Page 1 of 4
#1
Omg, space.

So I just saw this awesome gif in another guy's thread that compared the solar system's planets up to the largest star known to man, and Jesus me it was incredible.

So I thought I'd make a thread about space and stuff. From expert astronomers to people that just look up at the stars sometimes and crap their pants at the feeling of being so insignificant can talk. I'd love to learn more about the universe, and theories about dimensions, and the stars, and loads of stuff that can make me feel tiny, and hopefully you guys would too.

Was on youtube and found this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Nodwb0vTU&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=069E10826CE12260
(vid on neutron stars)

If you drop a marshmallow onto said neutron star, the marshmallow will gather so much energy it's pretty much the same as an atomic bomb because the star is so incredibly dense, meaning the gravitational force is fucking huge. They are typically a few miles in diameter, and have the mass of the sun.

Post pics, vids, explanations, things that make your jaw drop, anything that you find interesting. Hopefully we'll learn about some really funky shizznizz.
Quote by WtrPlyr
Quote by alans056
Maybe the price tag is clouding your judgment ?
yeah probably. Or the circuits.
#2
I used to be absolutely obsessed with astronomy. Cool stuff.

If I wasn't half asleep, I'd recall some cool **** for you guys.
#4
Quote by crazy8rgood
I used to be absolutely obsessed with astronomy. Cool stuff.

+1

I'm going to study electrical engineering in the city where the european Space Agency is in october. I'm hyped!
Astronomy is the tits.
#5
I'm a big fan of time travel and wormholes, especially Schwarzschild wormholes (or Einstein-Rosen bridges)
"Most people are trying to simplify the world. We're definitely here to complicate it." - Dad
Quote by RocksAwakening5
I you for posting this.

<-- Pretty much sums me up

8/7/09


^ I was there
#6
Actually neutron stars would have a mass above the Chandresekhar limit which is ~1.35 Solar Masses. Semantics FTW!

The other amazing thing about them is that they're basically just gigantic atomic nuclei.
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██████████████████████
#7
Kxy care to tell us, link us etc to said wormholes?

Sorry, probably should have posted this in the morning, but I tend to forget things alot.

Come back tomorow? It'll be funnn... honest
Quote by WtrPlyr
Quote by alans056
Maybe the price tag is clouding your judgment ?
yeah probably. Or the circuits.
#8
Quote by PussyPunk182
Kxy care to tell us, link us etc to said wormholes?


Schwarzschild wormholes are, if memory serves, another name for Lorentzian wormholes, and they were briefly hypothesised to be wormholes that light could travel through to traverse massive distances due to their "fold in space-time" nature. It was proven that they'd be no way for them to be open for more than an infinitesimally small amount of time though, in the same way that tiny instantaneous blackholes can theoretically pop in and out of existence.
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██████████████████████
#9
Quote by Yakult
Schwarzschild wormholes are, if memory serves, another name for Lorentzian wormholes, and they were briefly hypothesised to be wormholes that light could travel through to traverse massive distances due to their "fold in space-time" nature. It was proven that they'd be no way for them to be open for more than an infinitesimally small amount of time though, in the same way that tiny instantaneous blackholes can theoretically pop in and out of existence.


Exactly

In lament terms...

ds^2= - c^2 dt^2 + dl^2 + (k^2 + l^2)(d \theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, d\phi^2).

^ That is an example of a traversable wormhole metric

EDIT: Also...

A wormhole could allow time travel. This could be accomplished by accelerating one end of the wormhole to a high velocity relative to the other, and then sometime later bringing it back; relativistic time dilation would result in the accelerated wormhole mouth aging less than the stationary one as seen by an external observer, similar to what is seen in the twin paradox. However, time connects differently through the wormhole than outside it, so that synchronized clocks at each mouth will remain synchronized to someone traveling through the wormhole itself, no matter how the mouths move around. This means that anything which entered the accelerated wormhole mouth would exit the stationary one at a point in time prior to its entry.

For example, consider two clocks at both mouths both showing the date as 2000. After being taken on a trip at relativistic velocities, the accelerated mouth is brought back to the same region as the stationary mouth with the accelerated mouth's clock reading 2005 while the stationary mouth's clock read 2010. A traveller who entered the accelerated mouth at this moment would exit the stationary mouth when its clock also read 2005, in the same region but now five years in the past. Such a configuration of wormholes would allow for a particle's world line to form a closed loop in spacetime, known as a closed timelike curve.
"Most people are trying to simplify the world. We're definitely here to complicate it." - Dad
Quote by RocksAwakening5
I you for posting this.

<-- Pretty much sums me up

8/7/09


^ I was there
Last edited by kxy1992 at Aug 9, 2009,
#10
Think about this. When you look up at the stars it takes some of those star's light billions of years to get here, thusly you're looking at something that happened billions of years ago. For all we know, God, presuming he exists, could have shut off all the stars, except for the sun, and it would be a few years before we knew. Does anyone know how many light years away the closest star is.

Edit: I wish I understood what the guy above me just said.
Last edited by cornmancer at Aug 9, 2009,
#11
Quote by kxy1992
Exactly

In lament terms...

ds^2= - c^2 dt^2 + dl^2 + (k^2 + l^2)(d \theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, d\phi^2).

^ That is an example of a traversable wormhole metric

EDIT: Also... *wikipedia copy*.

it looks complicated, but is idiotically simple.
#12
Quote by CoreysMonster
it looks complicated, but is idiotically simple.


I love wikipedia, it makes me sound smarter
"Most people are trying to simplify the world. We're definitely here to complicate it." - Dad
Quote by RocksAwakening5
I you for posting this.

<-- Pretty much sums me up

8/7/09


^ I was there
#13
Quote by PussyPunk182
Omg, space.

So I just saw this awesome gif in another guy's thread that compared the solar system's planets up to the largest star known to man, and Jesus me it was incredible.




Great thread. Space is just mind-boggling - it's so interesting!
My Last.fm
USA Fender Stratocaster | Roland Cube 60 | VOX ToneLab LE
#15
Quote by kxy1992
Exactly

In lament terms...

ds^2= - c^2 dt^2 + dl^2 + (k^2 + l^2)(d \theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, d\phi^2).

^ That is an example of a traversable wormhole metric

EDIT: Also...
*wiki stuff*


The equation's sound enough, but the actual practicalities are about as useful, and likely, as John Taylor's (he wrote the book Blackholes: The End of the Universe? , I'd recommend it) idea of harnessing groups of blackholes for limitless energy, if we're going to be honest.

Plus you'd have to throw a ****-load of negative-mass matter into the wormhole to stop it just eating itself.
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██████████████████████
#16
I remember reading in Quest that a thimble full of material from a neutron star would way more than the earth.....

I read Hawkings brief history of time, got as far as the particle rotation bit and quarks and stuff, then my head started hurting - really should finish it one day

40 years since we went to the moon though, if we had kept the cold war going we'd be on mars now...
EPILPSTDYamahaRBX100BassTanglewoodTW28/STRFenderchamp600CubaseStudio5Saffirepro40AlesisM1ActiveMKIIMAudioKeystation88RodeNT1AShureSM57KeeleyModTS9MackieMCUwww.myspace.com/cuthbertgriswald
#17
wwwoow. So if we could have wormholes open up for a suitable amount of time we could go back? Does anyone know what it's like between the two mouths?
Quote by WtrPlyr
Quote by alans056
Maybe the price tag is clouding your judgment ?
yeah probably. Or the circuits.
#18
Quote by cornmancer
Think about this. When you look up at the stars it takes some of those star's light billions of years to get here, thusly you're looking at something that happened billions of years ago. For all we know, God, presuming he exists, could have shut off all the stars, except for the sun, and it would be a few years before we knew. Does anyone know how many light years away the closest star is.

Edit: I wish I understood what the guy above me just said.


Aliens really far away could be watching Earth with a giant telescope right now and be seeing cavemen running around.

Quote by kayaress one


Sir, I love you.

#20
Quote by Aaron0612
Aliens really far away could be watching Earth with a giant telescope right now and be seeing cavemen running around.


That is so weird...
My Last.fm
USA Fender Stratocaster | Roland Cube 60 | VOX ToneLab LE
#21
i love space. i like to just look up at the stars on a clear night and wonder what lies beyond my vision.
There is a war going on for your mind.

If you are thinking, you are winning.


Resistance is victory.


We are building up a new world.
Do not sit idly by.
#22
Quote by Aaron0612
Aliens really far away could be watching Earth with a giant telescope right now and be seeing cavemen running around.



Works both ways, we wouldn't know about aliens until they were right on top of us
EPILPSTDYamahaRBX100BassTanglewoodTW28/STRFenderchamp600CubaseStudio5Saffirepro40AlesisM1ActiveMKIIMAudioKeystation88RodeNT1AShureSM57KeeleyModTS9MackieMCUwww.myspace.com/cuthbertgriswald
#23
I'm going to repost something I put in the other space thread, you might find it interesting.

Quote by dwnbowden
Ahem...

Everyone, I've been doing some independent research and I've found the approximate time it would take to drive the circumference of various planets and stars in a car doing 70 miles per hour (the motorway speed limit in the UK).

Earth: 15 days
Jupiter: 167 days
The Sun: 1624 days (4.45 years)
Sirius: 3114 days (8.5 years)
Rigel: 110386 days (302 years)
VV Cephei: 1367633 days (3747 years)
Canis Majoris: 3580457 days (9809 years)
Milky Way: 3011770759947 years


and that's WITHOUT bathroom breaks!


Thankyou, I'll be picking up my Nobel prize later.

TO = used for expressing motion or direction toward a point, person, place, or thing approached and reached, as opposed to from

TWO = the number 2

TOO = in addition; also; furthermore; to an excessive extent or degree
#24
Quote by Aaron0612
Aliens really far away could be watching Earth with a giant telescope right now and be seeing cavemen running around.



Now imagine if their only source of information on Earth came from the Pit.

We must be one fucked up planet to them
"Most people are trying to simplify the world. We're definitely here to complicate it." - Dad
Quote by RocksAwakening5
I you for posting this.

<-- Pretty much sums me up

8/7/09


^ I was there
Last edited by kxy1992 at Aug 9, 2009,
#26
Quote by PussyPunk182
wwwoow. So if we could have wormholes open up for a suitable amount of time we could go back? Does anyone know what it's like between the two mouths?


██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██
████████████████████
██████████████████████
#27
Omg classic movie with kids that need people for their presentation and they go back in time and get genghis Kahn and stuff?! Was it bill and ted ? Or something? "richeous"?!
Quote by WtrPlyr
Quote by alans056
Maybe the price tag is clouding your judgment ?
yeah probably. Or the circuits.
#28
Even thought this type of thread has been overdone to hell and back, I'd like to contribute.

I seem (in my mind) to have come up with a solution to traveling at the speed of light. Now you're probably thinking, "Woah, Einstein, get to work. Quit wasting your time on UG."

Problem is, no one I know is space savy enough to know if it will truly work.

Here's the basic concept:


Catapulting a manned rocket from a larger rocket. The large rocket travels extremely fast, approaching the speed of light.

We know that (1) humans do not have the technology to travel at the speed of light, and (2) an object in space will continue going in the same direction (not taking gravitational pulls of planets and suns into effect) unless disturbed by some external force. Example, push a screwdriver away from you in space, it will forever move away from you in the direction that you pushed in.

Same concept here. The large rocket approaches the speed of light. At a certain speed, the engines on the smaller rocket ignite. Like an aircraft carrier launching a plane, the large rocket catapults the smaller rocket while the smaller rocket also uses it's own engines.

In theory, the smaller rocket should be propelled faster than the large rocket, with no way ever of the large rocket hoping to catch it.

So, men of science, tell me how flawed this idea is. I don't understand aerodynamics or anything of the sort. This makes complete sense to me and I wonder why it isn't being worked on right now; however, there is probably a glaring mistake I'm over looking.

Help?
#29
Yeah when you think about it we're pretty big compared to atoms. But here's 2 what ifs for you, 1. What if all those atoms contain even smaller universes. 2. What if we are just one of those atoms, or just a fraction of an atom, just imagine the actual things that we make up. Also, think how small you're dick is compared to the rest of our universe
*Adding to this, They say our universe is always expanding.. Right?
Well, what is it expanding into?

Look at it this way. Our planet is like a mini solar system, with different regions and it's own planets orbiting it. (The moon). Our solar system, is like a mini galaxy.. Inside our Galaxy, there is a crapload of other solar systems, right? Well...

What if our Galaxy is just a planet inside of a bigger Galaxy known as the Universe? In turn, the Universe is just a Galaxy inside of an even bigger universe, and that universe is just a galaxy inside of an EVEN BIGGER universe, and so on.

The Universe can't expand into nothing, because there is nowhere to expand into.. right?
So who's to say that this so called "expansion" isn't just the universe orbiting around a star who's size is so massive, one can't even begin to fathom it?


That, is my theory.


Quote by Saint78
Jackal is like 90.

Quote by Jackal58
Buy stock in Viagra. Imma gonna fuck you in the ass.
Last edited by Scowmoo at Aug 9, 2009,
#30
Quote by jumi1174
Even thought this type of thread has been overdone to hell and back, I'd like to contribute.

I seem (in my mind) to have come up with a solution to traveling at the speed of light. Now you're probably thinking, "Woah, Einstein, get to work. Quit wasting your time on UG."

Problem is, no one I know is space savy enough to know if it will truly work.

Here's the basic concept:


Catapulting a manned rocket from a larger rocket. The large rocket travels extremely fast, approaching the speed of light.

We know that (1) humans do not have the technology to travel at the speed of light, and (2) an object in space will continue going in the same direction (not taking gravitational pulls of planets and suns into effect) unless disturbed by some external force. Example, push a screwdriver away from you in space, it will forever move away from you in the direction that you pushed in.

Same concept here. The large rocket approaches the speed of light. At a certain speed, the engines on the smaller rocket ignite. Like an aircraft carrier launching a plane, the large rocket catapults the smaller rocket while the smaller rocket also uses it's own engines.

In theory, the smaller rocket should be propelled faster than the large rocket, with no way ever of the large rocket hoping to catch it.

So, men of science, tell me how flawed this idea is. I don't understand aerodynamics or anything of the sort. This makes complete sense to me and I wonder why it isn't being worked on right now; however, there is probably a glaring mistake I'm over looking.

Help?


Genius.
Quote by kayaress one


Sir, I love you.

#31
TS why not include the gif in your OP?
Quote by xMetalGodx
I'm not quite sure if you were trying to be funny or if you have a learning disability, either way, I was not amused.

He is not amused.
Quote by abdulalhazred
you are the best 09er EVER! i am sending you a friend request as soon as i send this

#32
Quote by jumi1174
Even thought this type of thread has been overdone to hell and back, I'd like to contribute.

I seem (in my mind) to have come up with a solution to traveling at the speed of light. Now you're probably thinking, "Woah, Einstein, get to work. Quit wasting your time on UG."

Problem is, no one I know is space savy enough to know if it will truly work.

Here's the basic concept:
(Invalid img)

Catapulting a manned rocket from a larger rocket. The large rocket travels extremely fast, approaching the speed of light.

We know that (1) humans do not have the technology to travel at the speed of light, and (2) an object in space will continue going in the same direction (not taking gravitational pulls of planets and suns into effect) unless disturbed by some external force. Example, push a screwdriver away from you in space, it will forever move away from you in the direction that you pushed in.

Same concept here. The large rocket approaches the speed of light. At a certain speed, the engines on the smaller rocket ignite. Like an aircraft carrier launching a plane, the large rocket catapults the smaller rocket while the smaller rocket also uses it's own engines.

In theory, the smaller rocket should be propelled faster than the large rocket, with no way ever of the large rocket hoping to catch it.

So, men of science, tell me how flawed this idea is. I don't understand aerodynamics or anything of the sort. This makes complete sense to me and I wonder why it isn't being worked on right now; however, there is probably a glaring mistake I'm over looking.

Help?

You lost a little credibility when you drew a paint brush instead of rocket, then you lost credibility for using MS Paint to get a flawed theory across to us.

Quote by Scowmoo
Yeah when you think about it we're pretty big compared to atoms. But here's 2 what ifs for you, 1. What if all those atoms contain even smaller universes. 2. What if we are just one of those atoms, or just a fraction of an atom, just imagine the actual things that we make up. Also, think how small you're dick is compared to the rest of our universe
*Adding to this, They say our universe is always expanding.. Right?
Well, what is it expanding into?

Look at it this way. Our planet is like a mini solar system, with different regions and it's own planets orbiting it. (The moon). Our solar system, is like a mini galaxy.. Inside our Galaxy, there is a crapload of other solar systems, right? Well...

What if our Galaxy is just a planet inside of a bigger Galaxy known as the Universe? In turn, the Universe is just a Galaxy inside of an even bigger universe, and that universe is just a galaxy inside of an EVEN BIGGER universe, and so on.

The Universe can't expand into nothing, because there is nowhere to expand into.. right?
So who's to say that this so called "expansion" isn't just the universe orbiting around a star who's size is so massive, one can't even begin to fathom it?


That, is my theory.

Hey man WTF I posted that in the size of the planets thread?

Edit: Sorry just saw your post in that thread
Last edited by cornmancer at Aug 9, 2009,
#33
jumi1174, that idea actually could work
"Most people are trying to simplify the world. We're definitely here to complicate it." - Dad
Quote by RocksAwakening5
I you for posting this.

<-- Pretty much sums me up

8/7/09


^ I was there
#34
Thinking about space hurts my head... My belief is that aliens exist, but they live on a planet so far away from earth, that we will never come into contact with each other. Really... think about how big space is, and think about how bizarre it would be if Earth were the ONLY planet with life forms on it. There's got to be other life out there somewhere!
#35
Quote by cornmancer
You lost a little credibility when you drew a paint brush instead of rocket, then you lost credibility for using MS Paint to get a flawed theory across to us.


Don't diss my MS Paint skills. Also, how is my theory flawed? (Not saying it isn't, I'm sure it is; I just want to know how.)
#36
Quote by jumi1174
Even thought this type of thread has been overdone to hell and back, I'd like to contribute.

I seem (in my mind) to have come up with a solution to traveling at the speed of light. Now you're probably thinking, "Woah, Einstein, get to work. Quit wasting your time on UG."

Problem is, no one I know is space savy enough to know if it will truly work.

PICTURE

Catapulting a manned rocket from a larger rocket. The large rocket travels extremely fast, approaching the speed of light.

We know that (1) humans do not have the technology to travel at the speed of light, and (2) an object in space will continue going in the same direction (not taking gravitational pulls of planets and suns into effect) unless disturbed by some external force. Example, push a screwdriver away from you in space, it will forever move away from you in the direction that you pushed in.

Same concept here. The large rocket approaches the speed of light. At a certain speed, the engines on the smaller rocket ignite. Like an aircraft carrier launching a plane, the large rocket catapults the smaller rocket while the smaller rocket also uses it's own engines.

In theory, the smaller rocket should be propelled faster than the large rocket, with no way ever of the large rocket hoping to catch it.

So, men of science, tell me how flawed this idea is. I don't understand aerodynamics or anything of the sort. This makes complete sense to me and I wonder why it isn't being worked on right now; however, there is probably a glaring mistake I'm over looking.

Help?

Relativity says this can't happen because the smaller rocket would already have so much energy because it is already close to light speed that it's mass would have increased to a point where it would be extremely difficult to get it to accelerate faster. This would continue as it got faster to a point where it would need a nearly infinite (or maybe just infinite, can't remember...) amount of energy. Also, to a stationary observer relativity makes it appear as though the smaller spaceship is traveling at less than the speed of light even if the relative velocity of the smaller rocket to the larger rocket and the relative velocity of the larger rocket to the observer add together to more than the speed of light, not sure how that works but I remember reading it somewhere and it making sense.
#37
Betelguese, the ninth brightest star in the night sky is estimated to explode into a supernova within the millennium. When it does, it will outshine the moon in the night sky. It's 570 light years away from us so we won't see it in our lifetime; unless of course it already exploded.
Quote by NGD1313
Yes, my mom walked in on me getting my carrot skinned.

So I freaked out and flipped the vegetable tray.

There was ranch everywhere.


Quote by zwound
Win


Quote by __Pent__


^^Too bad I can't do this in real life
#38
Quote by cornmancer
You lost a little credibility when you drew a paint brush instead of rocket, then you lost credibility for using MS Paint to get a flawed theory across to us.


Hey man WTF I posted that in the size of the planets thread?

Edit: Sorry just saw your post in that thread


Yeah, I copied it over here to add to my theory.
Hope you don't mind?


Quote by Saint78
Jackal is like 90.

Quote by Jackal58
Buy stock in Viagra. Imma gonna fuck you in the ass.
#39
Grahams Number - If you take all the matter in the entire universe and turn it into pen and paper, it still wouldn't be enough to write down this number.

Not really to do with space but it's pretty mind boggling.
#40
This thread inspired me to make a comic which I am posting in ctb's thread. Its extremely meh, so dont get your hopes up
Your mother likes it ruff, Trebeck.
Page 1 of 4