Our wonderful Universe

Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
    • Staff Notice

    Lets keep all general discussion and news about Space here please.


    Half a MILLION man-made items of rubbish in space

    A mission that will test different methods to clean up space junk is getting ready for launch.

    The RemoveDebris spacecraft will attempt to snare a small satellite with a net and test whether a harpoon is an effective garbage grabber.

    The probe has been assembled in Surrey and will soon be packed up ready for blast off early next year.

    Well, we've littered up our own planet, so why not space too? But I admit, I didn't realise the problem was so severe as this.


    The article talks about using a harpoon to try and grab large objects of space junk, but this seems very hit and miss to me. There is the obvious factor that if a harpoon misses its target and knocks it out of its orbit, this could plough straight into one of our satellites or the space station.


    Just to add to the space junk, we have this story today.


    The issue is becoming critical because if key satellites such as weather or commutation satellites become damaged, it could set mankind back decades. Could we live in a world without accurate weather forecasts, or satellite tv?

  • Proximi Centauri has another planet

    Seems the double star Proximi Centaura, the nearest star to us, has a second planet, Proximi C


    It 6 earth masses (so six times the gravity) and about 1.5 Au from the star. Bearing in mind the star is a red dwarf, its likely the planet is rocky but with a surface temperature of about -230C .


    So, no Thomas Cook holidays there i fear.

    • Staff Notice

    Isn't it amazing the amount of new information we are getting daily about our cosmos now? I only wish I had the time to talk about it all, especially all the latest about the moon and Mars.


    As for Thomas Cook, it's not unknown for them to have dodgy holidays, so -230C wouldn't be a problem for them, no doubt.


    (To my shock, I haven't actually got a general space thread here yet, considering it's one of my major interests, so I might merge these posts into that in the future.)

  • As for Thomas Cook, it's not unknown for them to have dodgy holidays, so -230C wouldn't be a problem for them, no doubt.

    Yes the Club 18-30 infants wouldnt bother with the temperature., they usually go out to get pissed half naked anyway.

  • The Universe is expanding 9% faster than theory predicts

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/…ing_faster_than_expected/


    SO, we get yet another hole in the Standard Model, and yet again, all eyes turn on to Dark Energy and Dark Matter - for which we also dont have an explanation


    The problem is we are constrianed by Einstien. Special Relavity is a limited theory, but peopel are stuck on it. We need to repalce it with someething that goes deeper, and encompasses quantum theory, M theory, and can explain Gravity, time and this made up effect of dark matter/energy. Neither of these three are what they seem..


    General relativity describes the universe’s larger workings better than any other theory, but to make it work, we must accept that gravity is acting on six times more matter than we can see. We need a theory that makes dark matter and dark energy redundant. Or explains precisely where all this matter and energy are (because it clearly isnt in this universe)

  • Which universe are you referring to? Think multiverse. It's only human ego or limited imagination that makes it uni. Just like goldfish wondering what if anything lies outside their bowl.

  • Which universe are you referring to? Think multiverse. It's only human ego or limited imagination that makes it uni. Just like goldfish wondering what if anything lies outside their bowl.

    well if you read the article......

    • Staff Notice

    Does the universe have an edge?

    https://www.livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html


    Interesting article

    Have to say they lost me with that balloon analogy.


    A balloon does have a edge, a surface and if you keep blowing into the balloon, the balloon expands into further space. So, if we are to assume the universe is not infinite, that it must come to a end, then it must have a edge and like the balloon the universe has to expand into something, a "space".


    The ant can't see the edge of expanding balloon, because it's on it, same as we will never be able to see the edge of the universe, because we're in it.


    If you look at a sheet of A4 paper from the side, it's wafer thin, but when it's turned around and you can then see the "face" of it, the surface where we write on. We can't turn the universe around to see its edge, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Doesn't mean there is either!:)

    • Staff Notice

    The Universe is expanding 9% faster than theory predicts

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/…ing_faster_than_expected/


    SO, we get yet another hole in the Standard Model, and yet again, all eyes turn on to Dark Energy and Dark Matter - for which we also dont have an explanation


    The problem is we are constrianed by Einstien. Special Relavity is a limited theory, but peopel are stuck on it. We need to repalce it with someething that goes deeper, and encompasses quantum theory, M theory, and can explain Gravity, time and this made up effect of dark matter/energy. Neither of these three are what they seem..


    General relativity describes the universe’s larger workings better than any other theory, but to make it work, we must accept that gravity is acting on six times more matter than we can see. We need a theory that makes dark matter and dark energy redundant. Or explains precisely where all this matter and energy are (because it clearly isnt in this universe)

    In one of the other threads, we we talking about the mars quakes and Heero mentioned about cosmic tides that can cause the quakes with all the stresses and stains that can be put onto a planet and I likened it to the forces that make the moon create our tides on Earth aka gravitational forces This maybe something similar.


    The universe might be a bit like the tides on Earth and other forces are "pulling" at the universe making it expand. Whether it be something of greater mass, or something in a difference dimension, who knows. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the pulling "force" is external to the universe, it might not be.


    Perhaps gravity and dark energy/matter are one and the same thing. Something has to be pushing on the apple to make it fall from that tree and it could be unseen dark matter and/or energy that we currently call gravity.

  • a ballon has no edge, its a continuous surface. You can go round and round, lie a mobius surface, there is never a point where you have to stop because you cant go any further because you have reached an edge. Ther is no edge anywhere that forces you to stop ona ballon (or any sphere)


    The ant cant see the edge, cos there isnt one it can see. Ill finish this sentence at the bottom of the post.


    The paper isnt a true analogy, because in fact its a 3D object, the thicknes sof the paper maybe small but it exists. In a true 2D object, there is no thickness, not even one Planck distance thick. And the universe isnt a 3D object ,so again youre analogy fails. The univers emay curl back on itself in a higher dimension, possibly D4


    This raises another issue, that of time. Its far from clear that time actually exists, because ther is nothing in Relativity, or Minowski Space ,or De Witter Space, or Quantum Theory, or M Theory, or any other model, that demands or requires ANY dimension to be a time dimension.


    Whats more, the whoel premise is flawed. Entropy is used as the arrow of time. Thuis is because entropy is a consequence of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which its self has two requirements to be true - that th euniverse is a closed system, and that the amount of matter/energy/information (three forms of the same thing) is fixed. There is no evidence the universe is closed. Thus there is no evidence the amount of mass energy in the universe is fixed. Thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics , and the laws of entropy, and therfore the entire phonomena of 'time' may well be local phenomena, and not constant and universal. Its demonstrably true according to Relativity that ther is no universal time ,no universal NOW.. Therfore D4, the dimension the universe may curl back on itself in, thus creating an infinite universe but with no edge, is most likely to be a spatial, not a time dimension


    The effect of moving thru time is thus an illusion, created when we 3D creatures move thru the next highest dimension D4, the only way we can, one Planck frame at a time.


    So there isnt an edge we can see, because the edge, if it exists, only exists in D4, a dimension too high for us to look in any furher than one planck frame forward or backward, because we can only see the dimensions we exist in D1 D2 and D3. And to view a Dimension ,any dimension, Dn, you have to view it in Dn+1


    Explanation: You can see the back of a settee, and 3D object ,because you can walk rind the back of it and look, To do that you move thru D3 and ALSO you move in 'time' ie D4. Hence to view D£ you move in D4. This applies universally. To observe all an 8 dimensional object, you have to view it by moving in D9.

    • Staff Notice

    a ballon has no edge, its a continuous surface. You can go round and round, lie a mobius surface, there is never a point where you have to stop because you cant go any further because you have reached an edge. Ther is no edge anywhere that forces you to stop ona ballon (or any sphere)


    The ant cant se the edge, cos there isnt one. Simples.

    Depends how you look at it.


    The surface, the balloon is the "edge". Inside the balloon is space and outside the balloon is space. Generally when something delineates one thing from another, we call it a border or something like a edge.


    So, I'm saying that the universe, all of it, is the edge, especially if there is something beyond the universe.


    The paper isnt a true analogy, because in fact its a 3D object, the thicknes sof the paper maybe small but it exists. In a true 2D object, there is no thickness, not even one Planck distance thick. And the universe isnt a 3D object ,so again youre analogy fails. The univers emay curl back on itself in a higher dimension, possibly D4

    Does the A4 sheet of paper have a edge?

  • Depends how you look at it.


    The surface, the balloon is the "edge". Inside the balloon is space and outside the balloon is space. Generally when something delineates one thing from another, we call it a border or something like a edge.

    no, that entirely false reasoning ,and isnt correct . a surface and and edge are topoligically and mathematically not the same thign at all, You simply cant equate two such separate mathematic definitions when talking about manifolds like this. This is a well defined science supprted by a branch of mathematics called topology, and you equating surfaces with edges is just plain wrong, and doesnt hold up inthe maths.


    if you want to under stand this you have to accept that this is so. All this science regarding cosmology and the universe has an underlying maths that describes and defines it in a testable way. Topology is the maths of continuous sets of points, which form a surface, because a surface like a 2D sheet can be desribed by a such a set of equations (, Similarly, and edge is a where a surface function stops, ie becomes discontinuous. So by claiming an edge and surface are the same thing, yo uare effectively claiming two funtions ,one of which has a boubd, the other of which is infinite, are in fact mathematically the same. Which is nonsense.

    The problem is the maths behind all this stuff is staggering complex, but forms a long chain of evidence theory ond proof, which is why we know it works. Topology is the maths of the set of neighborhoods of points. When you're doing calculus (infinitesimal calculus - derivatives and limits of functions), say, looking at a limit of a function at a point., you're looking at what happens to value of the function when you're delving closer and closer to a given point - that is, you're looking at the relation between the set of values of the function and the set of neighborhoods of the point. So inthis case, the relationship between a surface and an edge is well defined by the maths. You cant simply go changing the definition of an edge to suit yourself, or the rest of the maths falls apart.


    So im not being awkward or contrary here. a surface cannot equate to an edge. Also the thickness of a ballon cannot be defined as an edge in this context, because its actually a third dimension of the surface, but we are using the ballon as a model ofa 2D surface. In our analogy, the thickness of the ballon doesnt exist. Niether does the space above it or the space inside it. Stop thinking 3D. This is a 2D example. The universe is the surface of the ballon. the thickness if the ballon doesnt exist, niether does the space outside ot inside it.

  • BUt does the A4 sheet of paper have a edge?

    a sheet of paper is a 3D object. So if we are using it as an analogy for a 2D surface then


    a) it has no thickness, because thats a 3rd dimensiuon and so doesnt exist

    b) it has an edge all round it that cannot be crossed. you cant go off the edge and onto the underneath, because that involves going "down" , and there is no 'down' thats part of D3. so in terms of 2D, the paper just stops. The only directions you can move in 2 dimensions are nort/south and east/west. There is no up/down or thickness. No air above you, no air beneath the paper, nothing. No movement or extension of anything on the surface of the paper can go up or down. So from the point of view of a 2D person on our 2D paper surface, the universe just mysteriously stops at an invisivble barrier that cant be crossed. They can never see the nature of the edge of the paper, because to do that you have to move upwards and observe it from above, ie 'observe it in Dn+1 = D2 +1 = 3D, and a 2D person cant move in 3D. But we can.


    Similarly, a 5D person might be able to observe out 3D+1D fromthe outside.

    • Staff Notice

    Topology is the maths of continuous sets of points, which form a surface, because a surface like a 2D sheet can be desribed by a such a set of equations


    a sheet of paper is a 3D object. So if we are using it as an analogy for a 2D surface then


    a) it has no thickness, because thats a 3rd dimensiuon and so doesnt exist

    b) it has an edge all round it that cannot be crossed. you cant go off the edge and onto the underneath, because that involves going "down" , and there is no 'down' thats part of D3. so in terms of 2D, the paper just stops. The only directions you can move in 2 dimensions are nort/south and east/west. There is no up/down or thickness.

    Here's where I'm going with this:


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    The sheet of paper now becomes like the balloon, a continuous "surface" if it is rolled into itself evely, but when unrolled it has a edge. You can go from one point to another, when the "continuous" points are changed and can go up and down, or through in this case.


    We don't know what the universe is, made of, shape, size if any and I think our current science and maths cannot possibly answer the questions about the universe.

    Stop thinking 3D. This is a 2D example. The universe is the surface of the ballon. the thickness if the ballon doesnt exist, niether does the space outside ot inside it.

    Actually, I was thinking more 4d, 5d etc.

  • Yes. First rule.


    Dont take Hollywood movies as definitive sources of maths or science. Most of it is wrong, and its just messing with your head. Very few movies are true science. . So with all due respect, im not even going to consider a 'scientific theory' extracted from Hollywood movie. Lets stick to actualy physicists and matherticians, ok .


    Ive added to my post ,read.


    separate thread starteted on black holes.

  • What would happen if you got sucked into a black hole?

    Heres the actual real science, as opposed to the bollox by Hollywood.


    All objects exert a gravitational pull on one another, but for the most part, this force is pretty weak. In the case of black holes, the pull is so strong that nothing – not even light – can escape. A black hole is so massive that time itself starts to warp. You wouldn’t feel anything different as you fell in, but to anyone watching, you would appear to slow. Circling down the drain of this cosmic plughole, all the photons being pulled alongside you would create a stream of blinding light orbiting a hole of total blackness – as we saw in the Event Horizon Telescope team’s image. Two freaky effects would colour your final approach: a looming darkness would wash over your eyes as the black hole seems to grow in size much more quickly than you would expect, and the surrounding stars would start to distort and bend.This is your last opportunity to escape. Any further, and you will cross the event horizon, the line where the black hole’s gravity is too large to resist. By the time you are able to see the event horizon, you can see starlight bend around it.” Curved streaks of light would wrap around the black hole, but as you accelerated through the point of no return, the intensity of the gravitational field would change the nature of the light you can see. If your neck muscles had the strength to let you take one last look over your shoulder, all the starlight behind you would appear to come together to form a single reddish dot. Meanwhile, the quiet of outer space would turn to total darkness and you would feel that you are falling downhill, except downhill is everywhere And then your body would undergo spectacular tortures. The gravity inside a black hole increases so quickly that it wouldn’t just crush you, but pull apart every part of your body at different speeds, resulting in “spaghettification”. If you fell in feet first, your ankles would stretch away from your knees before your neck elongated into a strand of linguine, but the difference in time would be small enough that you probably wouldn’t notice. It would happen in the blink of an eye.


    The laws of thermodynamics are ruthless. Even a black hole can’t escape their judgement. According to the second law, the amount of entropy or disorder in the universe can never decrease. So when your disordered body falls in, the entropy it contains can’t just be wiped away. It has to be accounted for by an increase in the entropy of the black hole itself. But if a black hole has entropy, it must have a temperature, so – like any object with a temperature – it has to radiate heat. How can radiation escape an inescapable object? In 1974, Stephen Hawking came up with a workaround, inventing a type of radiation that now bears his name. Rather than emerging from the black hole’s heart, this Hawking radiation is made up of particles and their antiparticle twins that pop into existence near the event horizon. Such pairs of particles and anti-particles are always springing into existence all over the place. These subatomic twins are intrinsically linked, with any change to one immediately affecting the other. In the language of quantum mechanics, they are said to be entangled.


    By virtue of this subatomic conspiracy, any anti-particle that falls into a black hole will have a partner particle that survives, radiating away and reducing the black hole’s energy. But this leaves us with an alarming consequence: at some point, the black hole will radiate away entirely, taking you with it. That disappearing act violates another fundamental tenet of theoretical physics: that information can’t just vanish. Even if information is destroyed in one form, like a book burning when it gets thrown on a fire, that information is still retained in the particles of smoke and ash that survive it – albeit in a form much harder to read. Physicists rely on this continuity to access information about the past and make predictions about the future. If it could be conjured in and out of thin air, all the physics we know of would be moot. If a black hole can destroy information, it can destroy all trace of you.


    Some physicists have suggested that you could cling on inside a black hole as it evaporates via Hawking radiation, before getting belched out in its dying breath. That way at least some of your information wouldn’t be lost forever, but held in captivity for aeons as the black hole slowly leaks away. At some time in the distant future, depending on the black hole’s initial size, the event horizon would become so small that even a single wavelength of light could no longer squeeze inside. At that point, radiation associated with your remains would be burped out, leaving nothing behind but the empty space where the black hole used to be. But there is a fatal flaw to this prolonged game of hide and seek: the black hole doesn’t get to decide how quickly it pumps out radiation; the laws of thermodynamics decide. The more radiation something emits, the smaller it should get, and the smaller it gets the less radiation it can emit. By the time the black hole gets small enough to vomit out its last meal, there wouldn’t be anything left to expel. The black hole would go out with a whimper, not a bang, and any residual traces of your existence would be long gone.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!