Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[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
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated April 10)
Fermi Paradox... why? Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Henrietta Levitt - Thu, 22 May 2014 00:54:34 EST ID:ILYTISHs No.53812
File: 1400734474447.png -(111524B / 108.91KB, 400x325) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111524
Another thread made me start thinking about this. The Fermi Paradox states (thanks, Wikipedia):

>The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
>Some of these stars probably have Earth-like planets which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
>Presumably, some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now, such as that used in the proposed 100 Year Starship;
>At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

If that's the case, why haven't we been colonized already, or at least seen evidence of intelligent life somewhere in our galaxy?

My take: either A) Life takes a long time to develop, and somehow, improbably, we're the first planet to develop an intelligent civilization in our galaxy, or at least one of the first. We don't see anyone else because there isn't anyone else to see... yet, or we're all still too far apart.

Or b) Given the size and composition constraints of a planet able to foster and sustain life (as far as we know, "habitable zone," big enough to have an atmosphere, small enough to still be rocky, etc.) and continue long enough for said life to begin to explore the galaxy, the home planet simply runs out of resources before meaningful headway can be made. I think this is more of a slow-death kind of thing where maybe we get to do some exploration within the solar system and maybe a bit beyond for a while, but overpopulation, war, disease, famine, and whatever else causes us to realign our priorities from space exploration to merely sustaining life on our own planet. A civilization that had the foresight to know something like that was happening could theoretically, if they had the goal of galactic expansion from the start, avoid this situation, but the problem is that NO civilization has that kind of 10,000 year plan from the get-go, and they all sputter out right before they could have pulled it off. There's not a textbook on "how to succeed as a species" that gets handed out to a life form when it develops self-awareness, so following the natural progression, they all fail. the ability to extract resources necessary for galactic colonization from anywhere off-planet becomes viable too late in the game to save the species.

tl;dr - We're all gonna die, prolly. Thoughts?
332 posts and 78 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Edwin Salpeter - Tue, 21 May 2019 04:20:14 EST ID:+jtol4RH No.57722 Ignore Report Reply
1558426814338.jpg -(67361B / 65.78KB, 984x722) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57548
There are much better ways of harvesting a star's energy than strip mining entire planets to build a giant sphere of basically solar panels around it like a retard. Of course at that point you might as well just be switching to something like antimatter reactions or harvesting gravity.

I never understood why people took the concept of Dyson spheres seriously. It was always just supposed to be a thought experiment, not some kind of an actual technical achievement, besides which how are you even to transmit that energy? Are you planning to just move your whole civilization to live on the outside of the sphere? and so on. Simply the energy involved in building the stupid fucking thing would outstrip to a large degree the practical utility you'd ever likely get out of it. It'd make more sense to create reactions with anti-particles or some form of energy we don't even know about yet or more efficiently breaking down and converting matter to energy at the quantum level.

Seeing people talk about Dyson spheres reminds me of a bunch of 17th century pseudo-intellectuals talking about theoretical highly advanced civilizations that can achieve the level of harvesting all the wind in the world to power their sails, and then some fools wandering around thinking that in the future someone will have one giant world spanning piece of fabric to harness all the world's wind energy.
>>
John Bahcall - Tue, 21 May 2019 17:15:20 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57725 Ignore Report Reply
>>57722
Well, obviously Dyson spheres are hugely speculative. No one ever posited them as a serious engineering project, but there's still a lot of usefulness to the idea and a civilization that was close to the level of being able to achieve it would probably be able to see a lot more of its inherent utility.
>>Are you planning to just move your whole civilization to live on the outside of the sphere?
Presumably, any civilization advanced enough to do with would be non-biological, but the original idea was for human-like life. If the radius of the sphere is the same as the radius of earth's orbit, then surface radiation on the sphere would be the same as on earth (provided it had the same sorts of electromagnetic barriers) so there's no reason biologics couldn't live on the inner surface.
>>Simply the energy involved in building the stupid fucking thing would outstrip to a large degree the practical utility you'd ever likely get out of it.
Well, a civilization that had materials with the necessary tensile strength almost certainly has advanced nanotechnology, which would allow construction of anything at pretty much the bargain-basement level of energy cost. Also, such a thing would only be built by a civilization with an extremely long-term perspective. It would probably take hundreds of thousands of years to build the thing, but any civilization that could do that certainly would have the wherewithal to operate it for perhaps millions of years, which would certainly see a large energy ROI.
>>It'd make more sense to create reactions with anti-particles or some form of energy we don't even know about yet
That would be awesome, but what if it turns out there isn't anything else? Nature isn't obliged to continually provide us with more and more efficient forms of energy. On that note:
>>more efficiently breaking down and converting matter to energy at the quantum level.
That's what a star already does. It may turn out that there really is no more efficient way to do it than with trillions of gigatons of mass crashing down on each other, in which case a Dyson sphere is one of the optimal types of 'matter-energy conversion reactor power generators.'
>>will have one giant world spanning piece of fabric to harness all the world's wind energy.
And yet wind energy is now a more important part of the energy budget of our civilization than ever. People from hundreds of years ago didn't have the knowledge to figure out how, but they did have enough to figure out that there was something to get there. We're in a similar position, and likewise most of our ideas about total star energy collection would look pretty foolish to a civilization that could actually do it. But it doesn't invalidate the underlying idea that was really Dyson's innovation; that we know there is a something-to-get there now, and we can use the principles of engineering to incrementally figure out how to get it.
>>
Viktor Ambartsumian - Wed, 22 May 2019 19:03:30 EST ID:izGRJ+VN No.57726 Ignore Report Reply
>>57722
>Seeing people talk about Dyson spheres reminds me of a bunch of 17th century pseudo-intellectuals talking about theoretical highly advanced civilizations that can achieve the level of harvesting all the wind in the world to power their sails, and then some fools wandering around thinking that in the future someone will have one giant world spanning piece of fabric to harness all the world's wind energy.

That's a funny analogy but it's flawed and you know it. In contrast to the analogy (which to my knowledge was never actually proposed ever) building a dyson swarm is not only feasible but requires no high tech, just persistence.

Also a dyson swarm isn't something you aim to build, it's something you end up with. Think of a dyson swarm not as something like the great wall of china, but Shenzen, NYC or Tokyo.
You continue to build space habitats and build them in an orbit that lets you get enough energy to run them. And there are plenty of reasons of why to use solar energy in space even if you have fusion.


WTF is up with barred spirals? Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Jan Hendrik Oort - Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:16:58 EST ID:aGo2dCNY No.57596
File: 1553393818527.jpg -(6845831B / 6.53MB, 6637x3787) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6845831
Why did all of the material in those two spiral arms lose all of their angular momentum and head for the core at the same time? I bet those two hard right turns those arms tax are separated by 15-20kpc. Since so many galaxies do this, whatever is happening to this one must be pretty common.
Also check out all those galaxies buried in the background, there must be some kinda awesome galaxy cluster back there.
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Johannes Kepler - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:46:19 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57713 Ignore Report Reply
1558381579047.png -(10359B / 10.12KB, 265x430) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57618
We don't know that the hubble constant is 68 mps/kpc. It could be any of the values in this image. Recent, more accurate surveys have removed the shared margin of error space between the cepheid method and the redshift method, which seems to be the main force pushing astrophysics in a direction more critical of LCDM recently. But, nothing about it has been resolved, most especially the value of the hubble constant. The most important question now is why there are apparently different values of the constant at different points in the past, or to explain some other mechanism for these data.
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Tue, 21 May 2019 01:55:12 EST ID:qv1adCLC No.57716 Ignore Report Reply
>>57713
Why are you so positive that the Hubble constant isn't just an observational effect? maybe its all just in your imagination. Why is it a constant anyway? Shouldn't it be variable over time? Maybe the universe is static, but there are expanding and contacting parts and we happen to be in an expanding part at the moment, but in 3 billion years maybe the sky will look different?
>>
John Bahcall - Tue, 21 May 2019 17:02:19 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57724 Ignore Report Reply
>>57716
>>Why are you so positive that the Hubble constant isn't just an observational effect?
I'm not positive, except about the fact that I nor anyone else really knows. I'm positive I don't know that whether or not it's an observational effect, just like I'm positive no one else knows either.
>>maybe its all just in your imagination.
Well, no, because it's an empirically measurable effect. There must be some physical explanation for that phenomena. Also, the WMAP doesn't exist in my imagination, so there must be some explanation for its data, even if it turns out not to be LCDM.
>>Why is it a constant anyway?
Cause that's what we call a figure in an equation that apparently has a 'constant' value. If hubble's constant truly has a fluctuating value, it would require major refinements to hubble's law and the rest of physics.
>>Shouldn't it be variable over time?
Well, maybe. That's certainly what the present data suggest, but since we don't understand the mechanism of that change, we don't know if it's a real phenomena or, like you suggest, an observational effect. So we simply can't know with the data we have.
>>Maybe the universe is static, but there are expanding and contacting parts and we happen to be in an expanding part at the moment, but in 3 billion years maybe the sky will look different?
Yeah, maybe, man. But how are we gonna test that idea? You see how that is the real root of the problem?


Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Otto Struve - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:12:35 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57290
File: 1528413155979.jpg -(198462B / 193.81KB, 945x945) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 198462
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/mars-organic-compounds-methane-curiosity-space-science/

>Two landmark discoveries reveal organic carbon on the red planet, shaping the future hunt for life on Mars.

I'm scared guys. This could mean life is common in the universe, which means the Great Filter is ahead of us instead of behind us.

😰😰😰😰😰

Then again, maybe this can show us the Great Filter is already behind us but when it comes to cosmic horror, I'm a half-empty kinda guy.
37 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Tycho Brahe - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:26:49 EST ID:9YXtXzja No.57710 Ignore Report Reply
>>57706
This is why I find it infuriating that so called academics, think it's impossible that there was an age that had iron working in the far past.
>>
Johannes Kepler - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:52:39 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57714 Ignore Report Reply
1558381959047.jpg -(91225B / 89.09KB, 800x683) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Uhm...
1.) Fossils we don't have. Even if all metal turned to dust there would still be fossilized remnants of any civilization.
2.) Other fossils we don't have. There are no species in the fossil record that had the anatomy to build technology before humans (arguably some of the other hominids.) So if we're positing a pre-human civilization, what animal are we talking about?
3.) Fossils/artifacts we do have. If we're talking about a prior civilization in human pre-history, well, we have evidence of the 'technology' of the earliest hominids. If it survived, why wouldn't evidence of the more advanced technology survive, as well as all the steps the technology would have to take in between?
>>
Edwin Salpeter - Tue, 21 May 2019 04:09:35 EST ID:+jtol4RH No.57721 Ignore Report Reply
>>57706
I am well aware of that and you do not understand what I am saying here. Many stoneworks would persist for many thousands of years here. In 100 million years even if we disappeared right now there would still be a mysterious sedimentary explosion of plastic deposits in the geological record. I mean that Venus itself is such a blasted landscapes not even that would exist because also last I read most of it was subducted too so a lot of the fossil record would also be obliterated.
https://topex.ucsd.edu/venus/papers/065_Fowler_JGR_1996.pdf
But, idk enough about that, or how a fierce enough runaway greenhouse effect could theoretically eventually impact things like plate tectonics here. Point being, Venus is so harsh I'm not even sure there'd be much of a fossil record or how you could even attempt to retrieve a sample of it without destroying it in the process by being exposed to environment. Also I hadn't realized it wasn't hot enough to melt rock. Thought I remembered it was for some reason. It's also just more horrifying because it would both sterilize the planet and leave no real record.


Evidence of Life on Mars? Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Edward Pickering - Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:04:17 EST ID:sojeXM9D No.57606
File: 1553511857280.jpg -(163544B / 159.71KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 163544
http://journalofastrobiology.com/Mars5.html
29 posts and 9 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Tue, 21 May 2019 02:14:16 EST ID:hk6dUEp3 No.57719 Ignore Report Reply
Why would any egirl like her or me need to prove herself to some skeptical e-virgin who's too beta to even trade with a dick pic? I could care less if you think I'm a man, that's no way to make a gal feel playful and just makes me think you're desperate. It's more fun for me to send nudes to people who don't ask.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Tue, 21 May 2019 02:18:40 EST ID:hk6dUEp3 No.57720 Ignore Report Reply
>>57715
>>57704
Just ignore the incels sis. No man worthy of lewds would be so insecure that he wastes time online claiming we women don't exist.
>>
John Bahcall - Tue, 21 May 2019 16:54:31 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57723 Ignore Report Reply
Here's another reason to not post nudes: this is a work-safe board and it's topic is space and astrophysics. Anything else is off-topic. It's significant that the people who were harping about how 'lol you don't wanna dabate me in science u can't handle it' now mostly care about e-penis measuring and repeating a meme from 2005.


zOMG it spins! Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Caroline Herschel - Thu, 21 Mar 2019 02:08:39 EST ID:aGo2dCNY No.57582
File: 1553148519011.png -(16747B / 16.35KB, 710x420) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 16747
lets say you were somewhat nearby a rapidly rotating neutron star such that the star's diameter was a significant portion of the distance from the star. Would the star's effective center of gravity be offset towards the approaching limb because of the relative velocities and redshifts of the approaching side versus the retreating one?
If its real, how significant would the effect be? Does the effect imply that the gravity well isn't symmetrical?
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Jacob Kapteyn - Mon, 01 Apr 2019 23:40:44 EST ID:aGo2dCNY No.57626 Ignore Report Reply
1554176444337.jpg -(45036B / 43.98KB, 322x322) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57620
>>
Russel Hulse - Tue, 14 May 2019 06:34:48 EST ID:MDsFoX52 No.57701 Ignore Report Reply
>>57591
But gravity isn't spherical.
>>
William Hartmann - Tue, 14 May 2019 17:38:07 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57702 Ignore Report Reply
>>57701
Mhm. That's why I said
>>We model gravity based around a sphere with a radius...
>> ...but this is a simplification


Black hole sun Won't you come And wash away the rain Black hole sun Won't you come Won't you come Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Henry Draper - Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:58 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57629
File: 1554907258327.jpg -(66184B / 64.63KB, 1600x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 66184
These absolutely crazy mofos did it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47873592

They took a picture of the universe's asshole. WTF mate, the amount of data they had to collect is just mindboggling.
24 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Nicolaus Copernicus - Thu, 09 May 2019 04:08:03 EST ID:PkLJZC5m No.57688 Ignore Report Reply
>>57683
Maybe because it isn't saturn and it's 50 million light years away?
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Thu, 09 May 2019 16:55:29 EST ID:kZncG2o1 No.57691 Ignore Report Reply
>>57688
Don’t use such big numbers I still get scared from getting too emotional
>>
George Airy - Tue, 14 May 2019 06:23:12 EST ID:PkLJZC5m No.57700 Ignore Report Reply
>>57691
wat?


Space is genuinely terrifying and I love it. Ignore Report View Thread Reply
James Randi - Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:35:50 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57550
File: 1551792950052.jpg -(112303B / 109.67KB, 900x666) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 112303
I was listening to an episode of "The last podcast on the left". They were talking about the WOW signal.
If you aren't familiar LPOTL is a bit like coast to coast AM but hosted by some guys who are actual skeptics and fun. So some of this may not be accurate but its fun to think about.

They were saying that if it was anything intelligent broadcasting that we only got a snippit of the message because at the time scans of the sky were limited to rotation of the earth (they used the number 72 seconds but i have a feeling that was an approximation), then later when the location of the signals point of origin was found it was a region of space with no stars or really any thing at all.

The hosts speculated also if it was intelligent due it being in that really empty place in space and then we never saw it there again, it's likely the sender were simply in transit some where and we picked up some distant comunicqae of a "passing ship i nthe night".


although its like 900% more likley to be random noise or a misinterpreted signal from earth/[%]
Thats so wonderful and creepy at the same time.
It gets my dick rock hard
8 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:21:16 EST ID:oHQwJ+8C No.57663 Ignore Report Reply
>>57642
I agree
>>
Alan Guth - Tue, 07 May 2019 00:53:29 EST ID:VXVyTSl5 No.57680 Ignore Report Reply
>>57550
might be drugs but I am pretty dang sure in the existence of alien life after seeing three circular pods bending spacetime. Lol drugs
>>
James Randi - Sat, 11 May 2019 16:38:32 EST ID:BtqvtkKp No.57697 Ignore Report Reply
>>57642
I am sure some one has.


dark matter & string theory Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Irwin Shapiro - Sun, 24 Mar 2019 17:45:09 EST ID:DGSw25sg No.57599
File: 1553463909536.png -(1111416B / 1.06MB, 891x882) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1111416
lets talk about it.
24 posts and 7 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Alan Guth - Tue, 07 May 2019 00:51:11 EST ID:VXVyTSl5 No.57679 Ignore Report Reply
>>57599
I think string theory is just an explanation of relativity and doing so puts our universe in an understandable gird pattern for easy mathematics. I think dark matter creates white holes which add matter to the universe while regular matter creates black holes and vice versa. I think expansion and heat death are real but so is the yet to be understood/discovered white hole.
>>
Fred Whipple - Tue, 07 May 2019 08:28:59 EST ID:izGRJ+VN No.57684 Ignore Report Reply
>>57678
Did you miss my post where I did speculate how to verify the effect of dark matter on Andromeda using amateur equipment?
Granted that was just one sentence, and most of my posts dealt with rebuking your ramblings. So do I pull down the quality of this thread by responding to you?
I guess... guilty.

But how about it: Post some of your theories regarding the topic, what you think what is actually going on not what do think is wrong, post what you think is right.
>>
Joseph Lockyer - Wed, 08 May 2019 01:23:11 EST ID:aGo2dCNY No.57685 Ignore Report Reply
>>57684
cool story bro


NSFW PICS ITT Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Joseph Lockyer - Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:14:59 EST ID:aGo2dCNY No.57605
File: 1553487299164.jpg -(913441B / 892.03KB, 1027x1027) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 913441
galaxies fucking
>>
Edwin Salpeter - Wed, 27 Mar 2019 20:02:57 EST ID:WgUmKU+A No.57619 Ignore Report Reply
>>57605
doggystyle, I like it
>>
Karl von Weizsacker - Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:43:59 EST ID:izGRJ+VN No.57622 Ignore Report Reply
> passing through each other several times and eventually merging into a massive spherical orb

seems epic doesn't it?
>>
Allan Sandage - Thu, 28 Mar 2019 18:11:33 EST ID:3VIsfVg3 No.57623 Ignore Report Reply
>>57622
HNNNG say that again slut


high redshift mirrors Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Grote Reuber - Wed, 06 Mar 2019 13:31:08 EST ID:wIGiff+l No.57553
File: 1551897068878.jpg -(342947B / 334.91KB, 1000x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 342947
lets say you were able to place a mirror in space out at such a distance that the mirror experience cosmological redshift from your perspective. If you were to shoot a laser beam of some wavelength at the mirror then the light reflecting off the mirror would be a longer wavelength than the originating laser because of the relativistic doppler effect.
what wavelength would the light be when it got back to you after bouncing off the mirror? would it be the original wavelength or would it be redshifted?
if its not the original wavelength then how was energy conserved?
7 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 07:34:25 EST ID:izGRJ+VN No.57577 Ignore Report Reply
>>57575
I don't think there is any information lost from redshift. It's the underlying space that is expanded during redshit, not the lightwave itself.
If you are in a reference frame that negates that expansion, you get exactly the "original" wavelength.

So I think this "relativistic reference frame" telescope would theoretically work.
There are some practical considerations though:
Pointing a telescope in the direction of travel means it is exposed to all the interstellar dust.
So you maybe need a vanguard of other ships that absorb it so it doesn't wreck you instruments.
Apart from that I think we could actually calculate if it's feasible to move that fast at all, drag of the interstellar medium becomes significant once you hit a considerable fraction of c.
>>
Charles Bolton - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:11:02 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57578 Ignore Report Reply
>>57577
In star trek sci fi shows they use electromagnetic fields to control interstellar dust. Could it be simple as ionizing the telescope? Also, though it would negate some of the benefits of having a large aperture to observe large wavelengths, if the telescope was quite small it might be possible for it to exist entirely within the bowshock of a forward facing shield. Would limit its field of view, but directly forward objects might not be the ideal candidates anyway because of the blueshift thing.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 05:55:06 EST ID:4o5sH+7r No.57579 Ignore Report Reply
>>57577
>Pointing a telescope in the direction of travel means it is exposed to all the interstellar dust.
destroy everything in your path using the power of relativistic beaming


Cartoons are not proof of reality. NASA is lying to you. Locked Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Annie Cannon - Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:07:18 EST ID:IqZLNWNv No.57557
File: 1551949638680.png -(433910B / 423.74KB, 752x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 433910
>Look at every post on this page.
ALL CGI and CARTOONS, no real images of Earth or anything from over 100 miles high. BIG RED FLAG.

>NASA and affiliated agencies have not been to space.
>Nobody has ever been over 100 miles high.
>Physics demonstrates to us that's as high as anything can go - which is why all images from over 100 miles up, are CARTOONS.
IT ain't rocket science ya know...


>The implication here, is that you were lied to as a child by government agencies and told you lived on a ball shaped Earth with no exit... A prison planet.
>You were born into a Jew run slave labor colony, and fed bullshit as you grew up.
It is not your fault.
>Jesus and God are not real. Evolution is bullshit, Globe Earth is a cartoon, and the Big Bang theory was created by a catholic priest.

If you are a science minded person, understand the ball shaped potato Earth is not real, it is bullshit, and does not exist in the real world outside of bogus math equations and cartoons.
Locked
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: Mintzs
Reason: please take stupid conspiracy theories to /tinfoil/
8 posts and 8 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Annie Cannon - Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:23:56 EST ID:IqZLNWNv No.57566 Ignore Report Reply
1551950636680.jpg -(49305B / 48.15KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Great channel to learn about the REAL Earth you live upon.
>Science only. Pure science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8EdDxyNqmg
>>
Annie Cannon - Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:25:35 EST ID:IqZLNWNv No.57567 Ignore Report Reply
1551950735680.jpg -(61023B / 59.59KB, 480x497) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

>200 Proofs Earth is not a spinning ball.
>>
Annie Cannon - Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:27:52 EST ID:IqZLNWNv No.57568 Ignore Report Reply
1551950872680.jpg -(191330B / 186.85KB, 960x742) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet.
“If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation.

If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute.

On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane.

It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all.

It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”


Gravitons Ignore Report View Thread Reply
George Gamow - Thu, 21 Feb 2019 04:17:57 EST ID:5UfVWq6v No.57539
File: 1550740677849.jpg -(7043B / 6.88KB, 300x168) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7043
While we were all out I was wondering about gravitons. If they're analogues of photons in a sense then gravitons should exist in a spectrum like photons, etc. Our ability to manipulate and understand the photon is pretty miraculous, but how would something like a prism for gravitons work? Prisms function with light because the speed of light in the medium is different than it is outside, what is there that could change the speed of a graviton or reflect it?
4 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
George Gamow - Fri, 01 Mar 2019 15:11:37 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57547 Ignore Report Reply
>>57546
You're pointing out the intellectual poverty on a meta-theoretic level of standard cosmology, and I think for some people that's so obvious as to not need statement, but most rank-and-file academics and science-literate people are still wholly convinced that LCDM has everything figured out, which is why we're stuck where we are. I think the reason you're seeing such a marked uptick in hangwringing over LCDM in the literature is precisely because the 'average' physicist has been exposed to these realities long enough to realize just how little ground they cover, and for just how long science is willing to wander into blind alleys, and are now figuring out how to communicate that to the faithful masses. Actually making a fundamental revolution in theory on the order you're suggesting (something that could recontextualize relativity) would create a shockwave in world affairs just as severe as Einstein's discovery did. So I would suggest it's not just that science has become dogmatic, or that scientists and people in general are buried under waves of distraction (which were all, incidentally, made possible by the scientific breakthroughs of the previous generation) but that the broader socio-cultural conditions aren't favorable to another drastic change. There are plenty of people who have alternative concepts, but it isn't in the zeitgeist to take them seriously, especially during the process of the breakdown of the current zeitgeist whose intellectual foundations lie in the previous wave of discovery.

So what I'm really saying is, wait 20 years. Breakthrough does not come out of comfort and distraction, it comes out of strife on the edge of oblivion. Einstein came up with relativity in a filthy trench under artillery bombardment -- and don't think that European academia's willingness to jettison the luminiferous aether in the face of relativity had nothing to do with national spirits broken by adherence to the previous centuries' failed philosophies and perspectives.

Democritus came up with the atom and Alexander of Hero came up with the steam engine thousands of years before either would become accepted and used, and not because of any particular flaw in their inventions, but because the broader social conditions were not favorable to an intellectual/cultural revolution at that time. So it is now for any bright physicist trying to find the holes in the standard model; only just now is the bulk of the science responding to the reality that a few luminaries could probably have told you in 1950: we're heading into a dead end. In 20 years a new generation will have come up with the failure of LCDM as their base view, and the time might be right for a change.

One last thing--
>>maybe the mass is emitting space.
Would this be observationally different than a curved space? Not saying you're wrong, but maybe you're just expressing a different way of verbalizing the exact same concept. If there is 'more' space in the same volume of space (the distance between point A and an egg and point A and a neutron star the size of the egg are the same, so a sphere with their centers at its circumference would have the same volume regardless of either's mass) then how could 'space' fit more 'space' in itself other than by curling it up/curving it? In fact I think that's a pretty succinct way of describing what's going on with gravity.
>>
Thomas Henderson - Sat, 02 Mar 2019 02:52:25 EST ID:aGo2dCNY No.57549 Ignore Report Reply
>>57547
All of what your wrote about societal unwillingness to accept new discoveries rings true even if does seem so stupid. Greeks could've had steamships, but they were already satisfied with what they had? Oh well, too bad for them I guess.
The Wright brother's invention wasn't acknowledged by the general public until years after they'd been flying.

The idea of space or time being created beyond the event horizon must be a retarded alternative explanation for the apparent expansion of the universe given that it takes place beyond the event horizon, I just pulled that one of out my ass when I was wondering what happens at the bottom of a gravity well when it changes from being part of the curvature to the XYZ plane into being a hole with sides that are nearly or eventually perpendicular to the XYZ plane.
>>
Tycho Brahe - Mon, 20 May 2019 15:32:11 EST ID:9YXtXzja No.57712 Ignore Report Reply
>>57539
There is no such thing as a graviton.


Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy: Home? Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Arthur Eddington - Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:25:45 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57470
File: 1539987945247.jpg -(20518B / 20.04KB, 485x313) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20518
>>original article
http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html
>>rebuttal
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/#.W8pUPmhKiUk

Quick rundown of the findings, which are earth-shattering if fully true, and still quite interesting if only partially true: our galaxy is orbited by a smaller spheroidal dwarf galaxy currently visible within the constellation Sagittarius. For hundreds of millions of years, it has been orbiting in a perpendicular orbit after having been pulled into the Milky Way's gravity, having stars pulled off of it each time it passes through the galactic disk, to the point now where it is very small, faint, and nearly at the point of losing gravitational cohesion. You can see a visualization of the stream of radiation left by the galaxy astronomers used to determine its path in the pic.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

It just so happens that Sol is directly within this stream of debris. For 99.9% of our orbit around the galaxy, we wouldn't be within that stream. Also, incidentally, we are at an angle to the plane of the galaxy, which was always thought a little bit odd, since most stars planetary orbital plane is parallel to the galactic plane since during accretion their accretion disks are subject to inertial forces from the star's orbit around the galaxy.

Given the extreme odds of us just happening to be within that stream, it would seem to suggest that Sol itself is native to the dwarf, having been pulled out on the dwarf's last passage through the galactic plane.

Implications:
-The period of the dwarf's orbit is around 200 million years. It is roughly 25% of the way through its orbit counting from our position in the galactic plane, which means we would have been caught by the Milky Way about 50 million years ago. The last time we passed through the plane before that, presumably still gravitationally bound to the dwarf, would have been 150 million years ago.
-Incidentally, these numbers roughly coincide with major extinction events on earth, presumably because the gravitational disruption of passing through the galactic plane would disturb the Oort cloud and send high levels of asteroids into the inner system.
-If this is true, the Drake equation is completely bunk, since we have assumed that earth was native to the Milky Way in making our estimates about life.
-Radiation levels in the dwarf are much, much lower than in the Milky Way. If this true, that means life developed on our planet under a condition of much lower radiation than we are currently experiencing. I don't need to tell you life and radiation don't get along, so this is a startling finding about the long-term future of life on earth (and indeed in the galaxy at large) if true.
-Higher galactic radiation would increase mean solar radiation, increasing damage to DNA among other effects. This could explain the sudden rise of mammals, as their more robust homeostatic systems could perhaps better deal with the heat increase. This would also explain why all the planets in the solar system -- not just earth -- are experiencing climatic shifts in a hotter direction before you get your panties in a bunch, we're talking about a period of warming that has been going on for at least 50 million+ years. It can't be used to explain anthropogenic climate change, which is still real

Problems:
-While I don't find the rebuttal wholly convincing (its argument about the plane of the solar system is misleading at best, as well as its argument about where we should find ourselves relative to the ring of debris -- at the very least, it's not the slam-dunk debunk the author tries to pretend it is) it does bring up the problem of the lower general metallicity of the dwarf galaxy's stars. However, we can't really estimate what the stellar population of the dwarf was when it first arrived, since so many stars have already been stripped off, so this doesn't tell us as much as you would think.

What are your thoughts /sagan/? Big if true, fascinating if false, or a bunch a bunk?
23 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Sun, 24 Feb 2019 05:52:39 EST ID:U4u72hWB No.57541 Ignore Report Reply
1551005559017.jpg -(562908B / 549.71KB, 1593x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57470
uneducated pleb here. would it be a good idea to strive for escaping back to the drawf galaxy assuming out system came from there? If this galaxy has higher radiation than that dwarf galaxy which supposedly we evolved from. 150 million years or so i the estimate for the transit that's with in our line of evolution isn't it? Then should we worry about an inevitable dead end in ou evolution or would we acclimate? Maybe escaping this galaxy would be a good idea esp if the fermi paradox is thrown right out the window giving the conditions here, who knows what the fuck lives here. But I'm more interested in our basic survival odds, not counting for the clockwork mass destruction events.

This some sci fi shit my dudes.
>>
Bernard Burke - Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:19:08 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57542 Ignore Report Reply
>>57541
These are all unknowns, however the suggestion I made in OP was that mammals kind of are life's 'adaptation' to the current environment. But I mean, if we're going to survive in the galaxy long term, being biological organisms prone to radiation makes us vulnerable in lots of other ways too. So it's best just to fix that.
Besides, the level of tech we would need to migrate to the dwarf is way higher than the level of tech we (or any other aliens) would need to become machines, so if this galaxy is indeed fatal to organic life, most civilizations would converge on that as the optimal solution I think.
>>
Johann Bode - Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:38:40 EST ID:rNBxnMOH No.57573 Ignore Report Reply
>>57541
OP's post sounds like a bunch of absolute hogwash and I cannot find any other sources for it than his own link which literally discusses things like bigfoot alongside this.
>Then should we worry about an inevitable dead end in ou evolution or would we acclimate?
No because we are currently living in a man made mass extinction event already caused in part but not entirely by climate change (the rest of the mass extinction is due to numerous other factors of human activity like 7 billion hungry mouths stripping the ocean of all sea life, completely eradicating entire species by hunting them to extinction like the Wooly Mammoth, and numerous factors from our reckless massively polluting and sharply expanding urban civilization). The amount of destruction on a global scale reminds me of a bacterial sheet. The human organism became out of whack and overcolonized its own petri dish. I think the current stage in humanity is ample evidence that intelligent technological civilizations are unlikely to ever be found because in the few instances where it happened it likely destroyed itself either wiping out the civilization or outright sterilizing much of the planet, and that is assuming these societies didn't do something really stupid like knock themselves out of orbit careening into the sun, creating a massive enough singularity to swallow their planet whole before evaporating, or any number of other scenarios in which case the actual planet itself no longer exists.

But as for now, what happens in millions of years is pretty fucking irrelevant to us when we're talking about things like climate change moving us towards ecological and societal collapse within the next hundred or two hundred years.


No flat earth thread? Ignore Report View Thread Reply
Jessica Tandy needs candy !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:21:02 EST ID:F2wgR3l2 No.57479
File: 1540855262478.jpg -(184582B / 180.26KB, 1200x674) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 184582
And before you ask /tinfoil/ is currently in the middle of forum sliding and if this it's treated as a serious topic then that's like saying climate to deniers are right

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ACN9iF8Jw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qkRnJutL5ko
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CGjFAe018oA

I have included counter arguments so that people can reach their own conclusions, it's hard to go against the grain and try to prove a point therefore

>It certainly is interesting to see the shift of focus in space programs from official government organisations to privately-run organisations. Whether or not that's a good thing will, of course, vary with your political views, but the ultimate outcome isn't much different. After all, corporations are driven by profit, not the pursuit of knowledge or truth.
>What is surprising, however, is the new generation of people shouting "It's true, I saw it on TV!" Except this time, it's the Internet. We have already witnessed the shortfalls of this blind belief in online materials; just consider recent US elections, the political Facebook campaigns in the UK, or the many fake-news sites run from countries like Macedonia.

In the days of Newton and Hailey there weren't dogmatic schools that tried to systemize learning. People were free to experiment and come up with theories, look at Faraday, the father of electricity. He was smart even though he didn't have a degree.

Basically universities are what the Catholic Church was back then (let's grow up no alter boy jokes please) in that they are dogmatic and have a reason to protect their source of money and funding.

I mean why was the Bush administration so keen on going to mars?
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Michael - Thu, 06 Dec 2018 23:38:20 EST ID:Q1CtxL06 No.57530 Ignore Report Reply
>>57514
apostrophes are an Illuminati conspiracy, get woke fool
>>
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Fri, 07 Dec 2018 16:17:18 EST ID:fA4CdeQA No.57532 Ignore Report Reply
>>57508

TRUTH! Have you ever seen the moon except in pictures? That's because it's all edited in by nasa. Aliens implanted false memories of seeing the moon. It's all a big conspiracy to keep the human race ignorant and in line.
>>
Jessica Tandy needs candy !!vVWR8L52 - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:55:57 EST ID:wlUjYsjb No.57538 Ignore Report Reply
No ones proved me wrong yet!

Wo wo we!

I recently thought why couldn't Earth be like an Age of Empires II map?


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.