Deep Space
- Thread starter Socrates the Greek
- Start date
So niceeeee, and that is in the last 100 years, amazing to see it took the human civilization 100 years to be able to use this method to deliver cargo in space.
I really wander Juan if in another 100 years we will have a way to travel 10 times the speed of today.
I really wander Juan if in another 100 years we will have a way to travel 10 times the speed of today.
The usual argument is that it has to be as large and old as it is in order to support even one outpost of life like us, for a couple of reasons, which assume the Big Bang (terrible name for it in my opinion) is an accurate model of how things got started. All it produced was mostly hydrogen, a little helium, and a trace of lithium, the lightest elements in the periodic table. First, the heavier elements have to be cooked up in stellar interiors then scattered around by novae and supernovae to re-condense into a second and third generation of stars and planetary systems. The cosmos is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, and the sun about 5 billion years old, which suggests it's at least a third generation star. It might be later than that too, because the earlier generations of stars were huge and burned up and exploded fairly quickly. Second, the particle physicists discovered some time ago that at high energies something they labeled "scalar fields" appeared which have a repulsive effect on matter, opposite to gravity. That led Alan Guth, mainly, to propose what's now called the cosmic inflation scenario, that early in its existence--some time in its first 300,000 years if my memory is correct--the cosmos underwent a period of very rapid expansion quite separate from the Big Bang itself, which stopped when things cooled down enough that the scalar fields disappeared. My memory may be tricking me here, but it's telling me that the cosmic background radiation we've seen with the COBE and IMAP satellites is a relic of that moment, when the universe cooled enough to become transparent.
That's an extreme oversimplification, but I think I've got the essence of it... :smile: To really get into it fully you need to investigate things like gauge theories and spontaneous symmetry breaking and other esoterica at the fringes of physics, which I can't offer here because (a) I'm not competent to do it, and (b) it would take several book-length pieces to expound even an introduction to it. I think it's worth the effort to study up a bit on it though. I spend a lot of time looking at the night sky, and I find the more I understand about it, the more interesting and amazing it is.
Yes Dexter, it is so fascinating it makes it more amazing how like you say the more you look in there the more a magnetic force of curiosity empowers the mind.
Hi Ron
Do you have a Costco near you. A couple weeks ago my son picked up an 80 mm Meade refractor from Costco for a hundred and sixty dollars. This telescope has a computer drive with the goto feature. For any new astronomer one of the problems is finding what you want to look at. My only comment was that the construction was very light....A lot of plastic but for astronomy, better than any binoulars. That is not to say that binoculars are not useful....they are and as Dexter says they are cheaper than any half decent telescope.
Thanks Juan, nice info I think a telescope around $2000 will be a great way to look at the cosmos and wander some more. The Go to is a nice option, who would think that a telescope would have so many features. Great for guys like me.:smile:
i have this question
I cant remember where exactly but close to the north of the sky, near ursa major i think there is this fuzzy spot up with the stars and you can see it on a clear night... Ive seen it from many parts around the northern hemisphere and was curious if anyone else has noticed it... It doesnt move so i know its not a cloud... Is it a nebula... Its really faint but its there
I cant remember where exactly but close to the north of the sky, near ursa major i think there is this fuzzy spot up with the stars and you can see it on a clear night... Ive seen it from many parts around the northern hemisphere and was curious if anyone else has noticed it... It doesnt move so i know its not a cloud... Is it a nebula... Its really faint but its there
There are several galaxies near the Big Dipper part of Ursa Major, a couple just off the lip of the bowl that are pretty impressive in a really good amateur telescope, and a few along the handle, but none of them are naked eye objects even under the best seeing conditions. You might be seeing M31, the Andromeda galaxy, though it isn't really close to Ursa Major, but it's the only galaxy visible to the naked eye in the northern hemisphere, and it does appear as a vague fuzzy patch to the naked eye under good seeing conditions. Get yourself a star chart and locate Cassiopeia and Pegasus, which are easily identifiable in the night sky even in most cities, Andromeda is about halfway between them, but most of its stars, and M31, will be washed out by city lights.
Juan good day to you, I like this info you posted here, I want to look the direction of Andromeda, I am located on a 180 D south sky view, as I am facing this view which direction would I look for to see Andromeda.There is this lot: You would see Cassiopia, which sort or points to Andromeda, which to the naked eye, is not much more than a smudge. I don't know of any other obvious nebula in the area.
