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
Nothing. It's only an extremely rare and extremely difficult phenomenon to observe. It can tell us about the story of our universe and about objects located billion light years from us, but it's not applicable materialy as the magnetic waves were because we have no means to master gravitational waves.
Technology advances are stumbling on some material limits right now. When we will break this limit the leap forward will be suddenly huge. But it it's not for a foreseable future.
Quote:Black holes are a passage to another universe, says Stephen Hawking

Humans could escape from black holes, rather than getting stuck in them, according to a new theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

Unfortunate space travellers won’t be able to return to their own universe, according to Hawking. But they will be able to escape somewhere else, he has proposed at a conference in Stockholm

I doubt any human thing could survive the gravitational force of a black hole.
(02-23-2016, 03:11 PM)WarBicycle Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Black holes are a passage to another universe, says Stephen Hawking

Humans could escape from black holes, rather than getting stuck in them, according to a new theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

Unfortunate space travellers won’t be able to return to their own universe, according to Hawking. But they will be able to escape somewhere else, he has proposed at a conference in Stockholm

I doubt any human thing could survive the gravitational force of a black hole.

Perhaps we should allow Mr. Hawking, oops Doctor, be the first one to carry out that experiment. He may come out of the other end a perfect specimen of humanity. S13
I always had this strange feeling that scientists inevitably grow looking more and more like what they are studying... (Look at Darwin, LOL)
So it's no surprise if Dr Hawking suffers from multi-dimensional disorders... :p
What I have read is that anyone approaching a black hole would be torn apart by the massive tidal forces, long before they reached the event horizon.
But you all miss the point. The smashed gruel or compressed atoms that once had been humans may eventually escape from the black holes. But perhaps that would happen only after the black hole swallowed enough garbage to expand past its own event horizon.
I suspect that any matter sucked into a black hole would be compressed to the state of neutronium--where all particles are crushed together, with no spaces in between neutrons, protons, or electrons. They would just be a massive tangle of vibrating point entities of energy. Maybe they could eventually erupt through a "white hole," but into some other universe. Was it Fred Hoyle who suggested that?
(02-25-2016, 07:35 PM)Grizzly Wrote: [ -> ]Big one is coming any day, folks. S9

A Meteor Just Exploded Over The Atlantic With More Force Than The Hiroshima Bomb

Must not have been very big, perhaps ten meters or less. They can still cause quite an explosion. The truth is that NASA and other astronomical agencies, are busting their 'backside' to locate every dangerous "near earth object" possible.

If you go to one of my favorite sites, SpaceWeather.com, the site compiles and displays fireballs for the previous day, near earth asteroids, even cosmic ray strengths. Scroll down the page and you can see that there were 13 fireballs reported yesterday alone. There's also a chart showing recent and upcoming asteroids due to come close to earth.

Note there that the bigger asteroids were found at earlier dates, with those under twenty meters having a 2014-2016 date for their discoveries. For instance 1991cs is 1.4 kms, and 2016BA15 is only 19 meters. Of course, there are unknown how many larger ones that haven't been discovered yet. Look closely and many of the large ones(over 100 meters) have 2014-16 dates on them.

If you look at the top right of the page, you can go to the archives, and see what happened at other dates.

This is without a doubt the most danger this planet faces, and MacDaddy can take his Global Warming manure and stick it where the sun don't shine.


Oh, and while you are at it, just look at the sun on that page, and you can spot three official sunspots. But the truth is that there is only one Real sunspot worth counting. Three hundred, four hundred, years ago, telescopes back then would never have registered them at least two of them, because they couldn't see them.
Thanks for the heads-up on the site, John. S22
(02-25-2016, 11:31 PM)Grizzly Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the heads-up on the site, John. S22

Oh, I almost forgot. Did you notice the fact that 2013 TX68, which is a small 30 meters, is going to be breezing by us on March 5th, and it is to pass within .044 LDs? That's less than 1/2 of one percent. I did the math: a Lunar Distance(LD) is 238,900 miles. If you multiply 0.044 into the 238,900 miles that comes out to be 10,511 miles.

Now, that is very, very close, don't you think? And of course, that projected distance is just a calculated estimation, plus or minus a certain distance. Its sort of like that of using radio-carbon dating. Now, suppose they are off, and the "off" is closer to the planet.

I wonder what a 30 meter asteroid could do if it crashed into the atmosphere or even hit the surface? Shock
Coming that close, what do you think are the odds of Earth catching a second satellite?


JL Wrote:0.044 LDs? That's less than 1/2 of one percent. I did the math
ROTFLMAO S2
(It's less than 1/2 of a tenth, John, not of a percent)
(02-26-2016, 04:09 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]Coming that close, what do you think are the odds of Earth catching a second satellite?


JL Wrote:0.044 LDs? That's less than 1/2 of one percent. I did the math
ROTFLMAO S2
(It's less than 1/2 of a tenth, John, not of a percent)

SmartAss. 4.4% Spiteful But I got the math correct.

Regardless, its still very very close.
New evidence suggests that mars' most important sculpturing was caused by water, and not volcanic activity.

Mars' ancient face-lift: Water Carved Planet's Ancient Features, Not massive volcano

Quote:The face of Mars has changed since the planet's younger days. Billions of years ago, rain or snow may have carved major valleys on Mars, just as the largest volcanic structure in the solar system was forming on the Red Planet, new research suggests.

Understanding how Mars has matured over the years could help explain other mysteries of the Red Planet, such as why vast ice deposits lie buried under the Martian surface far from its poles, scientists added.
How much water there was on Mars???
(03-04-2016, 07:12 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]How much water there was on Mars???

I suspect that there still is a huge amount of water on Mars. When the planet was warmer, it did most of its sculpturing. Over time it froze and was covered up by debris/dirt from the Martian winds. My best guess it that much of Mar's surface is just a covering of earth that has hidden all that ice.

Imagine that earth suddenly froze over. All the lakes, and deep river beds would get silted over, over millions, and now billions of years. The upper layer could be several miles thick, hiding vast reservoirs of frozen H2O. And by being covered, it is insulated, allowing the heat from within to help melt portions of it, which occasionally reach the surface.

The interesting thing is that if we are ever going to live permanently on mars, we will need to live underground mostly. Its safer, warmer, and keeps out much of the radiation that would normally be shielded here on earth. Mars' surface is a naturally hostile place.

And that's why I believe human's future in space belongs to artificial habitats, such as O'Neill Cylinders. Its highly efficient, self-maintaining, and just by spinning, it creates its own gravity. Plus, it can be placed almost anywhere, and in huge numbers. Until we are able to travel to other stars, its the best of possibilities.
The main thing about Ice and planets, is the odd happening (which fuels Creationism) that water expands 3 percent when it freezes, which makes it float to the top which insulates the water beneath. That warmer water beneath is an incubational laboratory for biological growth. Without the insulation of floating ice, there couldn't be life on Earth.
John, My question was how much water was on Mars (not inside) when it was warmer. IMO, Mars atmosphere had to be huge, making the planet a semi-gazeus one. Not gazeus like Neptune or Jupiter but much more gazeus than Earth today. With an atmosphere many times thicker and concentrate than Earth's.
I think like this because Mars gravity is much lower than Earth's and it would take larger mass of water to dig canyons as it did.

I dn't believe that meteorite debris could have covered oceans of ices. First because water is falling from the cosmos as much as hard stones.
Second, because Europe and Encealadus still show shining ice surface. There isn't enough matter falling to conver the whole surface. We do know that Earth's mass is almost the same as billions years ago. A several miles layer of meteor debris would increase it. On mars too.

The question is how all this water gathered in the first place if it couldn't stay there long term? Why was Mars warmer? Was Earth warmer too?
(03-05-2016, 07:33 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]John, My question was how much water was on Mars (not inside) when it was warmer.

Fred, no idea what is inside Mars, and I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about all the surface water on the newer planet. As the atmosphere slowly leaked away, and the planet became cooler, most of the water froze, while a smaller amount became airborne and escaped the atmosphere.

But Mars still has an atmosphere, which is dry and very windy. That wind whips up dust storms that continually surge over the surface, burying things. I'm suggesting that all this surface water is just below the low surface contours, covered by a couple of billion years of wind erosion and covering. I'll bet that there is far more water on the planet than even the most optimistic predictors believe.


Quote:IMO, Mars atmosphere had to be huge, making the planet a semi-gazeus one. Not gazeus like Neptune or Jupiter but much more gazeus than Earth today. With an atmosphere many times thicker and concentrate than Earth's.
I think like this because Mars gravity is much lower than Earth's and it would take larger mass of water to dig canyons as it did.

If you check, you will see that mars' gravity is just slightly less than half that of earth. That's still a pretty good tug, and nothing like our moon's 1/6th gravity. Even at half gravity, if you were to fall 20 feet, it would still be more than able to kill you. S5
The enormous Vales Marineris (Mariner Valley), which if it were on earth would reach from the East coast to the West coast of the USA, is over five miles deep in many places, and it was pretty obviously produced by water draining somewhere, probably down into underground caverns (would be my guess).

[attachment=436] [attachment=437]
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