of light) so it arrives mid-2017 (and either you're filthy rich or paradoxically disappear hehehe)
Interchan Warning System View Thread Reply Hide Maximilian Wolf - Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:48:46 EST 9ugkcJUP No.57457 File: 1538110126824.jpg -(74637B / 72.89KB, 548x550) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. ***THIS IS THE INTERCHAN WARNING SYSTEM***THIS IS NOT A TEST MESSAGE TO FOLLOWMESSAGE FOLLOWS:DO NOT SHIFT THE TIMELINE. DO NOT LISTEN TO 'AI' BASED POSTS.DO NOT SHIFT TO TIMELINE: 5E8FD0AA-44ED-4868-B04C-9E33754CF9BCDO NOT DESPAIR ***End of message*** >> Bernhard Schmidt - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:29:27 EST rNBxnMOH No.57496 Reply 1542331767842.jpg -(133179B / 130.06KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. All weebs should be shot nb
>> Bernhard Schmidt - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:29:27 EST rNBxnMOH No.57496 Reply 1542331767842.jpg -(133179B / 130.06KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. All weebs should be shot nb
fate of universe View Thread Reply Hide Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST SknUZfy5 No.54393 File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 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 43 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Charles Messier - Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:45:13 EST 457vC2+I No.57444 Reply >>57443I'll help Lemaitre out by saying the first two statements are uncontroversial possibilities thoroughly discussed ITT. The first is the Big Freeze, Heat Death, leading to a Big Rip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip The second is the Big Crunch, which is now thought to be impossible under current observations but was popular in the 20th C.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_CrunchAs for the third I have no idea what he's alluding to and I'm really interested also. >> Johannes Kepler - Sat, 22 Sep 2018 19:46:39 EST kahFeNFq No.57452 Reply >>57442>Woah what? Who thinks that?people trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single theorydo you try to quantize gravity or do you try to gravitize quanta?do you treat quantum entanglement as tiny wormhole?do you treat blackhole as the entropy surface?could geometry of space be determined by level of entanglement in quantum foam in a region of space?could dimensionality of space be an emergent property of quantum mechanics?>I know relating the the dimensions of space is that one that suggested that 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time was the only logically possible one, that all other kinds of universes would be literally impossible. I don't agree with that idea but it seems like people have given up on making a rigorous theory of the relationship between the dimensions (or assume GR's spacetime covers it.) try incorporate probabilities into dimensions of spacedoes the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics? >> Chushiro Hayashi - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:01:29 EST 457vC2+I No.57453 Reply >>57452>>does the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?Perhaps, it is more like the image suggests; it's a suggestion about the topology of spacetime and whether causality or space could be consistent with that number of dimensions. However, it's equally likely that all those other possible coordinates could also have universes like ours, in which the mathematics equally suggest that only their dimensional composition is possible and all others impossible.
>> Charles Messier - Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:45:13 EST 457vC2+I No.57444 Reply >>57443I'll help Lemaitre out by saying the first two statements are uncontroversial possibilities thoroughly discussed ITT. The first is the Big Freeze, Heat Death, leading to a Big Rip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip The second is the Big Crunch, which is now thought to be impossible under current observations but was popular in the 20th C.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_CrunchAs for the third I have no idea what he's alluding to and I'm really interested also.
>> Johannes Kepler - Sat, 22 Sep 2018 19:46:39 EST kahFeNFq No.57452 Reply >>57442>Woah what? Who thinks that?people trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single theorydo you try to quantize gravity or do you try to gravitize quanta?do you treat quantum entanglement as tiny wormhole?do you treat blackhole as the entropy surface?could geometry of space be determined by level of entanglement in quantum foam in a region of space?could dimensionality of space be an emergent property of quantum mechanics?>I know relating the the dimensions of space is that one that suggested that 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time was the only logically possible one, that all other kinds of universes would be literally impossible. I don't agree with that idea but it seems like people have given up on making a rigorous theory of the relationship between the dimensions (or assume GR's spacetime covers it.) try incorporate probabilities into dimensions of spacedoes the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?
>> Chushiro Hayashi - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:01:29 EST 457vC2+I No.57453 Reply >>57452>>does the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?Perhaps, it is more like the image suggests; it's a suggestion about the topology of spacetime and whether causality or space could be consistent with that number of dimensions. However, it's equally likely that all those other possible coordinates could also have universes like ours, in which the mathematics equally suggest that only their dimensional composition is possible and all others impossible.
How does a closed View Thread Reply Hide jolinar - Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:31:55 EST 4+cG6NBX No.57348 File: 1531787515505.jpg -(85295B / 83.30KB, 1125x1111) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Timeline curve work? Could you be trapped in it forever ?I have a writing prompt >> Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:04:28 EST 457vC2+I No.57349 Reply 1531800268505.png -(130973B / 127.90KB, 431x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Closed timelike curves are totally theoretical objects -- we have no real information about how they would work, or if they are even possible. Essentially, what is 'curved' in a CTC is the 'geodesic' of spacetime. What this means that, for example, if you had a geodesic curvature in space at a 45 degree angle and you fired a laser beam into that space, as it entered it the beam within it would appear to you (if you could see it reflected) as if it had bent at that same angle even though it encountered no object. In a 'closed' timelike curve, remembering that space and time are a continuum, if the curvature is so extreme that it forms a torus, i.e. loops back on itself, and one traversed the distortion in the (normally flat i.e. euclidean) curved spacetime, one could end up at the end of passing through the distortion at the same point in space, but an earlier point in time.If you were stuck on it would depend on how you got into such an unusual object in the first place. If the geodesic torus could only be made so small, so that in order to traverse it one had to travel at relativistic speeds, the degree of time distortion could be amplified. Also, it's possible that actual matter (rather than energy) trapped within a CTC could become inertially unbound, so there might be no way to stop a spacecraft (for example) that was travelling through one, trapping its crew on an eternal voyage into the past (or future, depending on the 'direction' the geodesic is distorted in the fourth dimension.)Anyway, a lot of people will not see any time travel story as 'hard sci-fi' so you probably have a lot of leeway. Hawking famously believed that a CTC would destroy itself in a cosmological version of the grandfather paradox, as heat from the torus' relative future would propagate backwards in time, eventually creating a thermal singularity that would destroy it. >> Vesto Slipher - Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:52:54 EST BJSneKKV No.57445 Reply >>57348I’ve seen it trapped forever >> Annie Cannon - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:46:07 EST yzfSDg8q No.57446 Reply Theoretically, you cease to exist in the timestream as soon as you get in the box, while your time-travelling double (who left the box at some point in the past) continues along the timestream as normal and never gets back in the box. In theory.
>> Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:04:28 EST 457vC2+I No.57349 Reply 1531800268505.png -(130973B / 127.90KB, 431x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Closed timelike curves are totally theoretical objects -- we have no real information about how they would work, or if they are even possible. Essentially, what is 'curved' in a CTC is the 'geodesic' of spacetime. What this means that, for example, if you had a geodesic curvature in space at a 45 degree angle and you fired a laser beam into that space, as it entered it the beam within it would appear to you (if you could see it reflected) as if it had bent at that same angle even though it encountered no object. In a 'closed' timelike curve, remembering that space and time are a continuum, if the curvature is so extreme that it forms a torus, i.e. loops back on itself, and one traversed the distortion in the (normally flat i.e. euclidean) curved spacetime, one could end up at the end of passing through the distortion at the same point in space, but an earlier point in time.If you were stuck on it would depend on how you got into such an unusual object in the first place. If the geodesic torus could only be made so small, so that in order to traverse it one had to travel at relativistic speeds, the degree of time distortion could be amplified. Also, it's possible that actual matter (rather than energy) trapped within a CTC could become inertially unbound, so there might be no way to stop a spacecraft (for example) that was travelling through one, trapping its crew on an eternal voyage into the past (or future, depending on the 'direction' the geodesic is distorted in the fourth dimension.)Anyway, a lot of people will not see any time travel story as 'hard sci-fi' so you probably have a lot of leeway. Hawking famously believed that a CTC would destroy itself in a cosmological version of the grandfather paradox, as heat from the torus' relative future would propagate backwards in time, eventually creating a thermal singularity that would destroy it.
>> Vesto Slipher - Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:52:54 EST BJSneKKV No.57445 Reply >>57348I’ve seen it trapped forever
>> Annie Cannon - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:46:07 EST yzfSDg8q No.57446 Reply Theoretically, you cease to exist in the timestream as soon as you get in the box, while your time-travelling double (who left the box at some point in the past) continues along the timestream as normal and never gets back in the box. In theory.
moon View Thread Reply Hide Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 31 May 2018 10:35:24 EST HhkM3rED No.57285 File: 1527777324976.jpg -(2143958B / 2.04MB, 2580x2452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Does the moon really have influence on behavior? Or is it a well loved myth? 13 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:22:10 EST 457vC2+I No.57350 Reply 1531801330505.jpg -(174176B / 170.09KB, 754x1070) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57346I think I'll play it safe and leave it at that for here. Took the meta topic (of skeptical illuminism) to /spooky/ like you suggested, to expand it a bit beyond simply astrology. See ya there anyone who is still interested! >> Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:13:41 EST qgHixtEA No.57436 Reply >>57285So, as a general skeptic of anything that can't be scientifically proven, I never actually believed in this.Until I started working with people with developmental disabilities.For whatever reason, the day after full moons, behaviors in clients would spike drastically. Most of the times that I was attacked, bitten, had my hair pulled, was the first day after a full moon. My personal belief was that this may simply be a function of the increased amount of light at night, with my reasoning being that it kept people up more at night, especially those who were sensory sensitive. As irritability is a common side effect of lack of sleep, this would lead to clients being more sensitive to stimuli that might upset them. Obviously, this is all anecdotal, but I think it deserves to be said. I actually have data on attacks and behaviors from one client who required close recordkeeping, but have yet to compare this data to full moons. However, I do know that at least a few times, the night was completely overcast. Perhaps enough light filters through the clouds to support my theory of light interfering with sleep, but I really couldn't say without having actually measured the amount of moonlight on a nightly basis. And if it was solely a question of light, why didn't these behaviors occur in a smooth curve as the moon waxed and waned, instead of tending to occur all at once, the day after the full moon?I really don't know. I wish I had answers, because it would have helped me out a lot in my last job. >> Edmond Halley - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:08:12 EST 457vC2+I No.57437 Reply >>57436How could it really be the light though, since humans have been exposed to a huge amount of additional light thanks to artificial lighting and no one has gone crazy? There would have to be something special about light coming from the moon, which is even a more woo-woo direction to go in that assuming it has something to do with the tides or magnetism.
>> Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:22:10 EST 457vC2+I No.57350 Reply 1531801330505.jpg -(174176B / 170.09KB, 754x1070) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57346I think I'll play it safe and leave it at that for here. Took the meta topic (of skeptical illuminism) to /spooky/ like you suggested, to expand it a bit beyond simply astrology. See ya there anyone who is still interested!
>> Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:13:41 EST qgHixtEA No.57436 Reply >>57285So, as a general skeptic of anything that can't be scientifically proven, I never actually believed in this.Until I started working with people with developmental disabilities.For whatever reason, the day after full moons, behaviors in clients would spike drastically. Most of the times that I was attacked, bitten, had my hair pulled, was the first day after a full moon. My personal belief was that this may simply be a function of the increased amount of light at night, with my reasoning being that it kept people up more at night, especially those who were sensory sensitive. As irritability is a common side effect of lack of sleep, this would lead to clients being more sensitive to stimuli that might upset them. Obviously, this is all anecdotal, but I think it deserves to be said. I actually have data on attacks and behaviors from one client who required close recordkeeping, but have yet to compare this data to full moons. However, I do know that at least a few times, the night was completely overcast. Perhaps enough light filters through the clouds to support my theory of light interfering with sleep, but I really couldn't say without having actually measured the amount of moonlight on a nightly basis. And if it was solely a question of light, why didn't these behaviors occur in a smooth curve as the moon waxed and waned, instead of tending to occur all at once, the day after the full moon?I really don't know. I wish I had answers, because it would have helped me out a lot in my last job.
>> Edmond Halley - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:08:12 EST 457vC2+I No.57437 Reply >>57436How could it really be the light though, since humans have been exposed to a huge amount of additional light thanks to artificial lighting and no one has gone crazy? There would have to be something special about light coming from the moon, which is even a more woo-woo direction to go in that assuming it has something to do with the tides or magnetism.
Lakes of liquid water found on Mars View Thread Reply Hide Caroline Herschel - Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:44:03 EST CZNpyEE2 No.57358 File: 1532634243590.jpg -(3262171B / 3.11MB, 5333x3333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Ground-penetrating radar images of the southern polar cap of Mars taken by ESA's Mars Express suggest the presence of liquid water 1.5 km beneath the surface. As pure liquid water probably cannot exist at such a shallow depth and low temperature, the research team posits that the water is a brine with salts and perchlorates that dramatically lower its freezing point. The largest discovered aquifer is 20 km wide, but its thickness cannot be accurately estimated. The water reservoirs would take the form of salty brine pools beneath the mile of layered ice and dust, or the water might be a component of thicker brine-dirt sludge, mixed with Martian regolith.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/liquid-water-spied-deep-below-polar-ice-cap-marshttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/07/24/science.aar7268
Astronomical data View Thread Reply Hide James Randi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:36:57 EST BPHCgbLm No.57327 File: 1530293817601.jpg -(138469B / 135.22KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. I had an idea to build a digital astronomical clock for fun in unity as a learning exercise. It would include solar system clock showing the "time" and such on various planets and a 3rd model of the solar system.I'd like to try aim for a bit of realism and have the models of planets be in accurate locations to real life.What would be the best source for finding out planet locations so that they don't all start in the 12 oclock position when I start my program?Like if I added Mars, how do I find how far into its solar year (month?) It currently is on Mars? I'm new to coding in general, I already have the data for earth but that's done simply by telling the program to check the system clock and moves the model of earth to right orientation. 6 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> James Randi - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 20:46:11 EST CxvjOUYt No.57340 Reply any links to some sort of table would be helpful too >> Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:39:49 EST hGyQlc1t No.57355 Reply >>57340https://ask.metafilter.com/86383/Where-can-I-find-data-on-planetary-positions-and-velocitiesthey mention:https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons#elemdigging a little there is also this:https://github.com/mommermi/callhorizonswhich leads to thishttps://www.google.com/search?q=Astroquery >> Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:51:43 EST hGyQlc1t No.57356 Reply >>57340Digging a little lets me realize that using that python api would be massive overkillThe table you want is here:https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_posor to precise in this pdf document:https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/aprx_pos_planets.pdf
>> James Randi - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 20:46:11 EST CxvjOUYt No.57340 Reply any links to some sort of table would be helpful too
>> Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:39:49 EST hGyQlc1t No.57355 Reply >>57340https://ask.metafilter.com/86383/Where-can-I-find-data-on-planetary-positions-and-velocitiesthey mention:https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons#elemdigging a little there is also this:https://github.com/mommermi/callhorizonswhich leads to thishttps://www.google.com/search?q=Astroquery
>> Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:51:43 EST hGyQlc1t No.57356 Reply >>57340Digging a little lets me realize that using that python api would be massive overkillThe table you want is here:https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_posor to precise in this pdf document:https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/aprx_pos_planets.pdf
images View Thread Reply Hide Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:49:29 EST vxFcQ9yD No.57323 File: 1530287369168.jpg -(3086272B / 2.94MB, 7680x4320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Since this is an imageboard, let's post space related images. 1 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:52:42 EST vxFcQ9yD No.57325 Reply 1530287562168.jpg -(247670B / 241.87KB, 1000x766) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57324 >> Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:56:12 EST vxFcQ9yD No.57326 Reply 1530287772168.jpg -(136960B / 133.75KB, 1680x1400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57325 >> Vera Rubiin - Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:30:41 EST fjAVn7KX No.57341 Reply 1531002641478.gif -(2398469B / 2.29MB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. DICKS EVERYWHERE
>> Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:52:42 EST vxFcQ9yD No.57325 Reply 1530287562168.jpg -(247670B / 241.87KB, 1000x766) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57324
>> Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:56:12 EST vxFcQ9yD No.57326 Reply 1530287772168.jpg -(136960B / 133.75KB, 1680x1400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57325
>> Vera Rubiin - Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:30:41 EST fjAVn7KX No.57341 Reply 1531002641478.gif -(2398469B / 2.29MB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. DICKS EVERYWHERE
Astronomical Illusion - Earth is the center of the universe View Thread Reply Hide William Huggins - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:15:11 EST 6aIwEr35 No.57311 File: 1529442911009.jpg -(342372B / 334.35KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Hello!This is from a video series I saw long ago and it described a general illusion that is responsible for the Earth being seen as the center of the universe.Like they say that in a few million/billion years the sky is going to be completely dark because the stars are moving away from us. But this is just an illusion from our vantage point. We're also moving away from them but we can't see it, only visualize it.The way I remembered in the video was very clever and simple.It was like rows and columns of 4 dots:. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .And it had like a clear paper with one dot in the middle. And as the transparent paper moved, the dot moved relative to the stationary background and you could see how the center of the dot in the transparent paper stayed stationary as the rest moved away.I'm probably not explaining it right because even that doesn't make sense to me but maybe it's enough to go on for one of you out there 1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Thomas Henderson - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:08:09 EST 6aIwEr35 No.57313 Reply >>57312Thanks for the explanation but the illusion I was referring to was the fact that astronomers before would always postulate that Earth was the center of everything (that is, stationary) and everything else is moving away or moving around us.But in reality, Earth is moving as well and isn't actually stationary. The illusion is that Earth is just used as a stationary anchor point for our perspective because we need a relatively stable point to base our calculations on. Like the same way we arbitrarily chose the weigh of a kilogram and now use that to conceptualize weight relative to one another.But because of modern technology, we can visualize the universe more conceptually without putting Earth at the center. >> Henry Draper - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:42:36 EST 457vC2+I No.57314 Reply 1529548956888.jpg -(111795B / 109.17KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57313Astronomers certainly are aware of the motion of our solar system and account for it in their calculations when it is relevant, including calculations of expansion and redshift. I agree I wish popularly available star charts included depictions of the direction of motion and speed of stars so people can visualize what is going on better, but if, as a matter of principle, we stop using earth as the reference point, over time they will become off center with the physical hubble volume, the universe-lifetime light sphere of earth, which is obviously centered here. Once we are an interplanetary species, we will obviously need new definitions, and for most practical purposes the difference won't matter much. How would you feel about using the center of the galaxy (either its gravitational center or the supermassive blackhole Sag A*) as our reference center point? That wouldn't differ too much from our visible observations, and seems the most convenient. >> Annie Cannon - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:30:26 EST 6aIwEr35 No.57319 Reply >>57314I'm not against using Earth or whatever as a reference.I was just intrigued by the natural phenomena that we see ourselves as the center of things when it's a fallacy of perception. And I remember the same phenomena existed in astronomy until the copernican revolution
>> Thomas Henderson - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:08:09 EST 6aIwEr35 No.57313 Reply >>57312Thanks for the explanation but the illusion I was referring to was the fact that astronomers before would always postulate that Earth was the center of everything (that is, stationary) and everything else is moving away or moving around us.But in reality, Earth is moving as well and isn't actually stationary. The illusion is that Earth is just used as a stationary anchor point for our perspective because we need a relatively stable point to base our calculations on. Like the same way we arbitrarily chose the weigh of a kilogram and now use that to conceptualize weight relative to one another.But because of modern technology, we can visualize the universe more conceptually without putting Earth at the center.
>> Henry Draper - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:42:36 EST 457vC2+I No.57314 Reply 1529548956888.jpg -(111795B / 109.17KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57313Astronomers certainly are aware of the motion of our solar system and account for it in their calculations when it is relevant, including calculations of expansion and redshift. I agree I wish popularly available star charts included depictions of the direction of motion and speed of stars so people can visualize what is going on better, but if, as a matter of principle, we stop using earth as the reference point, over time they will become off center with the physical hubble volume, the universe-lifetime light sphere of earth, which is obviously centered here. Once we are an interplanetary species, we will obviously need new definitions, and for most practical purposes the difference won't matter much. How would you feel about using the center of the galaxy (either its gravitational center or the supermassive blackhole Sag A*) as our reference center point? That wouldn't differ too much from our visible observations, and seems the most convenient.
>> Annie Cannon - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:30:26 EST 6aIwEr35 No.57319 Reply >>57314I'm not against using Earth or whatever as a reference.I was just intrigued by the natural phenomena that we see ourselves as the center of things when it's a fallacy of perception. And I remember the same phenomena existed in astronomy until the copernican revolution
Hey View Thread Reply Hide Charles Bolton - Fri, 25 May 2018 04:39:48 EST eiFhhu/4 No.57283 File: 1527237588460.jpg -(368926B / 360.28KB, 720x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Check this mother ****** out. >> Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Sat, 26 May 2018 13:15:33 EST 10X7g+Qi No.57284 Reply 1527354933221.jpg -(2595730B / 2.48MB, 2448x3264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Whoay thread. I'm going to be working all day and maybe into the night. Hope i produce something increadible!
>> Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Sat, 26 May 2018 13:15:33 EST 10X7g+Qi No.57284 Reply 1527354933221.jpg -(2595730B / 2.48MB, 2448x3264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Whoay thread. I'm going to be working all day and maybe into the night. Hope i produce something increadible!
Stephen Hawking died at age 76 View Thread Reply Hide Johan Galle - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:52:46 EST UgaLEhyB No.57237 File: 1521013966541.jpg -(203302B / 198.54KB, 1160x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Goodnight you genius retard >> William Hartmann - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:04:12 EST eygzYfFg No.57238 Reply His absurd in-mental astrophysics simulations will be missed. Rest in peace dude, you deserve it. >> Thomas Henderson - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:22:05 EST sL8p9E02 No.57239 Reply RIP to the coolest dude. >> William Fowler - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:43:23 EST Iarb3bdT No.57277 Reply You were a remote-controlled animatronic silicone muppet for decades, but a pretty good mascot and an excellent rapper.
>> William Hartmann - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:04:12 EST eygzYfFg No.57238 Reply His absurd in-mental astrophysics simulations will be missed. Rest in peace dude, you deserve it.
>> William Fowler - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:43:23 EST Iarb3bdT No.57277 Reply You were a remote-controlled animatronic silicone muppet for decades, but a pretty good mascot and an excellent rapper.
Fucking ECLIPSE thread! View Thread Reply Hide Irwin Shapiro - Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:50:15 EST KgS57XEk No.57006 File: 1503258615031.jpg -(263261B / 257.09KB, 1932x1932) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. ECLIPSE THREAD MOFOS!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! 6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Annie Cannon - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:09:30 EST 2C/bTB2T No.57134 Reply >>57011Also viewed in Casper, WY >> Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 20:06:44 EST 87P+p9li No.57275 Reply >>57006I saw it. >> Mike Brown - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:41:41 EST Wv34DROU No.57276 Reply i seent it
>> Annie Cannon - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:09:30 EST 2C/bTB2T No.57134 Reply >>57011Also viewed in Casper, WY
Intergalactic Electromagnetism View Thread Reply Hide Bruon Rossi - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 06:53:57 EST tC4KRASE No.57199 File: 1518954837151.gif -(2096340B / 2.00MB, 400x354) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Hey /sagan/,Quick question for y'all. Currently we observe the universe to be expanding at an accelerating rate and no equations can account for the force behind this since all scientists tend to be looking at gravity alone. However, the electromagnetic force is something like 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, and has the same inverse relationship to the square of the distance between the objects, meaning even at vast cosmic distances it should still be relevant, in fact MORE relevant, than gravity.Maybe instead of "dark energy" it is simply the electromagnetic repulsion between galaxies who all gained like charges through the big bang or whatever and they simply move apart like two protons would?Has this theory been debunked or seriously investigated? 12 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Karl Jansky - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:21:30 EST PAGBpgJc No.57220 Reply 1519960890192.gif -(747912B / 730.38KB, 300x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57199Inflation theory doesn't say that stuff in the universe is moving away from each other, rather that the space-time where the stuff resides is expanding, giving the red shifted appearance of most celestial objects. I'm not sure where you got the gravity thing from, as it's not really coming into play. >> Thomas Henderson - Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:30:53 EST eygzYfFg No.57240 Reply Place your bets dudes and dudettes.Dark energy is:1) something we haven't discovered yet2) an error in our understanding of physics3) cthulhu ftaghn ia ia ia ia tekeli >> Rudolph Minkowski - Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:41:19 EST oI9ZFXsB No.57273 Reply >>57240Those aren't mutually exclusive.
>> Karl Jansky - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:21:30 EST PAGBpgJc No.57220 Reply 1519960890192.gif -(747912B / 730.38KB, 300x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57199Inflation theory doesn't say that stuff in the universe is moving away from each other, rather that the space-time where the stuff resides is expanding, giving the red shifted appearance of most celestial objects. I'm not sure where you got the gravity thing from, as it's not really coming into play.
>> Thomas Henderson - Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:30:53 EST eygzYfFg No.57240 Reply Place your bets dudes and dudettes.Dark energy is:1) something we haven't discovered yet2) an error in our understanding of physics3) cthulhu ftaghn ia ia ia ia tekeli
>> Rudolph Minkowski - Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:41:19 EST oI9ZFXsB No.57273 Reply >>57240Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Red Dwarf ayy lmaos View Thread Reply Hide William Hartmann - Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:34:12 EST y3vStdZD No.57154 File: 1516041252879.jpg -(66050B / 64.50KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systemsDiscuss 10 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read. >> Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:18:11 EST 4uIlxD// No.57190 Reply >>57154I feel like if life developed on any planet it would spread and adapt to all envitonments.Imagine a planet with three wildly divergent patterns, in the hot, twilight, and dark sides. Any intelligent ayyylmaos would want to access resources from the other zones, the technology and methods developed to survive and colonize the opposite side of their planet would translate well to space travel. The history of the conquest of their own planet would be fascinating.What would it do to a society to have half the planet living in hostile conditions? What if two separate races descended from entirely different trunks of an evolutionary tree that branched in the microbial era became sapient separately, isolated from each other by their wildly different environments? >> Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:30:08 EST 4uIlxD// No.57191 Reply >>57167Jupiter has a magnetic field from its metallic hydrogen core. Gas giant's have moons big enough to hold an atmosphere, and the tidal forces from orbiting close to a gas giant have been observed to create geologic and weather activity.Could Jupiter sized gas giant's exist close enough to a gas dwarf to be warm enough to evolve life? Would the magnetic field of such a hypothetical gas giant protect its moons?Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth life, Earth life even uses proteins to store the information that makes evolution possible.Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation? >> Viktor Ambartsumian - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 03:10:20 EST m3P6k9jA No.57193 Reply 1518682220337.gif -(45588B / 44.52KB, 640x452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57191>Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth lifeIn the beginning, it hated oxygen because it oxidized proteins. It's not inconceivable that carbon-based life in in an environment with ionizing radiation could adapt to mitigate the damage and use the energy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus>Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?All molecules are, under a few feet of water.
>> Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:18:11 EST 4uIlxD// No.57190 Reply >>57154I feel like if life developed on any planet it would spread and adapt to all envitonments.Imagine a planet with three wildly divergent patterns, in the hot, twilight, and dark sides. Any intelligent ayyylmaos would want to access resources from the other zones, the technology and methods developed to survive and colonize the opposite side of their planet would translate well to space travel. The history of the conquest of their own planet would be fascinating.What would it do to a society to have half the planet living in hostile conditions? What if two separate races descended from entirely different trunks of an evolutionary tree that branched in the microbial era became sapient separately, isolated from each other by their wildly different environments?
>> Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:30:08 EST 4uIlxD// No.57191 Reply >>57167Jupiter has a magnetic field from its metallic hydrogen core. Gas giant's have moons big enough to hold an atmosphere, and the tidal forces from orbiting close to a gas giant have been observed to create geologic and weather activity.Could Jupiter sized gas giant's exist close enough to a gas dwarf to be warm enough to evolve life? Would the magnetic field of such a hypothetical gas giant protect its moons?Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth life, Earth life even uses proteins to store the information that makes evolution possible.Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?
>> Viktor Ambartsumian - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 03:10:20 EST m3P6k9jA No.57193 Reply 1518682220337.gif -(45588B / 44.52KB, 640x452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>57191>Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth lifeIn the beginning, it hated oxygen because it oxidized proteins. It's not inconceivable that carbon-based life in in an environment with ionizing radiation could adapt to mitigate the damage and use the energy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus>Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?All molecules are, under a few feet of water.
