Agree Agree:  47
Likes Likes:  208
Page 1 of 82 12345112651 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1224
  1. #1

    Let's Discuss Science

    Thanks Ponchi101 for the idea!

    I think this thread would make a lot of sense, since it would be a place to come to see and read more about down to earth things that we can understand (or try to understand if unfamiliar). To me personally, (and I am not a scientist) science is more beautiful and elegant than any fiction I have ever read. The more you read, the more you realize how truly mysterious, weird and wonderful our universe is.

    I will start with some great news that was released today by NASA.

    This is about Kepler Space Telescope that is searching for planets around other stars and has capability of detecting earth sized planet in habitable zone...

    http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakepl...News&NewsID=98

    Here is NY times article
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/sc...er=rss&emc=rss
    Last edited by Vlad; 02-02-2011 at 12:34 PM.

  2. #2

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Btw, anyone can participate in potential discovery of new planets on this website:

    http://www.planethunters.org/

    The way it works, is basically you see a light curve of a specific star for a specific period (like a month) and you will look at systematic star dimming which could mean a lot of things, one of which is a planet passing in front of it.

  3. #3

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Science tells us, as Vlad says, that light isn't everlasting because fuel sources literally burn out.

    But is there anytime where there as been no light? Is there a predicted time where all fuel sources will simultaneously be lacking that there will be no light?


  4. #4

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by craighickman View Post
    But is there anytime where there as been no light? Is there a predicted time where all fuel sources will simultaneously be lacking that there will be no light?
    Perhaps you want to open a philosophy thread, craig?
    Roger forever

  5. #5

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by craighickman View Post
    Science tells us, as Vlad says, that light isn't everlasting because fuel sources literally burn out.

    But is there anytime where there as been no light? Is there a predicted time where all fuel sources will simultaneously be lacking that there will be no light?

    Craig, what we know so far is that fabric of space time is expanding.. not only it is expanding the expansion is accelerating. What that means is that one day long long into the future, our universe will be one cold and dark place. Why? Because the sources of light, the stars will run out of fuel (hydrogen) and will become dark and progressively colder. Since the universe will be substantially bigger then it won't have enough gravity to collect all hydrogen atoms to resupply it.. Same process will happen for every other star until they all go dark and slowly die. Everything will get colder and average temps will get close to absolute zero and everything, including atoms will be at standstill and no radiation (light) emitted anymore.

  6. #6

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by craighickman View Post
    Science tells us, as Vlad says, that light isn't everlasting because fuel sources literally burn out.

    But is there anytime where there as been no light? Is there a predicted time where all fuel sources will simultaneously be lacking that there will be no light?
    Sorry, Craig. Light IS everlasting. Photons simply don't decay. The fact that the sources (stars) will eventually run out of fusionable material does not mean that the photons already ejected will decay. If they hit something, they interact, and therefore plenty of photons are absorbed. But in the immensities of the cosmos, there will always be free photons.
    At the very beginning of the universe, there was NO light. The universe became transparent about 300,000 years after the initial push. Only then could there be free photons. The thing is that we are used to seeing TV documentaries where they depict the Big Bang as an explosion, but that is simply because of the limitations of our imagination (all of us, except, it seems, Stephen Hawkins). It is fairly similar to the usual depiction of the atom as a miniature solar system. It is just that at those scales, we really can not imagine what an atom "looks" like (it doesn't look like anything because it is way smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light, therefore not casting a "shadow").
    Before the 300K band, there was NO light because many particles had not "condensed" (the temperature was too hot).
    The universe is expected to cool off (although not simultaneously) in about 4 trillion trillion trillion years. Plenty of time for us to continue our conversations.
    (I can't believe it. Four posts into this thread and I am already arguing with you. I'm such a jerk, sorry)
    Starry starry night

  7. #7

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    As far as I know the everlasting expansion of the universe has not been proven to everyone's satisfaction (I am not talking about crackpots).
    Roger forever

  8. #8
    Grand Slam Champion missinandre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    9,120

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    Sorry, Craig. Light IS everlasting. Photons simply don't decay. The fact that the sources (stars) will eventually run out of fusionable material does not mean that the photons already ejected will decay. If they hit something, they interact, and therefore plenty of photons are absorbed. But in the immensities of the cosmos, there will always be free photons.
    At the very beginning of the universe, there was NO light. The universe became transparent about 300,000 years after the initial push. Only then could there be free photons. The thing is that we are used to seeing TV documentaries where they depict the Big Bang as an explosion, but that is simply because of the limitations of our imagination (all of us, except, it seems, Stephen Hawkins). It is fairly similar to the usual depiction of the atom as a miniature solar system. It is just that at those scales, we really can not imagine what an atom "looks" like (it doesn't look like anything because it is way smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light, therefore not casting a "shadow").
    Before the 300K band, there was NO light because many particles had not "condensed" (the temperature was too hot).
    The universe is expected to cool off (although not simultaneously) in about 4 trillion trillion trillion years. Plenty of time for us to continue our conversations.
    (I can't believe it. Four posts into this thread and I am already arguing with you. I'm such a jerk, sorry)
    Enlighten me a bit more ponchi......300k band?
    Last edited by missinandre; 02-02-2011 at 02:06 PM.
    ROGER / RAFA FINAL 2010 US OPEN!!!!!

  9. #9

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    As far as I know the everlasting expansion of the universe has not been proven to everyone's satisfaction (I am not talking about crackpots).
    Everlasting? well, it will need to slow down in it's expansion first, and I don't think there are any clues as to why it would do that. If the expansion was slowing down due to gravity, then it would make sense that one day it will stop expanding but this is not the case so far I believe. Dark energy (anti gravity force) rules so far.

  10. #10

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    Everlasting? well, it will need to slow down in it's expansion first, and I don't think there are any clues as to why it would do that. If the expansion was slowing down due to gravity, then it would make sense that one day it will stop expanding but this is not the case so far I believe. Dark energy (anti gravity force) rules so far.
    While true that the theory you mention is the most popular (= best supported by observations), the oscillating universe has not been ruled out (+ few other more exotic possibilities).

    As a side note this particular area of science is one of the most uncertain ones with lot of factual information completely unknown (the exact nature of dark matter?). These things are not even close to being as well proven as theory of movement of continental plates, theory of evolution etc. We shouldn't forget that...

    Also we are trying to argue about the area neither one of us is even close to being a pro. Those who are interested will probably be better off reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...se#cite_note-3
    Roger forever

  11. #11

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by missinandre View Post
    Enlighten me a bit more ponchi......300k band?
    300,000 years. You can imagine the expansion of the universe as a two dimensional angle, spreading from one point. The origin/vertex of the angle would be the Big Bang. As you move away from that point, the angle remains the same but the area expands, in a way simulating the expansion of the universe. . You could then draw "bands", marking important events. At 300,000 years, the universe stopped being so dense that free photons could not travel/flow through.
    Starry starry night

  12. #12

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    Sorry, Craig. Light IS everlasting. Photons simply don't decay. The fact that the sources (stars) will eventually run out of fusionable material does not mean that the photons already ejected will decay. If they hit something, they interact, and therefore plenty of photons are absorbed. But in the immensities of the cosmos, there will always be free photons.
    At the very beginning of the universe, there was NO light. The universe became transparent about 300,000 years after the initial push. Only then could there be free photons. The thing is that we are used to seeing TV documentaries where they depict the Big Bang as an explosion, but that is simply because of the limitations of our imagination (all of us, except, it seems, Stephen Hawkins). It is fairly similar to the usual depiction of the atom as a miniature solar system. It is just that at those scales, we really can not imagine what an atom "looks" like (it doesn't look like anything because it is way smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light, therefore not casting a "shadow").
    Before the 300K band, there was NO light because many particles had not "condensed" (the temperature was too hot).
    The universe is expected to cool off (although not simultaneously) in about 4 trillion trillion trillion years. Plenty of time for us to continue our conversations.
    (I can't believe it. Four posts into this thread and I am already arguing with you. I'm such a jerk, sorry)


    But if we assume that the current rate of acceleration will be steady forever (assumption I know), then in trillions trillions years, there would be a point where existing photons won't be able to reach your hypothetical detector ever because photons are limited to speed of light, yet fabric of space time is not.. therefore you will forever wait for photon to hit detector, so in way from some perspective there really would not be any light that could ever be detected.

  13. #13

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    Sorry, Craig. Light IS everlasting. Photons simply don't decay. The fact that the sources (stars) will eventually run out of fusionable material does not mean that the photons already ejected will decay. If they hit something, they interact, and therefore plenty of photons are absorbed. But in the immensities of the cosmos, there will always be free photons.
    At the very beginning of the universe, there was NO light. The universe became transparent about 300,000 years after the initial push. Only then could there be free photons. The thing is that we are used to seeing TV documentaries where they depict the Big Bang as an explosion, but that is simply because of the limitations of our imagination (all of us, except, it seems, Stephen Hawkins). It is fairly similar to the usual depiction of the atom as a miniature solar system. It is just that at those scales, we really can not imagine what an atom "looks" like (it doesn't look like anything because it is way smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light, therefore not casting a "shadow").
    Before the 300K band, there was NO light because many particles had not "condensed" (the temperature was too hot).
    The universe is expected to cool off (although not simultaneously) in about 4 trillion trillion trillion years. Plenty of time for us to continue our conversations.
    (I can't believe it. Four posts into this thread and I am already arguing with you. I'm such a jerk, sorry)

    I don't read this post as an argument. I simply stated an assertion vlad made and asked questions about it.

    You've provided an answer. As have a few others.

    I'm totally ignorant because I haven't paid any attention whatsoever to the origins of light in this universe.


  14. #14

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    But if we assume that the current rate of acceleration will be steady forever ...therefore you will forever wait for photon to hit detector, so in way from some perspective there really would not be any light that could ever be detected.
    Oh, yes. Absolutely. But that is similar to the fact that we will never detect a Pulsar that is rotating on a perpendicular plane to our line of vision. It is still emitting light, at tremendous amounts, but we will never see it.
    BTW. Loved the Planet Hunter sight. Bookmarked already
    Craig: I know it was not an argument. It was just to keep the line of our last mutual postings (which you know I God).
    Starry starry night

  15. #15

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    While true that the theory you mention is the most popular (= best supported by observations), the oscillating universe has not been ruled out (+ few other more exotic possibilities).

    As a side note this particular area of science is one of the most uncertain ones with lot of factual information completely unknown (the exact nature of dark matter?). These things are not even close to being as well proven as theory of movement of continental plates, theory of evolution etc. We shouldn't forget that...

    Also we are trying to argue about the area neither one of us is even close to being a pro. Those who are interested will probably be better off reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...se#cite_note-3

    As I mentioned in religion thread, we know little more than just 4% of the "stuff" in the Universe. Dark matter and dark energy are big mysteries. Yet, it is still fascinating to talk about it, as long as we don't deviate too much from the things that we know. If anything it will push some of us to read a bit more about it.

Page 1 of 82 12345112651 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •