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



View Thread Reply
- Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:50:46 EST rszf0FN0 No.56313
File: 1471485046285.gif -(869344B / 848.97KB, 200x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. EP=EPR
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
12 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Johannes Kepler - Sun, 28 Aug 2016 00:08:42 EST rszf0FN0 No.56333 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 rszf0FN0 No.56334 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 d5o+epTm No.56363 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...

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 26 May 2016 21:42:57 EST VjH9pXwP No.56190
File: 1464313377750.jpg -(328323B / 320.63KB, 960x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Forgive me but...
...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?
10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Paul Goldsmith - Thu, 18 Aug 2016 00:41:20 EST rszf0FN0 No.56316 Reply
But the actual value is less than the expected value, not more.
Fred Hoyle - Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:10:47 EST qyc9lsem No.56324 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 rszf0FN0 No.56325 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?)


View Thread Reply
- Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:47:51 EST hnyGB63L No.56176
File: 1461941271509.jpg -(73000B / 71.29KB, 680x992) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. FIRST
Which crime will be the first to occur in a non-Earth environment, rape or murder?
9 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Johann Encke - Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:52:13 EST YHjXylC8 No.56293 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 3t/weoS/ No.56295 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 KgKlYmGv No.56309 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 ?

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:40:57 EST a9VttgPi No.55637
File: 1440628857139.jpg -(94020B / 91.82KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Actual photo of earth ?
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 :) !
57 posts and 20 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
George Gamow - Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:39:14 EST tQX5ylFX No.56303 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 3t/weoS/ No.56304 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.

I love space

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 23 Jul 2016 05:42:59 EST p24Ges2t No.56286
File: 1469266979554.jpg -(3372909B / 3.22MB, 3069x3006) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. I love space
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.
3 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Walter Baade - Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:16:23 EST ma/jJXS2 No.56297 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 73EoqW+9 No.56298 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 tQX5ylFX No.56299 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.


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

its about space chill out mods
45 posts and 7 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 22:19:14 EST 9Jg5Dok5 No.55388 Reply
But it was marketed as "realistic" sci fi and people actually give it high notes on that merit alone

Edmond Halley - Wed, 27 Jul 2016 04:39:06 EST pjhpxsvC No.56294 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

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:11:48 EST nsJ3UhuK No.56285
File: 1469207508500.png -(11018B / 10.76KB, 798x294) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. microscopic telescope
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 aZptiHhB No.56287 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..?

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:07:05 EST ZvL5JrzH No.56129
File: 1458068825227.jpg -(11180B / 10.92KB, 236x197) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. First telescope..?
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)
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Edward Pickering - Mon, 06 Jun 2016 21:11:32 EST qdIfo3Zb No.56218 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 qdIfo3Zb No.56219 Reply

Well shit, picture looks worse on the computer than it does on my phone, but you can still make out the different colors.

Grey goo

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:30:57 EST ityObSKZ No.56249
File: 1466688657928.png -(609926B / 595.63KB, 700x991) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Grey goo
Do you think somewhere grey goo is destroying everything?
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Alan Guth - Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:18:56 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56253 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 sMBupno1 No.56254 Reply
goo cant melt steel beams
William Fowler - Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:20:28 EST x7oDvr/y No.56255 Reply
Your steel beams have been assimilated; all is goo, all is good.

Living Organisms as White Holes

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 04 Jun 2016 23:40:16 EST 6lTk9kB6 No.56212
File: 1465098016694.jpg -(880241B / 859.61KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Living Organisms as White Holes
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)
23 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Walter Adams - Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:16:50 EST AR+FDxN1 No.56245 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 3t/weoS/ No.56247 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 pjhpxsvC No.56248 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.

From the ISS

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:56:07 EST an1HFu9H No.56166
File: 1461779767539.webm [mp4] -(173569B / 169.50KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. From the ISS
I just came down to give you these /sagan/
6 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:06:00 EST YHjXylC8 No.56205 Reply
Why are they all perfectly looped?
Karl von Weizsacker - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 01:59:24 EST gk6gFOAI No.56210 Reply
1465019964368.jpg -(238017B / 232.44KB, 1600x661) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If you look closely it actually fades to the beginning of the clip just before it restarts. Pretty clever imo.

poll time

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:06:10 EST Zbe0PVOU No.54770
File: 1417925170232.jpg -(230832B / 225.42KB, 1471x1896) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. poll time
Do you pronounce it "yur anus" or "yuran us".
37 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Caroline Herschel - Sun, 29 May 2016 15:16:47 EST 66iQx6Zw No.56199 Reply
Your anus.

As in "I can see the ring around your anus"
Edward Barnard - Tue, 31 May 2016 13:07:46 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56201 Reply

I've heard it's more gasy than moist and nutty though.

Its happening!

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:21:04 EST zo6zX05v No.56151
File: 1460539264849.jpg -(207439B / 202.58KB, 950x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Its happening!
7 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:14:40 EST r6jFVsbC No.56163 Reply
Why would they need to? I think idea is more or less for a flyby.
Edward Pickering - Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:37:24 EST /CR0/A7p No.56175 Reply

But long term, this would be cheaper than combustion. This would also work for manned missions.

You'd have to start decelerating 50% of the way there, if they're doing both with lasers. But they'd probably just use combustion to decelerate, which would significantly reduce weight too. Since it's for stopping and not the initial thrust. So I think that might work.

I realize it works great if you're just sending things out, but why develop this huge and incredibly useful ability and just use it to send out a dozen more voyagers?

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