AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Astronomy News
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Quote:The light coming from distant solar systems could reveal the existence of plants growing on other planets, according to astronomers.
I would like to see confirmation through direct visual observations before believing it.

I don't think that a certain light spectrum can be formed by only one reason (here photosynthsis). There could be a dozen of other reasons why light is reflected or emited in such a way.

Even if it's the case, I don't think it's scientifical at all. The quantity of light reflected by green plants on a earth-like planet would be minimal compared to the total of light emited by the nearby star, in the order of 1/1000,000,000th and, therefore impossible to distinguish.
(09-06-2015, 05:45 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]Even if it's the case, I don't think it's scientifical at all. The quantity of light reflected by green plants on a earth-like planet would be minimal compared to the total of light emited by the nearby star, in the order of 1/1000,000,000th and, therefore impossible to distinguish.

Fred, what do you mean by scientifical? Here, check out all the different explanations. S13
[quote='Fredledingue' pid='258492' dateline='1441575949']
Quote:The light coming from distant solar systems could reveal the existence of plants growing on other planets, according to astronomers...


There are no other solar systems. There are distant stellar systems, but the only Solar system revolves around the M3 Yellow star Sol. Is the author of this quote a real scientist?
In common parlance, planetary systems around other stars are often called solar systems, just because the meaning is clear to most people, even though it is not technically correct. "Stellar system" could refer to a star cluster, so that is not really clear. Perhaps a concession could be made to the use of analogy, by saying something like "solar-like system," or "Sol-like system," or even better, "solar-like planetary system." But lazy people would not resort to using so many syllables.

A similar situation exists with the word "galaxy." Our home galaxy is called the "Milky Way" galaxy--but that is redundant, because the world "galaxy" means "milk-like" or "milky way" (derived from the Latin and Greek words for milk). So is it appropriate to refer to, say, Andromeda (M31) as the Andromeda Galaxy? That is like calling Andromeda the Milky Way. But no good alternative comes readily to mind. Virtually all astronomers use the word galaxy to refer to the entire class of stellar objects similar to the Milky Way. Some might say "spiral nebula," but not all galaxies are distinctly spiral in structure. The poetic "islands in the sky" might be closest to being accurate. But who knows what picture that might suggest to someone with no familiarity with astronomy? The best thing is probably just to display a picture of Andromeda Galaxy, and say, "like that."

Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31):
[attachment=328]

Here are depictions of our galaxy:
[attachment=325] [attachment=326]

We are located in what is called the Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.

The closest galaxy to our own is not Andromeda; among the closest are the Greater and Lesser Magellanic Clouds, which are small satellite galaxies that orbit our galaxy.

Magellanic Clouds seen from earth (visible from the southern hemisphere):
[attachment=327]

Also the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy:
[attachment=329]

There is another possible satellite galaxy, the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy (or Density), but it's status as a galaxy is in dispute. I wonder if there might also be other satellite galaxies on the opposite side of the main bulk of the Milky Way Galaxy from us, whose view for us is blocked.
Ron, do you believe that galaxies are million light years away or do you believe that they are much much closer, like just a few million miles away?
Ron, Theoricaly there should be no star visible from Earth located more than 6000 light years away from us. The light wouldn't have time to come from further afar.

This would make the size of the known Universe 2 million times smaller than what scientists believe (13 billion vs 6000).

Of course you could also believe that the Universe has a 13 billion light years radius, if you agree that we can see only up to 6000 light years, and that everything we can see is closer than that. This is also a possibility.

But I don't think that a large number for the scale of the Universe would be constistant with a small number for its age. No no no, [Image: 07-10.gif]

Biblical theories like big numbers like "thousands" and sometimes "millions" but have no concept of 10 digit numbers as modern astronomers do.
"6000" was a number almost uncalculable, close to infinity, for the poeple back then. Any number higher than one thousand could have been used to calculate the uncalculable.
That's why I believe that the Universe is both younger and smaller according to your theory on the Bible.
Fred, I believe the galaxies are as far away as most astronomers estimate. My argument is that despite being millions or even billions of light years away, it did not take millions or billions of years for their light to reach us. The present "constant" for the speed of light in a vacuum has not always been the same. I maintain that God originally created the universe about 12,000 years ago, and created life on earth about 6,000 years ago. But He did it in such a way that light from all points in the universe were already arriving at earth at the time life was created on earth, because that was His announced intention. His first command when He began creating life on earth was "Let there be light." He did not want to have earth-bound creatures wait millions or billions of years to see how vast the universe is.

Now, this can be falsified. If in fact God did not create earth and the universe this way, then we should see some places in space that are dark, and only occasionally have objects showing up as the light from those distant points is just now reaching us. This HAS TO BE TRUE if the vast ages view of the earth and universe are true. Since it is not, this can only mean that the vast ages view of the earth and universe--and the assumption that the speed of light has always been constant--are false.

This is not merely a suggestion. This is conclusive scientific proof.

There is of course other supporting evidence. Stellar nebulae, that originated with the explosion of a star, expand at a speed under the speed of light. Even if we allow their expansion to be close to the speed of light, there is no known such nebulae that has been expanding for more tham 14,000 years.

The near-sun passing (or near earth-passing) comets should be completely boiled away by solar radiation in at least 12,000 years. How is it that many of these still exist? This is such a serious problem, that vast-ages oriented astrophysicists have postulated the existence of an Oort Cloud of cometary bodies (the so-called Kuiper belt is no where near adequate as an explanation) which are periodically disrupted by a hypothetical passing massive interstellar body (which has never been seen), causing comets to fall inward toward the sun to continually replenish the near sun-passing comets. But it is important to note that there has been no direct observation or confirmation in any way that the Oort Cloud actually exists.

Prior to the Apollo 11 lunar landing, many scientists and science fans loudly and confidently predicted that the dust layer on the lunar surface could be hundreds of feet deep, after the supposed billions of years of infalling cosmic dust. They warned that the Apollo lander could sink through hundreds of feet of dust. They were confident that young universe Creationists would be ultimately refuted. This was taken so seriously, that the Apollo lunar lander was given large, snow-shoe like saucers on the ends of the landing struts. Of course, as is now known, the Apollo astronauts found the depth of dust on the lunar surface was only 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch deep. After that, all those anti-Creationists had to swallow their words, and began "recalculating" the rate of infall of cosmic dust, to explain the failure of their prediction.

Here are a couple of photos from the NASA website, showing the saucer on the end of one of the landing struts, and the shallow depth of the footprints of the astronauts:

[attachment=331]

Buzz Aldrin's footprint:

[attachment=332]

Let me add this thought. If Young Universe Creationists like me are correct, then we do not need to invoke nuclear fusion to explain how the stars could be kept illuminated for millions and billions of years. In fact gravitational compression would be adequate to explain the illumination of stars, since they have not been shining for all that long. The late science fiction writer James P. Hogan actually championed the theory that stars were illuminated by gravitational compression and electrical phenomena, not by nuclear fusion. This theory is supported by the fact that the number of neutrinos that have been detected coming from the sun are less than one-fourth what current mainstream theory requires for the sun to be illuminated by nuclear fusion.

So: The cosmology we all learned in school, about the basic way the universe works, may be entirely in error. And this is merely one example (among many others) of the real ignorance that has been caused among us by the fascination many have with the theory of evolution, which in turn is based on a desire to get away from the need to acknowledge God as Creator of the Universe.
Ron Wrote:Now, this can be falsified. If in fact God did not create earth and the universe this way, then we should see some places in space that are dark, and only occasionally have objects showing up as the light from those distant points is just now reaching us. This HAS TO BE TRUE if the vast ages view of the earth and universe are true. Since it is not, this can only mean that the vast ages view of the earth and universe--and the assumption that the speed of light has always been constant--are false.
Thanks for you reply.

In fact we never saw or detect an object further away in light years than the age of the Universe. If an object is distant from us by 13 LY + 1 day, it should appear in our sky in one day. But it will be so tiny, because so far that we won't be able to detect it, unless it's a very luminous one and with very sensitive instruments.
Everything you see in the sky at night is less than 13 LY away. There are probably many things which light didn't reach us yet.

But the idea that God wanted to show how vast the Universe is to humans immediately, is a good one.
God should be able to create immensity. It won't make sens for him to build a Universe with only a 12 LY radius.

For poeple in Mathuzalean times, 12,000 would mean already immensity (even couting in miles instead of LY. That stars were on ceiling only a 12,000 miles high would have been fantastic for them) so God shouldn't have built a Universe that large to impress. But he knew that those who believe in Him would develop one day technologies to look and measure things much farther than that (He hoped that not all his worshippers would turn muslim). So he foresaw the problem and created a much larger Universe to fit advanced observation means, for the future.

but that's my theory... S5
What must be considered is the Non-Christian belief that a God is whimsical and does not need to follow or establish physical laws of the universe. Before the God of Abraham established these laws, there is nothing to deny light to also be created wherever it had to be to allow these laws to work now.
One thing that many atheists avoid, is explaining how it is that physical laws remain constant, and do not change from moment to moment. Who is enforcing them? Who set them up to begin with, and why don't they ever change? The basic assumption on which the Scientific Method of repeatable experiments is based, is the assumption that the universe was created and is managed by God.
Thanks God! Physical laws remain constant! We shouldn't fear sudden desintegration. S2
Here's some more great stuff on Pluto. The photography is simply breathtaking, considering just how far away it is. The landscape terrain is most revealing and magnificant. Lots of interesting stuff at the link here.

[Image: 2C6E583A00000578-0-image-a-6_1442509032541.jpg]



One thing I notices immediately was the dissimilarity of cratering between Pluto and its companion Charon. Granted, there are may crater on Pluto, but they are not really as numerous as what our planet has received. The only difference is that erosion works here, and not there.

But Charon's cratering is much more pronounces, with several huge craters one would expect on a smaller body, such as our own moon. This is not found on Pluto. Why is this? Is this because the two bodies are of different age, or began live in different locations? That is my biggest question.

[Image: 2C29039100000578-0-image-a-16_1441914286621.jpg]
Huge day for NASA tomorrow, if you listen to everyone. Perhaps they will announce the discovery of running water on mars.

Space agency poised to announce 'major science finding' from the Red Planet

[Image: 2CCDFCC300000578-3250431-image-a-2_1443307145275.jpg]
Immediately thereafter the Left will declare it was caused by global warming.
Now we know 'officially' what we knew all along: Mars mystery SOLVED: Nasa confirms bizarre 'dark finger' marks on the red planet ARE signs of water flowing beneath its surface.

Also, Water flows on Mars, raising possibility that planet could support life - scientists.

[Image: 2CDE480600000578-3252071-image-m-6_1443459839293.jpg]
Nasa has confirmed it has found evidence of flowing water on Mars by studying marks lefts in gullies on the planet. The marks, or seasonal flows, were spotted in 2011 in Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter images and were later found to lengthen and darken on rocky slopes from late spring to early autumn (as seen in this animation) MY 29 and MY 30 stand for Mars year 29 and 30 and refer to 2008 until April 2011

With an atmosphere only 1 ~ 1.5% the density on Earth, water evaporates almost instantly even at low temperatures. Water boils and become gazeous at 100 Celsius degrees and 1 bar pressure (the sea level atmospheric pressure). At Mars'atmospheric pressure, water becomes gazeous at a much lower temperature and can stay liquid only within a very short temprature frame. IMO between 0C and +2C or +3C.

On top of that with a much lower gravity, you will need more water than on Earth to leave traces on the ground.

It means that the quantity if water which were flowing during the Marsian summer had to be massive.

Since we have never seen rain on Mars and rain is probably not possible in an atmosphere so thin, this water can come only from underground and very close from the surface.
Fred, also remember that like the earth, mars is constantly being bombarded with water. It is coming from outer space, and in the form of droplets and small bodies called "small comets" We get over 14 tons a day, so mars must get at least half that amount. Water is everywhere in the solar system.
Fred, also remember that like the earth, mars is constantly being bombarded with water. It is coming from outer space, and in the form of droplets and small bodies called "small comets" We get over 14 tons a day, so mars must get at least half that amount. Water is everywhere in the solar system.
[Image: 12036379_1095341293817082_51595201040382...e=568E60A6]
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24