VizionEck

Off-Topic => Off-Topic Community => Topic started by: Legend on Sep 02, 2014, 07:17 PM

Title: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 02, 2014, 07:17 PM
And is this a trick question? Hmmmmmm...
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Xevross on Sep 02, 2014, 07:21 PM
I don't know, ask aliens.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: ethomaz on Sep 02, 2014, 07:22 PM
Light seems to move like a slideshow in for my eyes... so yeap.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: kitler53 on Sep 02, 2014, 07:27 PM
yes,. but the "sonic" boom in your eyes would cause the universe to collapse.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 02, 2014, 07:48 PM
Why wouldn't objects be able to travel faster than the speed of light?  Who says that the speed of light is as fast as anything can travel at? Just because we can't get anything to travel faster doesn't mean they can't. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: fireburn95 on Sep 02, 2014, 08:16 PM

And is this a trick question? Hmmmmmm...


No, when a particle reaches the speed of light, the energy from all that creates new matter. E=MC²

Mass proportional to Energy. Increase energy of a reaction (by increasing the speed in the levels of speed of light) and you create a new matter.

Obviously, the only objects we can make achieve speed of light is particles like neurons and other particle physics.

Short answer no, because anything that reaches speed of light essentially creates new matter from energy.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 02, 2014, 11:03 PM
what about quarks?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 02, 2014, 11:08 PM
Einstein says no.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 12:07 AM
Sure things can. It's just that only light can travel at the speed of light in this universe.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 12:34 AM
I can't believe not a single one of you brought up that speed is relative.


Also e=mc2 is not correct when an object has momentum.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 03, 2014, 01:34 AM

I can't believe not a single one of you brought up that speed is relative.


Also e=mc2 is not correct when an object has momentum.

relative to what? distance/time? or that light travels at different speeds in another vizion of the universe?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 03, 2014, 01:46 AM
if someone travels 3/4 the speed of light in one direction,  and someone else travels 3/4 the speed of light in the other direction,   relative to each other, is one traveling faster than the speed of light?

i cant remember the answer lol but i know ive seen it somewhere before.

and also i believe conventional science tells us no, but there is theory about shrinking the space infront lol but that could have been discovery blowing smoke out its dog lol
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 02:13 AM

if someone travels 3/4 the speed of light in one direction,  and someone else travels 3/4 the speed of light in the other direction,   relative to each other, is one traveling faster than the speed of light?

i cant remember the answer lol but i know ive seen it somewhere before.

and also i believe conventional science tells us no, but there is theory about shrinking the space infront lol but that could have been discovery blowing smoke out its dog lol

Yeah apparently nasa is working on creating a warp drive that could essential fold space time in front and behind them to propel them faster than speed of light.  I don't think it necessarily would be going faster than speed of light though.  nuggets so confusing to me.

And the first part to your post is so confusing.  Makes no sense to me.  I'd be even more confused if the answer was yes one would be going fast than speed of light. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 03, 2014, 02:23 AM

Yeah apparently nasa is working on creating a warp drive that could essential fold space time in front and behind them to propel them faster than speed of light.  I don't think it necessarily would be going faster than speed of light though.  nuggets so confusing to me.

And the first part to your post is so confusing.  Makes no sense to me.  I'd be even more confused if the answer was yes one would be going fast than speed of light. 
Well in conventional physics, if im driving a car down a highway at 50,   and someone else is coming the other way at 50,   the speed relative to eachother is 100.   so what happends if you crank those speeds up to a point where you get a number faster than the speed of light?

edit: :(  no answer yet..   Would Time dilation play into some effect?

since no one is answering im gonna watch The elegant universe lol pretty sure ive seen it explained in it
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 02:43 AM

relative to what? distance/time? or that light travels at different speeds in another vizion of the universe?


Speed itself is relative. Like right now I'm going 0 mph relative to the Earth, but say 30,000 mph relative to the Sun. Without a reference point, you can't have speed.


So you could say you're going 30 trillion miles per second right now.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 03, 2014, 03:50 AM

Speed itself is relative. Like right now I'm going 0 mph relative to the Earth, but say 30,000 mph relative to the Sun. Without a reference point, you can't have speed.


So you could say you're going 30 trillion miles per second right now.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/1c68290b21a00c2d89fc43c8b0222b3b/tumblr_mq9qfgxY3X1rm1mkxo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 04:52 AM

Yeah apparently nasa is working on creating a warp drive that could essential fold space time in front and behind them to propel them faster than speed of light.  I don't think it necessarily would be going faster than speed of light though.  nuggets so confusing to me.

And the first part to your post is so confusing.  Makes no sense to me.  I'd be even more confused if the answer was yes one would be going fast than speed of light. 


This is actually how space travel works in Star Trek.  As I've stated, you can't move any object at the speed of light, but that doesn't mean space can't.  So if you bend space you create a warp bubble around an object where space is moving faster than light, but your object is essentially stationary.

On another note, I seem to recall Light being at C in a vacuum regardless of relativity.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: NeverDies on Sep 03, 2014, 09:00 AM
I just wanna know if there's any weird alterations to the way physics function if you were to blast off towards the center of the universe, in essence slowing down. Just would be interesting if matter reacts differently if it isn't moving.

Especially if it was also cooled to absolute zero.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 01:37 PM

I just wanna know if there's any weird alterations to the way physics function if you were to blast off towards the center of the universe, in essence slowing down. Just would be interesting if matter reacts differently if it isn't moving.

Especially if it was also cooled to absolute zero.


There is no center of the universe :O
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 02:16 PM
Absolute zero does not occur naturally from what we've seen and even though man-made attempts have gone below the coldest temperatures known to naturally occur we still have not achieved absolute zero. It is, by our current understanding, impossible.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 03, 2014, 02:23 PM
I thought absolute zero is impossible to recreate on earth because the object your freezing always has to touch something, which creates heat. But it occurs in space, or something...
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 02:25 PM

I thought absolute zero is impossible to recreate on earth because the object your freezing always has to touch something, which creates heat. But it occurs in space, or something...


No. Even the coldest areas we've seen in space do not hit absolute zero. We've been closer to creating absolute zero than nature has but we still can't achieve it.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 03, 2014, 02:32 PM
That we've seen. That doesn't really mean it can't happen.  After all we haven't found the end of it yet. Which would be the coldest. And we never will.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 02:35 PM

That we've seen. That doesn't really mean it can't happen.  After all we haven't found the end of it yet. Which would be the coldest. And we never will.


Absolute zero is only a theoretical temperature. Like I said, our current understanding is that it can't happen. If we were to witness absolute zero it would force us to rethink certain areas of physics. It's not about where we look. It's about the laws of physics as we've defined them essentially not allowing it within our universe.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 03, 2014, 02:40 PM
Ill have to Google bill nie, I remember he talked about it when I was a kid.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 03, 2014, 02:46 PM
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 03, 2014, 02:53 PM
Is that it Pi? It's not loading on my phone... :(
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 03, 2014, 02:54 PM

Is that it Pi? It's not loading on my phone... :(

No, it's a different video. 
I can't find a good Bill Nye video about it. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 03, 2014, 02:58 PM
Who's it about? It's not that I don't believe raven, it's just I learned it from bill, I can't ever recall talking about absolute zero in school. So I wanted to know what he said about it at the time.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 03, 2014, 03:02 PM

Who's it about? It's not that I don't believe raven, it's just I learned it from bill, I can't ever recall talking about absolute zero in school. So I wanted to know what he said about it at the time.

It's a cartoon.  :P
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 03:06 PM

I just wanna know if there's any weird alterations to the way physics function if you were to blast off towards the center of the universe, in essence slowing down. Just would be interesting if matter reacts differently if it isn't moving.

Especially if it was also cooled to absolute zero.


Everything is moving.

You have to remember the spacetime.

@absolute zero

To reach near absolute zero they use lazers. That way they can actually cool the particles by slowing them down, instead of cooling them like a fridge. Even if the reached a perfectly stationary state in our three dimensions, they'd still be going forward in time thus gravity and other forces instantly heat them up.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 03:09 PM
The universe would in theory be 0K if there wasn't that background radiation.  I think turning hydrogen into a solid state would get you closest to 0k, but you're right, not at it.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 04:20 PM
In order to achieve an actual absolute zero state it would either require the entire universe to stop moving even at the quantum level (clearly not desirable) or create a type of pocket universe that is untouched by our own until it is willed to be interacted with but that may also make it impossible to actually measure its temperature since the moment you observe it the pocket would become affected and thus heat back up. So it would still only be a theoretical temperature. It would require quite abstract and frankly unheard of means to be able to exist and be observed without being affected.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 05:01 PM

This is actually how space travel works in Star Trek.  As I've stated, you can't move any object at the speed of light, but that doesn't mean space can't.  So if you bend space you create a warp bubble around an object where space is moving faster than light, but your object is essentially stationary.

On another note, I seem to recall Light being at C in a vacuum regardless of relativity.

Yeah you stated it way better than I did.  It makes way more sense how you say it.  I just wish this stuff could be created in my lifetime, but sadly I doubt it will. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 05:06 PM

There is no center of the universe :O

Well if you go off the theory that beyond the edge of the universe that man can see is another universe/dimension then technically I would think there would be.  Thats if there really is an end to our universe where another universe begins. I just read about it a few days ago, but I could have totally not understood what they meant.  But those theories are hard to grasp and believe for me.  Would be awesome if we could get loads of proof about multiverses.  It's so interesting to read about though.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 05:50 PM

In order to achieve an actual absolute zero state it would either require the entire universe to stop moving even at the quantum level (clearly not desirable) or create a type of pocket universe that is untouched by our own until it is willed to be interacted with but that may also make it impossible to actually measure its temperature since the moment you observe it the pocket would become affected and thus heat back up. So it would still only be a theoretical temperature. It would require quite abstract and frankly unheard of means to be able to exist and be observed without being affected.


Space works differently, in that it should be 0K.  The universe doesn't move in the same way objects do, it just expands.  The only reason why it's not at 0K is because there's still the radiation from the big bang.  This temperature is also decreasing and is around 3K right as we speak.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 06:28 PM

Space works differently, in that it should be 0K.  The universe doesn't move in the same way objects do, it just expands.  The only reason why it's not at 0K is because there's still the radiation from the big bang.  This temperature is also decreasing and is around 3K right as we speak.


There is an area in space at 1k. What I'm saying is that right now, barring what appears to be inevitable for everything in the universe, absolute zero is impossible. There is no area in space this has happened and is not within our means to achieve. If absolute zero were achieved now naturally or artificially the scientific community would probably slam on the panic button. Absolute zero will always be a theoretical temperature because measuring something causes it to be affected and if everything in the universe hit absolute zero there would be no way to measure anything.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 06:47 PM
http://io9.com/5889074/why-cant-we-get-down-to-absolute-zero

Decent read.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 06:57 PM
I like this one: http://io9.com/5527521/what-happens-if-youre-traveling-at-the-speed-of-light-and-turn-on-your-headlights
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 07:02 PM
Question: So if time basically stops when you are traveling at the speed of light, would that essentially mean that if you went back to earth after say 20 days of space travel for you would time on earth be farther ahead in time than you would think?  So that 20 days to you was say 6 months on earth?  THIS STUFF HURTS MY BRAIN!!
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 03, 2014, 07:04 PM
We should have a sicence thread.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Xevross on Sep 03, 2014, 07:13 PM

We should have a sicence thread.

Agreed. Renaming this thread would do just fine!
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 07:17 PM

We should have a sicence thread.

Yeah this stuff is so interesting even though I don't understand it at all.

And yeah this thread would be good as a science thread.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light?
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 07:19 PM

Question: So if time basically stops when you are traveling at the speed of light, would that essentially mean that if you went back to earth after say 20 days of space travel for you would time on earth be farther ahead in time than you would think?  So that 20 days to you was say 6 months on earth?  THIS STUFF HURTS MY BRAIN!!


Yes, most likely.

Time dilation is weird.

I personally don't believe it's understood enough to definitively state things like that.


Say we have two objects in deep space. The difference in speed between the two is .9 the speed of light, or just really really fast.

Which object is the one experiencing time dilation, and which is the object no experiencing it?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 07:31 PM

Yes, most likely.

Time dilation is weird.

I personally don't believe it's understood enough to definitively state things like that.


Say we have two objects in deep space. The difference in speed between the two is .9 the speed of light, or just really really fast.

Which object is the one experiencing time dilation, and which is the object no experiencing it?

Well isn't time dilation something that supposedly happens to all objects once in deep space?  So wouldn't both be experiencing it, but just one would experience it more than the other?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 07:41 PM

Well isn't time dilation something that supposedly happens to all objects once in deep space?  So wouldn't both be experiencing it, but just one would experience it more than the other?


Time dilation happens from both gravity and speed.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 07:54 PM

There is an area in space at 1k. What I'm saying is that right now, barring what appears to be inevitable for everything in the universe, absolute zero is impossible. There is no area in space this has happened and is not within our means to achieve. If absolute zero were achieved now naturally or artificially the scientific community would probably slam on the panic button. Absolute zero will always be a theoretical temperature because measuring something causes it to be affected and if everything in the universe hit absolute zero there would be no way to measure anything.

That's the thing, it will take god knows how many years, but once the background radiation in the universe dissipates, it will become 0K.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 08:12 PM
The curvature of spacetime has something to do with time dilation imo.

That'd give objects a clear reference point that isn't relative.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 08:12 PM

That's the thing, it will take god knows how many years, but once the background radiation in the universe dissipates, it will become 0K.


You're talking about the "Big Freeze", right?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: nnodley on Sep 03, 2014, 08:16 PM

The curvature of spacetime has something to do with time dilation imo.

That'd give objects a clear reference point that isn't relative.

I need to read up more on space-time and time dilation.  Cause I'm over her like DAFUQ???!?!?!?!?  LULZ
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 08:19 PM

I need to read up more on space-time and time dilation.  Cause I'm over her like DAFUQ???!?!?!?!?  LULZ


Yeah it's all very interesting.

Start with understanding how gravity works. That's one of the simpler concepts to get you started.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 03, 2014, 08:32 PM
is anything in the universe not in motion? the planet earth is moving, so by association everything on it is as well constantly. Does the sun move or rotate? Black holes?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 08:33 PM

is anything in the universe not in motion? the planet earth is moving, so by association everything on it is as well constantly. Does the sun move or rotate? Black holes?


Not in motion relative to what?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 03, 2014, 08:47 PM

Not in motion relative to what?

are there no absolutes in the universe? I mean just like the idea of "absolute zero" is there such a thing as "absolute inertia"
If I have two rocks and throw one and not the other, that doesn't mean that the one not thrown is moving because I threw the other rock.
Motion as defined as movement, or moving, having force applied to it where it changes its physical space of occupancy in some way shape or form. Not necessarily relative to anything. However, such as instances on our planet where there is a base motion occurring to all things equally all the time I would say that counts as motion.

So can something perhaps in space be stabilized in and of its own with out being affected by external forces (or it being counteracted mechanically some how) to where its not moving period?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 08:59 PM

are there no absolutes in the universe? I mean just like the idea of "absolute zero" is there such a thing as "absolute inertia"
If I have two rocks and throw one and not the other, that doesn't mean that the one not thrown is moving because I threw the other rock.
Motion as defined as movement, or moving, having force applied to it where it changes its physical space of occupancy in some way shape or form. Not necessarily relative to anything. However, such as instances on our planet where there is a base motion occurring to all things equally all the time I would say that counts as motion.

So can something perhaps in space be stabilized in and of its own with out being affected by external forces (or it being counteracted mechanically some how) to where its not moving period?


There's absolutes, but absolute speed is not one of them.

If you were in a spaceship with no windows, you wouldn't be able to calculate speed. You can calculate and feel accelerations and therefore determine changes in speed, but that's it.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Sep 03, 2014, 09:05 PM

There's absolutes, but absolute speed is not one of them.

If you were in a spaceship with no windows, you wouldn't be able to calculate speed. You can calculate and feel accelerations and therefore determine changes in speed, but that's it.

What? Who doesn't put a speedometer in a space ship? :P
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 09:13 PM

What? Who doesn't put a speedometer in a space ship? :P


I don't. I'm a thrillseeker.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Sep 03, 2014, 09:16 PM

I don't. I'm a thrillseeker.

dang, yo' crazy baby!
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 09:58 PM

You're talking about the "Big Freeze", right?


No, I'm just remembering what my Astrophysics teacher taught us so I'm not sure what this "Big Freeze" is.  Space is supposed to be at 0K since it expands, it doesn't move.  But it's near 3K.  Which led scientists to believe that the 3K background radiation is the remnants from the Big Bang when it was still a singularity of infinite energy.  Though I was thinking about more and I'm unsure if that radiation will dissipate or not and the 3K might be a result of the universe thinning it out as it expands.  Thus it thinned out to 3K and should settle to an near 0 level but not at it.  Not sure what would be true, I'd have to ask a physicist on what would happen to the radiation.


@7H3 there is absolute 0 temperatures since math dictates this.  Raven was pointing out that its nigh impossible to actually produce that.  As far as max speed goes, the limit is technically C.  This is because there's no known way to instantaneously move something at above C.  Doesn't mean you can't go faster though ;)
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 03, 2014, 10:04 PM

There's absolutes, but absolute speed is not one of them.

If you were in a spaceship with no windows, you wouldn't be able to calculate speed. You can calculate and feel accelerations and therefore determine changes in speed, but that's it.

hmm interesting thought about absolute speed though... I mean there are constants, like gravity and the speed of light, but I wouldn't call those "absolute speeds" either. If there is an absolute '0' is there an absolute max heat value? So I suppose I could pose the same question as per absolute inertia, could there also be an absolute speed? Time is a constant I'd say, but it does seem to be mostly relative in how we track time, but a moment passes regardless of how different the measures could be made to distinguish by how much it has passed.

To define an absolute speed we would need absolute parameters for measure in terms of time and distance. Temperature seems simpler in terms as it is merely a measure of a singular factor.

Again I pose the question, but in different terms: Is it possible for an object to exist with absolutely no external force being applied to it? Absolute inertia or 0 speed?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 03, 2014, 10:25 PM

hmm interesting thought about absolute speed though... I mean there are constants, like gravity and the speed of light, but I wouldn't call those "absolute speeds" either. If there is an absolute '0' is there an absolute max heat value? So I suppose I could pose the same question as per absolute inertia, could there also be an absolute speed? Time is a constant I'd say, but it does seem to be mostly relative in how we track time, but a moment passes regardless of how different the measures could be made to distinguish by how much it has passed.

To define an absolute speed we would need absolute parameters for measure in terms of time and distance. Temperature seems simpler in terms as it is merely a measure of a singular factor.

Again I pose the question, but in different terms: Is it possible for an object to exist with absolutely no external force being applied to it? Absolute inertia or 0 speed?


Theoretically yes for forces, but that only gives constant inertia or speed.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 10:29 PM

No, I'm just remembering what my Astrophysics teacher taught us so I'm not sure what this "Big Freeze" is.  Space is supposed to be at 0K since it expands, it doesn't move.  But it's near 3K.  Which led scientists to believe that the 3K background radiation is the remnants from the Big Bang when it was still a singularity of infinite energy.  Though I was thinking about more and I'm unsure if that radiation will dissipate or not and the 3K might be a result of the universe thinning it out as it expands.  Thus it thinned out to 3K and should settle to an near 0 level but not at it.  Not sure what would be true, I'd have to ask a physicist on what would happen to the radiation.


From what I understand space will approach absolute zero but never truly achieve it nor will absolute zero be possible so long as it can be observed. Observing something influences it at the quantum level which makes it impossible to measure an absolute zero state. Space is not empty. It has quantum makeup just like anything else. The only way absolute zero is truly possible is for everything in the universe to be in that state so that no observations can be made and thus no quantum excitements can occur.

This is assuming that things at the quantum level can also be put to a halt which, from our current understanding, they actually cannot. Things that happen on a macro scale often mean jack to things on the quantum scale but things on the quantum scale can quite easily influence those on a macro scale. As long as something is happening at those tiny scales absolute zero cannot truly be achieved which means it never will be, based on our current understanding, since things at the quantum level often do as they dang well please regardless of what even common sense would tell you.

The Big Freeze is the growing scientific consensus on the ultimate fate of a lone universe in which the expanding distances of matter, lack of gas to form new stars, and increasing number of black holes eventually lead to an entire universe at near absolute zero which is incapable of sustaining life as we know it. A state of maximum entropy is then reached where information can no longer be processed. Basically, everything becomes freezing fudgy cold to the point where everything dies and then eventually nothing can happen at all. The good news is that quantum activity will still likely, at some point, give rise to a type of big bang which would start a whole new process.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 10:46 PM

hmm interesting thought about absolute speed though... I mean there are constants, like gravity and the speed of light, but I wouldn't call those "absolute speeds" either. If there is an absolute '0' is there an absolute max heat value? So I suppose I could pose the same question as per absolute inertia, could there also be an absolute speed? Time is a constant I'd say, but it does seem to be mostly relative in how we track time, but a moment passes regardless of how different the measures could be made to distinguish by how much it has passed.

To define an absolute speed we would need absolute parameters for measure in terms of time and distance. Temperature seems simpler in terms as it is merely a measure of a singular factor.

Again I pose the question, but in different terms: Is it possible for an object to exist with absolutely no external force being applied to it? Absolute inertia or 0 speed?


Not sure about a max temperature, but I would assume that the singularity that the Big Bang came out of would be it.  Same with speed.  Nothing but light can move at that speed, which is why its considered the limit.  Also, regardless of relativity, light moves at a constant speed in a vacuum, doesn't matter what velocity the observer is moving in.  This also causes causality problems if information was to move at light because of inertial references.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 03, 2014, 10:50 PM

From what I understand space will approach absolute zero but never truly achieve it nor will absolute zero be possible so long as it can be observed. Observing something influences it at the quantum level which makes it impossible to measure an absolute zero state. Space is not empty. It has quantum makeup just like anything else. The only way absolute zero is truly possible is for everything in the universe to be in that state so that no observations can be made and thus no quantum excitements can occur.

This is assuming that things at the quantum level can also be put to a halt which, from our current understanding, they actually cannot. Things that happen on a macro scale often mean jack to things on the quantum scale but things on the quantum scale can quite easily influence those on a macro scale. As long as something is happening at those tiny scales absolute zero cannot truly be achieved which means it never will be, based on our current understanding, since things at the quantum level often do as they dang well please regardless of what even common sense would tell you.

The Big Freeze is the growing scientific consensus on the ultimate fate of a lone universe in which the expanding distances of matter, lack of gas to form new stars, and increasing number of black holes eventually lead to an entire universe at near absolute zero which is incapable of sustaining life as we know it. A state of maximum entropy is then reached where information can no longer be processed. Basically, everything becomes freezing fudgy cold to the point where everything dies and then eventually nothing can happen at all. The good news is that quantum activity will still likely, at some point, give rise to a type of big bang which would start a whole new process.


Space is empty, so to speak.  Which is why it should be at 0K.  Obviously right now that's not the cause because of the radiation.  Like I said, it depends what happens to this radiation.  If it dissipates completely then the universe will become 0K with whatever sun, planet, etc, inbetween giving off energy and moving.

I recall the universe burning out of hydrogen in the trillions of years.  Its one possibility.  The other is a contraction.  It depends what the cosmological constant ends up being.  There was a third option I can't remember right now.  I really wish I knew where my astrophysics book went :/.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 03, 2014, 11:27 PM

Space is empty, so to speak.  Which is why it should be at 0K.  Obviously right now that's not the cause because of the radiation.  Like I said, it depends what happens to this radiation.  If it dissipates completely then the universe will become 0K with whatever sun, planet, etc, inbetween giving off energy and moving.

I recall the universe burning out of hydrogen in the trillions of years.  Its one possibility.  The other is a contraction.  It depends what the cosmological constant ends up being.  There was a third option I can't remember right now.  I really wish I knew where my astrophysics book went :/.


The third is everything being pulled apart. Nicknamed the Big Rip.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 12:21 AM
I believe in the contraction theory. Basically, the universe exploded and we are still experiencing that effect. Over time it will stop expanding and start contracting on its self, and then explode again, starting the whole cycle over.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 12:54 AM

I believe in the contraction theory. Basically, the universe exploded and we are still experiencing that effect. Over time it will stop expanding and start contracting on its self, and then explode again, starting the whole cycle over.


Apparently, as of today, scientists have less support for the idea because more of them believe that gravity is not slowing the expansion of the universe down like they previously thought. Rather, the expansion is accelerating from certain observations. There are some other factors that need to be considered though. What will ultimately happen to the universe is far from decided and most theories revolve around this being the only universe. There are some others that say this is not the case.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 04, 2014, 12:58 AM

Apparently, as of today, scientists have less support for the idea because more of them believe that gravity is not slowing the expansion of the universe down like they previously thought. Rather, the expansion is accelerating from certain observations. There are some other factors that need to be considered though. What will ultimately happen to the universe is far from decided and most theories revolve around this being the only universe. There are some others that say this is not the case.

#DarkEnergy>DarkMatter
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 01:21 AM

#DarkEnergy>DarkMatter


Among other things. Dark Energy being a big part of it.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 01:34 AM

Apparently, as of today, scientists have less support for the idea because more of them believe that gravity is not slowing the expansion of the universe down like they previously thought. Rather, the expansion is accelerating from certain observations. There are some other factors that need to be considered though. What will ultimately happen to the universe is far from decided and most theories revolve around this being the only universe. There are some others that say this is not the case.


There is still much force behind the expansion. We wont be around when the universe slows down. Where are you reading this? Because i was watching a "through the worm hole" just a few months ago or maybe weeks that talked about that. Maybe that episode was dated but couldn't be that old. Is the scientific community changing it's mind that quickly? Then again, that's all they talked about during that episode and didn't talk about the others.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 01:35 AM

There is still much force behind the expansion. We wont be around when the universe slows down. Where are you reading this? Because i was watching a "through the worm hole" just a few months ago or maybe weeks that talked about that. Maybe that episode was dated but couldn't be that old. Is the scientific community changing it's mind that quickly? Then again, that's all they talked about during that episode and didn't talk about the others.


Don't watch The Discovery Channel. Just don't.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 01:35 AM

Don't watch The Discovery Channel. Just don't.


Lol, why? and fastest reply on earth.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 01:38 AM

Don't watch The Discovery Channel. Just don't.

Mythbusters is amusing though!
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 01:43 AM

Lol, why? and fastest reply on earth.


A lot of times channels like that will use outdated information, pay actors to act like scientific authorities, fool scientists into thinking they're doing a show on something and then take their words out of context, and all the while telling things in a more entertaining and shocking way that betrays what it actually is. The History Channel is especially notorious for that and The Discovery Channel was caught spewing battleship a few times from what I heard. You're better off googling the stuff you want to know about. I'll tell you this much, Wikipedia is way more helpful than any TV you'll watch and there are websites out there with good information.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 01:44 AM
I love the discovery channel. and they do bring in real scientist, so it's not like they should completely disregarded. But they may not structure their shows the way a university would their classes.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 01:48 AM

I love the discovery channel. and they do bring in real scientist, so it's not like they should completely disregarded. But they may not structure their shows the way a university would their classes.


http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_bigcrunch.html
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 04, 2014, 01:48 AM



What has the history channel done?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 01:52 AM

What has the history channel done?


That Ancient Aliens guy... not even remotely any kind of authority on anything related to space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_A._Tsoukalos

The dude went to school for sports information and communication. He was a body builder promoter. Then about 10 years ago he started essentially preaching that aliens were a part of early human development and got involved with associations, with questionable scientific backgrounds, that promoted this idea. The dude is basically a quack.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 04, 2014, 01:56 AM

That Ancient Aliens guy... not even remotely any kind of authority on anything related to space.

lol  Of course he isn't. 
Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku are good though. 
On a related note, google is so funny. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 01:58 AM

lol  Of course he isn't. 
Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku are good though. 
On a related note, google is so funny. 


Tyson and Kaku are good sure.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 04, 2014, 01:59 AM

Tyson and Kaku are good sure.

Are they? 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 02:00 AM
Lol, well I don't think anyone takes that show too seriously but it does raise some interesting what ifs.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 02:01 AM

Are they? 


They are.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 02:01 AM

Lol, well I don't think anyone takes that show too seriously but it does raise some interesting what ifs.


The interesting what if is what would happen if you were allowed to reproduce.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 02:03 AM

Lol, well I don't think anyone takes that show too seriously but it does raise some interesting what ifs.


No. It flat out lies most of the time.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 02:03 AM
I would have lead the same life I was on before I got married. Which wasn't very interesting....
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 02:05 AM

I would have lead the same life I was on before I got married. Which wasn't very interesting....


Not a lot of naughtiness, huh? :/
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 02:11 AM
There was one episode of AE where they kept finding examples in the bible and art of the Earth being round instead of flat.

"The people back then thought it was flat, so aliens must have told them the truth!"


The truth actually is that the Earth being round was common knowledge for thousands of years.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 02:16 AM

No. It flat out lies most of the time.


What do they lie about? Other besides his theories are out there.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 02:20 AM

Not a lot of naughtiness, huh? :/


No i visited you moms house quite often before then. But you know she's past her prime.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 02:21 AM

There was one episode of AE where they kept finding examples in the bible and art of the Earth being round instead of flat.

"The people back then thought it was flat, so aliens must have told them the truth!"


The truth actually is that the Earth being round was common knowledge for thousands of years.


Never mind my last quote.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 02:27 AM

There was one episode of AE where they kept finding examples in the bible and art of the Earth being round instead of flat.

"The people back then thought it was flat, so aliens must have told them the truth!"


The truth actually is that the Earth being round was common knowledge for thousands of years.


As early as 6th century BC is when we start hearing someone credited with claiming the Earth is round. Pythagoras was the one being credited though we suspect others may have thought of it sooner than that.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 02:27 AM

No i visited you moms house quite often before then. But you know she's past her prime.


You, sir, have low standards.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 04, 2014, 02:29 AM

You, sir, have low standards.


Well when you in a pinch. :(
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 04, 2014, 02:35 AM

The third is everything being pulled apart. Nicknamed the Big Rip.


It wasn't that.  It was something else.


read some more posts.  I remember my Astrophysics teacher showing us a video about string theory.  If that theory works out then our universe came when two branes collided with each other giving energy off into a new universe.  Where are these other dimensions?  Well they're right here *points in front of me*.  Those were her words.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 02:36 AM

It wasn't that.  It was something else.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Bounce

Show us on this page where the science touched you...
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 04, 2014, 02:42 AM
Read above, I made an edit.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 04, 2014, 02:48 AM
Wikipedia is not a reputable resource for information... :P
did you guys ever see this thread? http://vizioneck.com/forum/index.php?topic=279.0
there is an article linked there that talks about higgs boson and scientific findings and what they mean... basically the math behind contraction theories were so messed up that there findings have given cause to rethink and redo the math as we shouldn't be here according to those findings.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 03:03 AM
Wiki is actually really good for nerdy stuff.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 03:09 AM

Wiki is actually really good for nerdy stuff.


Yeah. For pop culture it sucks. Start talking science and it becomes a pretty good source of basic information.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 04, 2014, 03:12 AM

Read above, I made an edit.


I believe Brian Greene is currently working on string theory as one of its lead guys. One thing is definitely for sure... for everything we know there is an dog load we don't and every time we shed light on something we realize how in the dark we still are.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 04, 2014, 05:48 AM
wiki is not reputable, and should only be used to get a good idea about something, but you can't really quote it as fact from wiki
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 05:56 AM

wiki is not reputable, and should only be used to get a good idea about something, but you can't really quote it as fact from wiki


We aren't talking about writing college papers here lol.

For scientific pages, wiki is just as reputable as most other websites dedicated to the field.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 04, 2014, 08:54 PM

I believe Brian Greene is currently working on string theory as one of its lead guys. One thing is definitely for sure... for everything we know there is an dog load we don't and every time we shed light on something we realize how in the dark we still are.


Yeah, I think this is also the problem with quantum mechanics.  There's so much going on there, I don't think our 4 dimensional minds would ever be able to comprehend.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Slayer on Sep 04, 2014, 08:56 PM
why wouldn't they be able to go faster?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 09:13 PM

why wouldn't they be able to go faster?


Well for starters the speed of light is constant regardless of how fast you're moving.

If you're going 10 trillion mph and turn on your headlights, they'd still work just fine. It's all very complicated and confusing.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Slayer on Sep 04, 2014, 09:21 PM

Well for starters the speed of light is constant regardless of how fast you're moving.

If you're going 10 trillion mph and turn on your headlights, they'd still work just fine. It's all very complicated and confusing.

yeah but why?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 04, 2014, 09:25 PM

yeah but why?


Because they just do?

I think we don't know yet. It's more of an observable event backed up by mathematics than a clear understanding of why the universe works this way.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 04, 2014, 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 05, 2014, 12:24 AM

Well for starters the speed of light is constant regardless of how fast you're moving.

If you're going 10 trillion mph and turn on your headlights, they'd still work just fine. It's all very complicated and confusing.

so if i'm driving 30mph and I turn on my lights, the light isn't going 30mph+ speed of light? does that mean if you were going close to the speed of light the distance light went would be shorter than if you were going slower?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Sep 05, 2014, 12:27 AM

so if i'm driving 30mph and I turn on my lights, the light isn't going 30mph+ speed of light? does that mean if you were going close to the speed of light the distance light went would be shorter than if you were going slower?


No, it's going C only.  The "joys" of Special Relativity.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 05, 2014, 12:34 AM



Where did you find that video?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 05, 2014, 12:45 AM

so if i'm driving 30mph and I turn on my lights, the light isn't going 30mph+ speed of light? does that mean if you were going close to the speed of light the distance light went would be shorter than if you were going slower?

Once upon a time, they thought that information, gravity, light were infinitely fast.  But several experiments showed that it wasn't the case that light was infinitely fast.  They thought they should get results like what you are saying.  c+v=

But all experiments showed that the speed of light was limited to c. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 05, 2014, 12:46 AM

Where did you find that video?

Youtube. 
"speed of light c"
5th result

Why? 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 05, 2014, 12:56 AM

Youtube. 
"speed of light c"
4th result

Why? 


I'm subscribed to a ton of science channels on youtube, so I was interested in the fact that you didn't find a vid from one of them.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 05, 2014, 12:57 AM

I'm subscribed to a ton of science channels on youtube, so I was interested in the fact that you didn't find a vid from one of them.

I need more science channels. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 05, 2014, 01:31 AM

I need more science channels. 

Has gravity in the title so how much more science y can you get?

Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 05, 2014, 01:58 AM

Has gravity in the title so how much more science y can you get?



A little bit more science-y.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Sep 05, 2014, 02:33 PM
list=TLraMaZjThpVkTJh4CVGJWx-R-BbVj8_D_
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 07, 2014, 01:46 PM
Don't let the dream die people! 

My science teachers let me keep a bunch of textbooks. 
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 07, 2014, 03:03 PM

Don't let the dream die people! 

My science teachers let me keep a bunch of textbooks. 


The dream is both dead and alive.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 07, 2014, 03:10 PM

The dream is both dead and alive.


Chill out, Schrodinger.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 07, 2014, 03:14 PM

Chill out, Schrodinger.


Oh no I just meant a zombie dream.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 07, 2014, 03:18 PM

Oh no I just meant a zombie dream.


Are we talking actual zombies or philosophical zombies?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 07, 2014, 03:19 PM

Are we talking actual zombies or philosophical zombies?


Zombie ants.
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Sep 07, 2014, 03:25 PM

Zombie ants.


Cordyceps fungus?
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Sep 07, 2014, 03:31 PM

Cordyceps fungus?


Fo shizzle
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Nov 10, 2014, 03:03 AM
Bump.

Let's talk time travel!
Title: Re: Can objects go faster than the speed of light? Science discussion thread
Post by: BasilZero on Nov 10, 2014, 03:15 AM

Bump.

Let's talk time travel!


Alternate/Parallel Dimensions plox
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Nov 10, 2014, 03:21 AM

Bump.

Let's talk time travel!


Not sure about that although I did read something recently where some scientists believe that parallel universes could affect each other and be the cause of unexplained phenomena.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Nov 10, 2014, 03:31 AM

Not sure about that although I did read something recently where some scientists believe that parallel universes could affect each other and be the cause of unexplained phenomena.


Ghosts!!!

Also link?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 10, 2014, 03:32 AM

Bump.

Let's talk time travel!

Time travel in whose and what perspective?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Nov 10, 2014, 03:50 AM

Time travel in whose and what perspective?


You decide.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Nov 10, 2014, 04:00 AM

Ghosts!!!

Also link?


http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-predicts-parallel-universes-overlap-and-interact

This isn't the one I read but I couldn't find it. This works for the most part. Mind you, this kind of science is quite debatable in the scientific community.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: NeverDies on Nov 10, 2014, 04:47 AM
Just saw Interstellar. Time travel shenanigans ho!
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BasilZero on Nov 10, 2014, 05:23 AM

Just saw Interstellar. Time travel shenanigans ho!


I want it to see it *_*
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Nov 10, 2014, 06:16 AM
What if going backwards in time was just going forwards in time, but in reverse?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: NeverDies on Nov 10, 2014, 06:21 AM

What if going backwards in time was just going forwards in time, but in reverse?

That makes the kind of sense that feels like an epiphany, but then you try thinking about it more and end up going "meh".
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Nov 10, 2014, 06:46 AM

That makes the kind of sense that feels like an epiphany, but then you try thinking about it more and end up going "meh".


Nah the more you think about it, the cooler it gets.


Imagine a universe that was going backwards in time. Physically, it'd be perfectly fine. It'd just have the complete opposite rules as us.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BasilZero on Nov 10, 2014, 11:51 AM

Nah the more you think about it, the cooler it gets.


Imagine a universe that was going backwards in time. Physically, it'd be perfectly fine. It'd just have the complete opposite rules as us.


Wouldnt existence also be affected by this?

Assuming humans exist in this hypothetical world.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: mustacheman on Nov 10, 2014, 12:40 PM
From a totally mathematical standpoint, no it isn't possible. The energy required to do so is infinite and thus; we can never achieve "time travel" in the conventional sense.

On the flipside; perhaps in a separate universe which didn't have the same dependencies on space-time as our universe it may be possible, however then you would have the same issues but in a different way.

In short, no time travel isn't possible. Next time.

Also I saw something about "speed being relative". That's true, but that doesn't apply to the speed of light. If you were going at half the speed of light, then light would travel at half the speed so that it continues at exactly the same speed regardless of everything around it. It's not a universal constant for nothing!
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Nov 10, 2014, 01:38 PM

Not sure about that although I did read something recently where some scientists believe that parallel universes could affect each other and be the cause of unexplained phenomena.

My astro physics teacher would explain that to us.  She'd say "Where are all these other dimensions?  Right here." *points right in front her her*
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 08, 2014, 05:09 AM
Savants are interesting.
Spoiler for Hidden:
bump
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 05:10 AM

Savants are interesting.
Spoiler for Hidden:
bump



What are savants?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 08, 2014, 05:15 AM

What are savants?

Generally, they are people who have very poor intelligence, but are exceptional at something. 

Like one guy is unable to multiply 3 x 5, yet he could tell you that February 7, 1900 fell on a Wednesday in a few seconds.  Or that December 8th, 2098 will fall on a Monday. 

Well, not necessarily poor intelligence.  But I think those are the coolest cases.  If you've ever seen Rain Man. 
This is about Kim Peek, who Rain Man was based off. 
Quote
Kim was able to memorize things from the age of 16-20 months. He read books, memorized them, and then placed them upside down on the shelf to show that he had finished reading them, a practice he maintained all his life. He could speed through a book in about an hour and remember almost everything he had read, memorizing vast amounts of information in subjects ranging from history and literature, geography and numbers to sports, music and dates. Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books.[6] Peek lived in Murray, Utah and spent a considerable amount of his time reading at the Salt Lake City Library and demonstrating his capabilities at schools, with great help from his father.[10]

Peek did not walk until he was four years old, and then in a sidelong manner.[8] He could not button up his shirt and had difficulty with other ordinary motor skills, presumably due to his damaged cerebellum, which normally coordinates motor activities. In psychological testing, Peek scored below average (87) on general IQ tests.[11]
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BananaKing on Dec 08, 2014, 02:32 PM

Nah the more you think about it, the cooler it gets.


Imagine a universe that was going backwards in time. Physically, it'd be perfectly fine. It'd just have the complete opposite rules as us.



thats if time its self is has a linear model as we perceive it.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BananaKing on Dec 08, 2014, 02:35 PM

Just saw Interstellar. Time travel shenanigans ho!


i know this is a month late. but after i saw intersteller i been more interested in well, interstellar and alient planets more than time travel travel or time variation. been watching hours of documentaries about space really.

stuff like planet collision and stuff like that.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 04:09 PM


thats if time its self is has a linear model as we perceive it.


Well it doesn't matter how time actually works, since it'd just be us percieving it as backwards.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BananaKing on Dec 08, 2014, 07:16 PM

Well it doesn't matter how time actually works, since it'd just be us percieving it as backwards.


but can it run "backwords"?  lets say it does, would you see everything in reverse?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 07:25 PM

but can it run "backwords"?  lets say it does, would you see everything in reverse?


This universe with negative time would function very similar to ours, except all forces would be negative as well. So gravity would push things away, magnets would attract when charge is the same and repel when charge is different, etc. If you somehow placed a human in to this universe they would essentially move in reverse, but that's because they were designed for normal time. Beings born in this reverse time would be pretty normal and think of their time direction as being forward as well. The flow of time isn't affected.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 07:39 PM

Generally, they are people who have very poor intelligence, but are exceptional at something. 

Like one guy is unable to multiply 3 x 5, yet he could tell you that February 7, 1900 fell on a Wednesday in a few seconds.  Or that December 8th, 2098 will fall on a Monday. 

Well, not necessarily poor intelligence.  But I think those are the coolest cases.  If you've ever seen Rain Man. 
This is about Kim Peek, who Rain Man was based off. 


I'm impressed that you actually made sure those weekdays were accurate :)


Yeah it's interesting that lots of above average intelligence people have other parts of their brains severely below average.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Dec 08, 2014, 10:34 PM


thats if time its self is has a linear model as we perceive it.

Well some 8 dimensional being would be able to manipulate time and space in our lowly 4 dimensions.  Though, since I haven't become king of the universe yet, I'll assume there isn't one.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Dec 08, 2014, 11:00 PM
Spoiler for Hidden:
I don't like what interstellar did with the black hole involving time and space and what not. I presume that what happened is pretty impossible irl...


BK edit: just covering up spoilers.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 11:02 PM
Spoiler for Hidden:
<div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://vizioneck.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9ea02005e594b87b838f153f4a8efffa&amp;topic=829.msg60094#msg60094">Quote from: Xevross on Dec 08, 2014, 11:00 PM</a></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><br />I don't like what interstellar did with the black hole involving time and space and what not. I presume that what happened is pretty impossible irl...<br /></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"></div><br /><br />Yeah but in the movie the black hole was used to hide that building right?


BK edit: just covering up spoilers, yo.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Dec 08, 2014, 11:05 PM
Spoiler for Hidden:
<div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://vizioneck.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9ea02005e594b87b838f153f4a8efffa&amp;topic=829.msg60096#msg60096">Quote from: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 11:02 PM</a></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><br />Yeah but in the movie the black hole was used to hide that building right?<br /></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"></div><br />Or was the building thing put inside the black hole? Either way it just seems stupidly impossible


BK edit: its like the spoiler button doesnt even exist :(
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 11:14 PM

Spoiler for Hidden:
Or was the building thing put inside the black hole? Either way it just seems stupidly impossible


You can't put anything in a black hole. They're singularities of matter.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Dec 08, 2014, 11:15 PM

You can't put anything in a black hole. They're singularities of matter.

Yeah but that part of Interstellar was pretty much fiction anyways. I can't wait to learn more complicated science at college :)
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2014, 11:20 PM

Yeah but that part of Interstellar was pretty much fiction anyways. I can't wait to learn more complicated science at college :)


Once you learn it, then build a spaceship and go see it!
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Dec 08, 2014, 11:22 PM

Once you learn it, then build a spaceship and go see it!

I'll send you on a test flight first though
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: mustacheman on Dec 09, 2014, 12:35 AM
Black holes do involve time, but the film was a complete scientific fiasco.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 09, 2014, 01:11 AM

Black holes do involve time, but the film was a complete scientific fiasco.


Much much better than gravity though!
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 09, 2014, 02:44 AM

I'm impressed that you actually made sure those weekdays were accurate :)
Yeah it's interesting that lots of above average intelligence people have other parts of their brains severely below average.

I'm impressed that you actually checked to make sure those weekdays were accurate. 



Much much better than gravity though!

That's not saying much, tbh. 
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Dec 09, 2014, 03:04 AM

I'm impressed that you actually checked to make sure those weekdays were accurate. 

That's not saying much, tbh. 

I'm impressed you guys like weekdays
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: NeverDies on Dec 09, 2014, 06:23 AM
I just got a laugh when they landed on the one super speed high gravity planet. They should have been pasted instead of being able to walk around.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 09, 2014, 07:19 AM

I just got a laugh when they landed on the one super speed high gravity planet. They should have been pasted instead of being able to walk around.


No actually they'd be fine since the planet had normal gravity, it was the black hole with the high gravity. The force pulling them towards the black hole was also pulling the planet, thus no squishing.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BananaKing on Dec 09, 2014, 01:48 PM

Spoiler for Hidden:
I just got a laugh when they landed on the one super speed high gravity planet. They should have been pasted instead of being able to walk around.



it just had 30% more gravity than earth.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: BananaKing on Dec 09, 2014, 01:49 PM
so i got a question, what would happen if two planets nearly collide? i mean just miss each other.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Dec 09, 2014, 02:31 PM

so i got a question, what would happen if two planets nearly collide? i mean just miss each other.


There is almost certainly a distance at which the effects would be catastrophic, at least on the surface, while still missing each other. I would imagine a ton of electromagnetic disturbances, tremendous winds, very high temperatures, raging storms, possible tectonic upheaval, in addition to some atmospheric and gravitational effects I can't even imagine. Then again I could be completely wrong and we'd just pass by while waving at each other. Put it this way, if the moon's gravity effects us you can probably imagine two equally sized planets with substantial gravity zipping by each other at high speed within relative "inches" wouldn't be fun.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 09, 2014, 04:05 PM

Spoiler for Hidden:

Yeah but in the movie the black hole was used to hide that building right?


BK edit: just covering up spoilers, yo.


Oops.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Dec 09, 2014, 05:16 PM

There is almost certainly a distance at which the effects would be catastrophic, at least on the surface, while still missing each other. I would imagine a ton of electromagnetic disturbances, tremendous winds, very high temperatures, raging storms, possible tectonic upheaval, in addition to some atmospheric and gravitational effects I can't even imagine. Then again I could be completely wrong and we'd just pass by while waving at each other. Put it this way, if the moon's gravity effects us you can probably imagine two equally sized planets with substantial gravity zipping by each other at high speed within relative "inches" wouldn't be fun.


Well considering what the moon does to the oceans...
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Dec 09, 2014, 06:15 PM

Well considering what the moon does to the oceans...


Or what I do to you in bed. Wait what?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Dec 09, 2014, 06:20 PM

Or what I do to you in bed. Wait what?

You cheating on me?
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Raven on Dec 09, 2014, 07:40 PM

You cheating on me?


It was a secret only to you. I'm the village bicycle.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Xevross on Dec 09, 2014, 08:02 PM

It was a secret only to you. I'm the village bicycle.

You may want to check out your seat, riding you was very comfy
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 20, 2014, 02:11 AM
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 20, 2014, 02:50 AM




Can't watch the video atm but going off the title

no?...
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 20, 2014, 02:52 AM

Can't watch the video atm but going off the title

no?...

He's joking.  :D
It's a Vsauce video. 
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Dec 20, 2014, 05:18 PM
Oh hey it's exactly what I've been telling people about everyone knowing the Earth was round! Hahaha.

Also with the gravity thing, was he ignoring Earth's rotation? I mean squishing the planet like that would greatly increase theradius so innertia would really help keep gravity feeling down.
Title: Re: Can objects go back in time? Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 21, 2014, 02:43 AM

Oh hey it's exactly what I've been telling people about everyone knowing the Earth was round! Hahaha.

Also with the gravity thing, was he ignoring Earth's rotation? I mean squishing the planet like that would greatly increase the radius so innertia would really help keep gravity feeling down.

I think he was ignoring Earth's rotation. 

But to flatten the Earth like that would require a different type of gravity.  Normal tends to be rather spherical because everything is being pulled into the middle.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Feb 23, 2015, 05:59 PM
Here's a new subject of discussion.

1. A rocket shoots off from Earth. It accelerates almost instantaneously to 99% of the speed of light, relative to Earth. This rocket then does a grand tour of the Milky Way galaxy. After going in a large circle, it slows down and lands back on the Earth. Earth clocks will have shown thousands of years have passed, while clocks in the rocket will only show a few minutes have passed. Correct?

2. If so, then the same is repeated except with space ship A and space ship B. Both are in orbit around our solar system, but far off beyond Pluto. Space ship A never turns on its engines, while space ship B shoots off on a grand tour of the galaxy, just like the rocket before. Relative to space ship A, space ship B is going 99% the speed of light. When space ship B returns, its clocks show only a few minutes have passed, while space ship A's clocks show thousands of years have passed. Correct?

3. If so, then the same is repeated expect out in deep deep space, far away from any galaxies. Space ship A and space ship B are out in the middle of nowhere with the same relative velocities. Then space ship B turns on its engines and shoots off for a similar journey as before, just in empty space. When space ship B returns, its clocks show only a few minutes have passed, while space ship A's clocks show thousands of years have passed. Correct?

4. If so, then the exact same thing is repeated with two new ships. However both of these ships have no windows and no way to see the outside world, except for the other space ship. When this happens, both ships perceive the other ship is the one flying off at 99% the speed of light. When the ships meet up again, they would both think the other ship had perceived a shorter amount of time. Correct?

See if you can try and spot the flaw in this line of thinking.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Feb 23, 2015, 06:53 PM
I missed this thread!
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Feb 23, 2015, 11:47 PM

Here's a new subject of discussion.

1. A rocket shoots off from Earth. It accelerates almost instantaneously to 99% of the speed of light, relative to Earth. This rocket then does a grand tour of the Milky Way galaxy. After going in a large circle, it slows down and lands back on the Earth. Earth clocks will have shown thousands of years have passed, while clocks in the rocket will only show a few minutes have passed. Correct?

2. If so, then the same is repeated except with space ship A and space ship B. Both are in orbit around our solar system, but far off beyond Pluto. Space ship A never turns on its engines, while space ship B shoots off on a grand tour of the galaxy, just like the rocket before. Relative to space ship A, space ship B is going 99% the speed of light. When space ship B returns, its clocks show only a few minutes have passed, while space ship A's clocks show thousands of years have passed. Correct?

3. If so, then the same is repeated expect out in deep deep space, far away from any galaxies. Space ship A and space ship B are out in the middle of nowhere with the same relative velocities. Then space ship B turns on its engines and shoots off for a similar journey as before, just in empty space. When space ship B returns, its clocks show only a few minutes have passed, while space ship A's clocks show thousands of years have passed. Correct?

4. If so, then the exact same thing is repeated with two new ships. However both of these ships have no windows and no way to see the outside world, except for the other space ship. When this happens, both ships perceive the other ship is the one flying off at 99% the speed of light. When the ships meet up again, they would both think the other ship had perceived a shorter amount of time. Correct?

See if you can try and spot the flaw in this line of thinking.

Yes, physics :P
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Feb 24, 2015, 03:08 AM
While time is a man made measurement of an observable difference I highly doubt that time travel is possible in any shape or form.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 24, 2015, 03:13 AM

Here's a new subject of discussion.

1. A rocket shoots off from Earth. It accelerates almost instantaneously to 99% of the speed of light, relative to Earth. This rocket then does a grand tour of the Milky Way galaxy. After going in a large circle, it slows down and lands back on the Earth. Earth clocks will have shown thousands of years have passed, while clocks in the rocket will only show a few minutes have passed. Correct?

2. If so, then the same is repeated except with space ship A and space ship B. Both are in orbit around our solar system, but far off beyond Pluto. Space ship A never turns on its engines, while space ship B shoots off on a grand tour of the galaxy, just like the rocket before. Relative to space ship A, space ship B is going 99% the speed of light. When space ship B returns, its clocks show only a few minutes have passed, while space ship A's clocks show thousands of years have passed. Correct?

3. If so, then the same is repeated expect out in deep deep space, far away from any galaxies. Space ship A and space ship B are out in the middle of nowhere with the same relative velocities. Then space ship B turns on its engines and shoots off for a similar journey as before, just in empty space. When space ship B returns, its clocks show only a few minutes have passed, while space ship A's clocks show thousands of years have passed. Correct?

4. If so, then the exact same thing is repeated with two new ships. However both of these ships have no windows and no way to see the outside world, except for the other space ship. When this happens, both ships perceive the other ship is the one flying off at 99% the speed of light. When the ships meet up again, they would both think the other ship had perceived a shorter amount of time. Correct?

See if you can try and spot the flaw in this line of thinking.

That's supposed to be what happens, though number 4 seems suspect to me. 
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 24, 2015, 03:15 AM

I highly doubt that time travel is possible in any shape or form.

You're traveling through time right now!! 
Just look at the clocks.  They're changing. 
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Feb 24, 2015, 04:01 AM

You're traveling through time right now!! 
Just look at the clocks.  They're changing. 

lol fair enough
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Feb 24, 2015, 04:01 AM
the flaw would be no windows = no seeing
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2015, 04:26 AM

the flaw would be no windows = no seeing


They are magic windows.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: 7H3 on Feb 24, 2015, 06:44 AM

They are magic windows.

magic? this is a science thread!
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2015, 07:44 PM
The problem lies in with the jump to #4.

In 1 through 3 it is not the speed of the ship that causes time dilation, but the acceleration. While the ships are flying, they will both see the other as going slow. The first rocket as it flies away from Earth would see everything on Earth pause, just like people on Earth would see the rocket's clock pause. It isn't until the rocket slows down and starts coming back that universal time dilation occurs.

You know how the gravity from Earth makes time run slightly slower? That's because our frame of reference is experiencing a force. The force of the rocket's engines is no different than the force of gravity. By accelerating/turning around, the space ship's clock slows down just like on that one planet from Interstellar.

So in #4, the problem is that I removed acceleration from the question. It must occur, but you don't know which ship is experiencing it. So the two ships might have the same clocks afterwards, but that'd only happen if they both had their engines on.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Mar 13, 2015, 09:11 PM
What if consciousness is everywhere? No different than magnetism.

Then our brains simply align all the microscopic consciousnesses and magnify the result, again just like magnetism.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: darkknightkryta on Mar 13, 2015, 11:36 PM

What if consciousness is everywhere? No different than magnetism.

Then our brains simply align all the microscopic consciousnesses and magnify the result, again just like magnetism.

I've had this theory: that our consciousness exists in a greater than 4 dimensional form.  Maybe our brains just tune into the 4 dimensions of it.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 13, 2015, 11:38 PM
Nah, there's only one consciousness.   My own. 
All of you guys are figments of my imagination in my own mental matrix. 
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 27, 2015, 02:49 AM
I kinda have one question that I'm going to ask 3 different ways. 

Do you think personality just a description of an intelligence or is it, it's own part?

Another way of asking, is personality completely learned or is there something inherent that's separate from the majority of intelligence?

The last way of asking, is if you were to design the perfect AI, would there be a need to program a personality or would the personality be a byproduct of the rational system?

Does this question make sense?
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Mar 27, 2015, 04:08 AM

I kinda have one question that I'm going to ask 3 different ways. 

Do you think personality just a description of an intelligence or is it, it's own part?

Another way of asking, is personality completely learned or is there something inherent that's separate from the majority of intelligence?

The last way of asking, is if you were to design the perfect AI, would there be a need to program a personality or would the personality be a byproduct of the rational system?

Does this question make sense?


Hmm.

I was writing something but I didn't like where it was going.

Short answer: I think both personality and sentience are a byproduct of experiencing things and having the power to alter experiences. You are born with neither, but the physical makeup of your brain can have large impacts on them.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 27, 2015, 08:15 PM

Hmm.

I was writing something but I didn't like where it was going.

Short answer: I think both personality and sentience are a byproduct of experiencing things and having the power to alter experiences. You are born with neither, but the physical makeup of your brain can have large impacts on them.

Now I'm curious to know where it was going. 
My AI textbook that I got, seems to focus more on making rational decisions, which isn't necessarily what I want all the time.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Apr 02, 2015, 10:46 PM
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 03, 2015, 06:25 AM



What do you think? 
I was kinda hoping he'd go more in depth with stuff.  But I was multitasking towards the end of it, maybe I missed something.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 03, 2015, 06:30 AM
What if the galaxies moving away from us are slowing down, just that time is speeding up for them.  :o








jk
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Apr 06, 2015, 06:27 AM
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20130626-earths-skies-saturns-rings.html
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Apr 09, 2015, 12:11 AM

Now I'm curious to know where it was going. 
My AI textbook that I got, seems to focus more on making rational decisions, which isn't necessarily what I want all the time.


Follow me on this one.

Imagine a system that takes an input and produces an output. It's basically a function, a converter. Let's call him Steve.

Steve is simple. He has a camera, a speaker, and an arbitrary amount/setup of logic flowing from the first to the second. He lives in a room watching a tv. No matter how complex that converter/brain ever gets, it cannot make Steve sentient or have "thought." The same image on the TV produces the same possible outcomes.

In order to be more than that, some sort of feedback loop needs to be introduced. Let's replace Steve's speaker with a light. Now Steve's output affects the brightness of the room. This in turn is picked up as input for his camera. Now when we put the same images on the TV, Steve is not necessarily seeing the exact same thing before and thus could have a different output. Although extremely limited, thought is now possible. The loop introduces memory as well.


So I believe consciousness, sentience, and personality are all fundamentally the results of these loops.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 09, 2015, 12:30 AM

Follow me on this one.
Imagine a system that takes an input and produces an output. It's basically a function, a converter. Let's call him Steve.
Steve is simple. He has a camera, a speaker, and an arbitrary amount/setup of logic flowing from the first to the second. He lives in a room watching a tv. No matter how complex that converter/brain ever gets, it cannot make Steve sentient or have "thought." The same image on the TV produces the same possible outcomes.
In order to be more than that, some sort of feedback loop needs to be introduced. Let's replace Steve's speaker with a light. Now Steve's output affects the brightness of the room. This in turn is picked up as input for his camera. Now when we put the same images on the TV, Steve is not necessarily seeing the exact same thing before and thus could have a different output. Although extremely limited, thought is now possible. The loop introduces memory as well.
So I believe consciousness, sentience, and personality are all fundamentally the results of these loops.


Makes sense.  That's what I was thinking you were thinking. 
Essentially like 2 years ago, I was figuring something like
Input -> Memory -> personality -> logic -> output
Input is input, memory is where things are learned.  Personality would be what drives the logic system. 
Using your example, personality would be the coefficients of that "function."  Where as logic is the actual function.
Personality = c1, c2, c3, c4, ..... , cn-2, cn-1, cn;  Arbitrary values that are accustomed to change depending on the severity of the input.
Logic = F(x) = c1g(x) + c2h(x) + c3 i(x)+.......+cnZ(x)
Steve = F(x) = 3g(x) + 2h(x) + .......+ 4Z(x)
John = F(x) = 2g(x) + 11h(x) +........+Z(x)
And right now I'm thinking if it were like that, it could be set up either way. 

But typing that out I see flaws. 
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Apr 20, 2015, 09:56 PM
Ceres is back in view

(http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/PIA19064.gif)

Dem bright spots yo.
Title: Re: New subject! Science discussion thread
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2015, 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 21, 2015, 12:31 AM
What are they?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2015, 12:35 AM

What are they?


Mars was like Earth 3.5 billion years ago. Then it dried up and froze. Basically it's a potential window into the past.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 22, 2015, 01:24 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 24, 2015, 03:17 AM
(http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/fundamental_forces.png)


Spoiler for Hidden:
&quot;Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand.&quot; &quot;Is it the weak force or the strong--&quot; &quot;It's gravity.&quot;
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 24, 2015, 03:24 AM
Yeah it's funny that the force that we experience the most in our day to day lives is the one we have the worst understanding of.

Why is it so weak!? How does it work on the quantum level!? Is the graviton actually a thing!? What the heck is dark matter!?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 24, 2015, 04:13 AM




I prefer him over Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 24, 2015, 04:15 AM

I prefer him over Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Why's that? :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 24, 2015, 04:20 AM

Why's that? :o


He's a string theorist, while Tyson thinks it's hogwash ;)

But more seriously, Tyson's "Cosmos" TV show has/had some pretty annoying elements about it beyond the science. Their drawings were just weird and at least to me some elements came across as anti-church.

But even more seriously, Tyson is worried about AI!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 24, 2015, 04:25 AM

He's a string theorist, while Tyson thinks it's hogwash ;)

But more seriously, Tyson's "Cosmos" TV show has/had some pretty annoying elements about it beyond the science. Their drawings were just weird and at least to me some elements came across as anti-church.

But even more seriously, Tyson is worried about AI!

Hmmm interesting.  :o
That's no good. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 24, 2015, 04:29 AM
I think I'd agree though, with your first statement.  Though I haven't seen as much of him as of late. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 25, 2015, 05:38 PM


I think a gamer would be much better at this
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 11, 2015, 05:34 PM
Math, but should there be a math thread?  :o

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on May 11, 2015, 07:58 PM

Math, but should there be a math thread?  :o



Math is the study of science, don't see why it needs its own thread.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 11, 2015, 09:45 PM
"If two space ships are traveling towards eachother at 60% of the speed of light, what is their relative velocity?"
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 11, 2015, 09:57 PM

"If two space ships are traveling towards eachother at 60% of the speed of light, what is their relative velocity?"


Do you mean from Earth's perspective they are traveling towards each other at 60% the speed of light? Then from their perspective the other would be going like 85% the speed of light.

EDT:
88.2% the speed of light.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 11, 2015, 10:24 PM

Do you mean from Earth's perspective they are traveling towards each other at 60% the speed of light? Then from their perspective the other would be going like 85% the speed of light.

EDT:
88.2% the speed of light.

Yeah.
That was the question, not sure.  :)

I'm trying to find other interesting questions... :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2015, 04:11 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/tsm3wN0.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 15, 2015, 04:27 AM



I think a gamer would be much better at this
lol i play with inverted,  and i am royally iced if i dont.


Spoiler for Image:
(http://i.imgur.com/tsm3wN0.gif)

could ice be that reflective?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2015, 04:34 AM

could ice be that reflective?


Yes. It's really really dark. These images have contrast set to a billion.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 15, 2015, 04:47 AM

Yes. It's really really dark. These images have contrast set to a billion.
ah okay makes sense then lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 13, 2015, 08:40 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 13, 2015, 08:42 PM
...horizons...

Horizon gameplay reveal confirmed.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 14, 2015, 10:30 AM
Large Hadron Collider discovers new pentaquark particle - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33517492)

Pretty cool stuff
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 14, 2015, 12:36 PM
Large Hadron Collider discovers new pentaquark particle - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33517492)

Pretty cool stuff
It's incredible how accurate the standard model is.

Which kinda sucks haha. We need to discover things that force the sm to become obsolete. Otherwise we can't move on to an even deeper level.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 14, 2015, 11:40 PM
I love Venus

(http://i.imgur.com/BrVaauJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 12:02 AM
Crazy!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Jul 15, 2015, 12:47 AM
I love Venus

(http://i.imgur.com/BrVaauJ.jpg)
That is extremely impressive. Not just the pictures, but the fact that the spacecraft managed to get past the infamous sulfuric acid clouds.

Also, pun intended? :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 02:57 AM
That is extremely impressive. Not just the pictures, but the fact that the spacecraft managed to get past the infamous sulfuric acid clouds.

Also, pun intended? :P
"Managed" lol. Venus missions are just a race to take a photo and transmit it before the lander melts to death. This lander survived about an hour. Record is 127 minutes.

Of course the pun was intended!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 03:08 AM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/319/19711005551_ae1473f2da_o.jpg)

Some crazy stuff in the Carina Nebula.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 03:10 AM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/319/19711005551_ae1473f2da_o.jpg)

Some crazy stuff in the Carina Nebula.
Zebras!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 03:11 AM
Zebras!
You see Zebras? I see a demon and something that could have inspired the cat dog dragon from the last guardian .
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 03:13 AM
You see Zebras? I see a demon and something that could have inspired the cat dog dragon from the last guardian .
I see...

Also

(http://i.imgur.com/flbMFv2.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 03:17 AM
Yep, Just goes to show how small we really are.

(http://i.imgur.com/4pBdh.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 03:21 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9zVTy.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 03:28 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9zVTy.jpg)
Space Sauron!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 03:32 AM
You could come up with so many video game related characters by looking at the stars.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 03:44 AM
You could come up with so many video game related characters by looking at the stars.
Not if all you see is cubes lol.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 03:31 PM
(http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/07/ESA_Rosetta_NAVCAM_20150707_enhanced.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 03:45 PM
(http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/07/ESA_Rosetta_NAVCAM_20150707_enhanced.jpg)
Yoshi!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Jul 15, 2015, 04:00 PM
Yoshi!
I thought it looked like a Porygon...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2015, 04:19 PM
I thought it looked like a Porygon...
I see a rock :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 15, 2015, 04:35 PM
I thought it looked like a Porygon...
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6b/137Porygon.png/250px-137Porygon.png)yeah, I guess so

I see a rock :(
Did you see what I pointed out in that photo yesterday
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 16, 2015, 05:31 PM
Lightyear.fm (http://lightyear.fm/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Jul 16, 2015, 05:40 PM
HOW FAR DID YOU TRAVEL?

The 1 pixel white dot above in our region of the Milky Way is 300 light years in diameter. So, not very far in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 16, 2015, 05:48 PM
I love doing stuff like that. It reminds me how insignificant I am
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Jul 16, 2015, 07:19 PM
I'm pretty surprised no one has made a Portal 2 reference yet :P
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m55pfm54011r13ra2.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: 7H3 on Jul 17, 2015, 02:47 AM
(http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/07/ESA_Rosetta_NAVCAM_20150707_enhanced.jpg)
are you going to finish that apple?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 17, 2015, 03:09 AM
are you going to finish that apple?
Yeah that's what it looks like!

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 17, 2015, 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 18, 2015, 02:31 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 18, 2015, 03:55 AM

Haven't watched video yet, but not without some big changes.  
In it's current state it's further away from being habitable than Mars, but in an ideal state, Venus would be better, gravitationally it would be more similar to Earth than Mars.  

Mars needs more green house gasses, and a lot of other terraforming.
Venus would need much bigger changes.  
800+F, 90+% CO2, etc, wouldn't exactly make the best place to live.  ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 18, 2015, 04:08 AM
Haven't watched video yet, but not without some big changes.  
In it's current state it's further away from being habitable than Mars, but in an ideal state, Venus would be better, gravitationally it would be more similar to Earth than Mars.  

Mars needs more green house gasses, and a lot of other terraforming.
Venus would need much bigger changes.  
800+F, 90+% CO2, etc, wouldn't exactly make the best place to live.  ;)
lol, thats why you should watch the video, No body said you'd be on Venus.  :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 18, 2015, 04:14 AM
lol, thats why you should watch the video, No body said you'd be on Venus.  :o
I watched it!
Completely agree!
Nice that they brought up all my points and more!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 18, 2015, 04:15 AM
I watched it!
Completely agree!
Nice that they brought up all my points and more!
Yes, but the idea of your house not wanting to stay up in the air means you and everyone dies.. Well they can have that. I'll stay right here on earth.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2015, 06:13 AM
Yes, but the idea of your house not wanting to stay up in the air means you and everyone dies.. Well they can have that. I'll stay right here on earth.
Sure, but dieing on Venus would be cooler than dieing on Earth  ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 18, 2015, 11:22 PM
Sure, but dieing on Venus would be cooler than dieing on Earth  ;)
I think that dying on Venus would be quite hot, actually ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2015, 11:30 PM
I think that dying on Venus would be quite hot, actually ;)
Har har har
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 19, 2015, 12:40 AM
Eexcept  you'd be smashed like a pancake before you reached the surface amd your remains will then melt until there's nothing left. Sounds awesome!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 21, 2015, 01:01 AM
If you have a titanium box that is 10 ft by ft by 10ft, and a diamond rod that is 20 ft long, can you theoretically ever fit one inside the other? These objects are non compressible and non bendable for the sake of this question.

Spoiler for Hidden:
Yes you can. How?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 21, 2015, 03:08 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: 7H3 on Jul 21, 2015, 12:47 PM
If you have a titanium box that is 10 ft by ft by 10ft, and a diamond rod that is 20 ft long, can you theoretically ever fit one inside the other? These objects are non compressible and non bendable for the sake of this question.

Spoiler for Hidden:
Yes you can. How?

can you take the box apart and redesign it or is it fixed structure? is the box hollow?

Can't you drop the diamond rod cutting through the box with enough pressure?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 22, 2015, 05:17 AM
can you take the box apart and redesign it or is it fixed structure? is the box hollow?

Can't you drop the diamond rod cutting through the box with enough pressure?
Box is a fixed structure, except for one side that can open and close. It is hollow.

Breaking or cutting holes is against the rules.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 22, 2015, 05:35 AM
Box is a fixed structure, except for one side that can open and close. It is hollow.

Breaking or cutting holes is against the rules.
hmm weird not sure why it didnt post my part.. lol   what if its neither of the 2 objects that your bending?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 22, 2015, 02:41 PM
hmm weird not sure why it didnt post my part.. lol   what if its neither of the 2 objects that your bending?
If you want to bend a spoon on the side, go for it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 22, 2015, 05:11 PM
If you want to bend a spoon on the side, go for it.
i was thinkng more like space itself lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 22, 2015, 05:36 PM
i was thinkng more like space itself lol
I know  ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: 7H3 on Jul 23, 2015, 12:26 AM
Box is a fixed structure, except for one side that can open and close. It is hollow.

Breaking or cutting holes is against the rules.
why would you leave out that information?

I would just use my patented shrink ray and put them both in my pocket. Now no one can play with them! HAH!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 23, 2015, 02:25 AM
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/86000/86257/epicfirstlight_DSC_2015186_lrg.jpg)

First full photo of Earth in 40 years.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 23, 2015, 02:37 AM
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/86000/86257/epicfirstlight_DSC_2015186_lrg.jpg)

First full photo of Earth in 40 years.
umm what?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 23, 2015, 02:53 AM
umm what?
It's been 40 years since we've been able to take a single photo of the entire Earth during like that. Most satellites don't even go close to that far out.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 23, 2015, 03:13 AM
Okay. I read that wrong. I read it as some how they took a photo of earth 40 years from now. Lol.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: 7H3 on Jul 23, 2015, 03:13 AM
are the small dots other planets photo bombing?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 23, 2015, 06:02 PM
Invalid Tweet ID

Deformed flowers going after nuclear plant meltdowns in japan.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Jul 23, 2015, 06:40 PM
Invalid Tweet ID

Deformed flowers going after nuclear plant meltdowns in japan.
Fix your auto-correct, ffs! Lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 23, 2015, 06:59 PM
Fix your auto-correct, ffs! Lol
Lol, how?

Lol I'll get it when I get home
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Jul 23, 2015, 08:11 PM
Lol, how?

Lol I'll get it when I get home
Go to settings and disable it!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Gooch_Suplex_Hold on Jul 23, 2015, 09:50 PM
E=MC squared.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 23, 2015, 10:00 PM
E=MC squared.
A cookie for Googh.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Gooch_Suplex_Hold on Jul 23, 2015, 10:06 PM
A cookie for Googh.  
This is gonna be one of those atheist circle-jerk threads, huh?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 23, 2015, 10:26 PM
This is gonna be one of those atheist circle-jerk threads, huh?
I think half the people in this thread are theists, so no.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 23, 2015, 10:27 PM
This is gonna be one of those atheist circle-jerk threads, huh?
Ummmmmmm, no.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Jul 23, 2015, 10:31 PM
This is gonna be one of those atheist circle-jerk threads, huh?
Poe's Law? Please be Poe's Law...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Gooch_Suplex_Hold on Jul 23, 2015, 10:34 PM
Yeah.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 27, 2015, 08:50 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JkJ2tap.jpg)

Picture of the red spot on Jupiter.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Jul 27, 2015, 11:44 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JkJ2tap.jpg)

Picture of the red spot on Jupiter.
Looks like a painting by Picasso
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: 7H3 on Jul 28, 2015, 02:10 AM
Looks like a painting by Picasso
I was thinking Van Gogh personally
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2015, 05:29 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/4v9nLC2.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Jul 29, 2015, 05:52 PM
Science Science Science Science
Theres my contribution(more of a biology guy myself though)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 29, 2015, 05:54 PM
Science Science Science Science
Theres my contribution(more of a biology guy myself though)
Biology is probably my least favorite science.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Jul 29, 2015, 05:55 PM
Biology is probably my least favorite science.  
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/pDQJXCNs953VGRnR3KO8IA--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MjAzO3E9OTU7dz0zNTA-/http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TennantMouthShut.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2015, 06:06 PM
My least favorite science is geology I'd guess.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Jul 29, 2015, 06:39 PM
My least favorite science is geology I'd guess.
Good man
animals>rocks
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Jul 29, 2015, 11:18 PM
I love Venus

(http://i.imgur.com/BrVaauJ.jpg)
What did it find on the floor?

If you have a titanium box that is 10 ft by ft by 10ft, and a diamond rod that is 20 ft long, can you theoretically ever fit one inside the other? These objects are non compressible and non bendable for the sake of this question.

Spoiler for Hidden:
Yes you can. How?

How tall is the box?  Is it from Metal Gear?  Cause Snake can fit a shame ton of things in those ones.

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/86000/86257/epicfirstlight_DSC_2015186_lrg.jpg)

First full photo of Earth, in 40 years.
Commas!!!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2015, 11:29 PM
Commas!!!!!!
Fixed

First full photo, of Earth in 40 years.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Jul 29, 2015, 11:33 PM
Fixed

First full photo, of Earth in 40 years.


It's still wrong!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2015, 11:36 PM
It's still wrong!!!
that'sthejoke.png

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 29, 2015, 11:37 PM
that's,the,joke.png
fixed.  
Title: Re: e, General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 30, 2015, 12:40 AM
e, d, e,=1438213019 link=msg=114036]
e,,e,.e,]
,  
FIXED!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 31, 2015, 06:32 PM
Philae lander delivers 'ground truth' by touching and analysing material on a comet's surface - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-07-30/philae-lander-delivers-ground-truth-by-touching-and-analysing-material-on-a-comets-surface/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 31, 2015, 06:34 PM
Philae lander delivers 'ground truth' by touching and analysing material on a comet's surface - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2015-07-30/philae-lander-delivers-ground-truth-by-touching-and-analysing-material-on-a-comets-surface/)
We came from comets! Confirmed
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 04, 2015, 11:03 PM
Math!  

Suppose the set n
{1,2,3,4,5,6,....

Now double every number in the set.  
{2,4,6,8,10,12,....

According to that, n and 2n have the same length.  Because every number in n corresponds to exactly 1 number in 2n and vice versa.  

But every number in 2n occurs in n, and n also includes lots of other numbers, 2n-1 and 2n.  So by that logic the first set should have twice as many numbers.  


{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.....
Now square every number
{1,4,9,16,25,36,49,....

Same deal, except way bigger difference.  

Infinity is weird.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Aug 04, 2015, 11:08 PM
To infinity...and beyond!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 05, 2015, 12:25 AM
Math!  

Suppose the set n
{1,2,3,4,5,6,....

Now double every number in the set.  
{2,4,6,8,10,12,....

According to that, n and 2n have the same length.  Because every number in n corresponds to exactly 1 number in 2n and vice versa.  

But every number in 2n occurs in n, and n also includes lots of other numbers, 2n-1 and 2n.  So by that logic the first set should have twice as many numbers.  


{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.....
Now square every number
{1,4,9,16,25,36,49,....

Same deal, except way bigger difference.  

Infinity is weird.
Good ol' Discrete Math.  I mean... fudge Discrete Math.  dang "proofs"
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Aug 06, 2015, 04:35 PM

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 06, 2015, 05:56 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 16, 2015, 04:19 AM
I think psychologically infinity is weird.  
Not just the fact that it's counter intuitive from everything we know from numbers.  
But it's almost like it's usage has made it seem small.  

"Oh yeah, well I have an infinite number of tacos!"

It's thrown around almost like the number 6, and yet's its so gigantically bigger than anything we can imagine.  
It's well, infinite.  But reading about Graham's number, it's like this is CRAZY! But really it's like well in the "eyes of infinity, that number is practically 0."  And yet that number is stupidly huge.  So unimaginably stupidly huge.  G1 is already stupidly huge.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 20, 2015, 03:11 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 21, 2015, 12:37 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/uDLevVO.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Aug 21, 2015, 12:48 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/uDLevVO.jpg)
Hmmmm, a Martian fossil (if this is on Mars)?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 21, 2015, 01:08 AM
Hmmmm, a Martian fossil (if this is on Mars)?
It's just a cool rock.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Aug 21, 2015, 02:56 AM
That's no rock.

Also I guess they didn't want to point out the dragon/snake head?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Aug 21, 2015, 10:56 AM
Its quite clearly a Martian spider.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 26, 2015, 02:09 AM
Did Stephen Hawking Just Solve Black Holes' Information Paradox? | Nerdist (http://nerdist.com/did-stephen-hawking-just-solve-black-holes-information-paradox/)

Holograms!  Why didn't anyone think of this sooner?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 26, 2015, 03:20 AM
Did Stephen Hawking Just Solve Black Holes' Information Paradox? | Nerdist (http://nerdist.com/did-stephen-hawking-just-solve-black-holes-information-paradox/)

Holograms!  Why didn't anyone think of this sooner?
I doubt the holographic principle, much less string theory as a whole, is correct.

It's been around far too long without gaining any experimental evidence to back it up. The standard model only took 12 years to get confirmed. String theory is approaching 50 years of nothing but math.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 26, 2015, 07:42 PM
I doubt the holographic principle, much less string theory as a whole, is correct.

It's been around far too long without gaining any experimental evidence to back it up. The standard model only took 12 years to get confirmed. String theory is approaching 50 years of nothing but math.
String theory is hard to prove since we live in 4 dimensions...  I personally think subatomic particles existing in greater dimensions is correct.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 26, 2015, 08:17 PM
String theory is hard to prove since we live in 4 dimensions...  I personally think subatomic particles existing in greater dimensions is correct.
Well if the holographic theory is correct, we'd live in 2 dimensions  ;D

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 26, 2015, 08:54 PM
Well if the holographic theory is correct, we'd live in 2 dimensions  ;D
Nah, imagine this 3 dimensional fly getting smushed by my hand/gravity against this sheet of paper getting pressed into a 2D fly.  

Or something...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 26, 2015, 09:30 PM
Well if the holographic theory is correct, we'd live in 2 dimensions  ;D


Not sure about the holographic theory :P.  Though I recall learning in my grade 12 Physics class that we don't quite understand how holograms work.  You can take one, cut it in half, and it'd retain the full image.  Like, we know how to make them, we don't know how they work.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 26, 2015, 11:21 PM
Nah, imagine this 3 dimensional fly getting smushed by my hand/gravity against this sheet of paper getting pressed into a 2D fly.  

Or something...
Haha that's an ELI5 answer if I've ever seen one.

Not sure about the holographic theory :P.  Though I recall learning in my grade 12 Physics class that we don't quite understand how holograms work.  You can take one, cut it in half, and it'd retain the full image.  Like, we know how to make them, we don't know how they work.
The holographic principle is named after laser holograms but it's not really based off the physics behind them.

Traditional holograms are really well understood. They're just the interference pattern between a coherent light source/laser after being split and having one half bounced off an object. Shining an identical light back through the interference pattern simple recreates the other beam. In the modern computer age, these interference patterns can be calculated for 3D models and directly printed on glass.

The "cut in half" phrase is often stated but I've always found it misleading. It still destroys half of the interference pattern and half of the information about the object. A better analogy is that holograms are like windows. If you cut the window in half you can still see the entire scene through it, but your view is now restricted to a smaller area. So for example if you have a hologram of a 2d object right up against the glass, it acts exactly like a traditional picture. Cut it in half and half of the 2D object is gone forever.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 26, 2015, 11:35 PM
Haha that's an ELI5 answer if I've ever seen one.
The holographic principle is named after laser holograms but it's not really based off the physics behind them.

Traditional holograms are really well understood. They're just the interference pattern between a coherent light source/laser after being split and having one half bounced off an object. Shining an identical light back through the interference pattern simple recreates the other beam. In the modern computer age, these interference patterns can be calculated for 3D models and directly printed on glass.

The "cut in half" phrase is often stated but I've always found it misleading. It still destroys half of the interference pattern and half of the information about the object. A better analogy is that holograms are like windows. If you cut the window in half you can still see the entire scene through it, but your view is now restricted to a smaller area. So for example if you have a hologram of a 2d object right up against the glass, it acts exactly like a traditional picture. Cut it in half and half of the 2D object is gone forever.


I know.  I was just saying, or rather my teacher, that holograms contain all information at every part of the hologram.  Which is why the full image will be on two halves.  You can even quarter it, all quarters will retain all information.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 26, 2015, 11:50 PM
I know.  I was just saying, or rather my teacher, that holograms contain all information at every part of the hologram.  Which is why the full image will be on two halves.  You can even quarter it, all quarters will retain all information.
I'm saying that's wrong.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 27, 2015, 12:15 AM
I'm saying that's wrong.
Probably.  That was a long time ago.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 27, 2015, 12:42 AM
Probably.  That was a long time ago.
Haha yeah holography is one of my hobbies. Hoping to buy a VizionEck hologram after it releases.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Aug 27, 2015, 01:11 AM
Haha yeah holography is one of my hobbies. Hoping to buy a VizionEck hologram after it releases.
Why don't you put in a hologram mode, where everything looks holographic.  Charge 1 dollar for the mode.  Then give me 50 cents for every sale :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 23, 2015, 07:01 PM
Video of Pluto Flyover by NASA's New Horizons (http://i.imgur.com/7s2Jrcg.gifv)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 25, 2015, 09:41 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 25, 2015, 10:34 PM

hes one of my favorite channels
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Sep 25, 2015, 10:35 PM
Chemistry sucks
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 25, 2015, 10:36 PM
hes one of my favorite channels
Haha I saw it on reddit and didn't even realise which channel it was. Love his KSP videos.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 25, 2015, 10:44 PM
Haha I saw it on reddit and didn't even realise which channel it was. Love his KSP videos.
I saw it come up the other day as ive been un patiently waiting for his next episode of his current play through.  ive learned so much from him and KSP.  

i used mechjeb from almost the start,  but have played the game so much now that combining mechjebs help and manleys videos im able to fly manually now.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 25, 2015, 10:54 PM
Chemistry sucks
Not my favorite.  
Mostly because I don't like lab.  

But the book work is awesome.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 25, 2015, 10:58 PM
Not my favorite.  
Mostly because I don't like lab.  

But the book work is awesome.  
(http://media.giphy.com/media/OMK7LRBedcnhm/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 25, 2015, 11:07 PM
(http://media.giphy.com/media/OMK7LRBedcnhm/giphy.gif)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1433050/images/o-SIMPSON-MATH-facebook.jpg)
(http://www.danbailey.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nerd-simpsons-3d6cf.jpg)

Proud of it!  :D
I don't like the lab because I'm not super comfortable with the chemicals, but it's an interesting subject.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2015, 03:26 AM
NASA Will Announce A Major Mars Discovery On Monday | IFLScience (http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-announce-major-discovery-regarding-mars-monday)

My bet is something to do with tectonics.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Sep 26, 2015, 03:31 PM
NASA Will Announce A Major Mars Discovery On Monday | IFLScience (http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-announce-major-discovery-regarding-mars-monday)

My bet is something to do with tectonics.
Nah, it has to be Martians
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 26, 2015, 06:40 PM
NASA Will Announce A Major Mars Discovery On Monday | IFLScience (http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-announce-major-discovery-regarding-mars-monday)

My bet is something to do with tectonics.
my guess is somthing to do with the dark slope streaks
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Sep 27, 2015, 02:37 AM
More alien bacteria?  8)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 27, 2015, 03:01 PM
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2015/EPSC2015-838-1.pdf
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 06, 2015, 02:28 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 06, 2015, 03:10 AM

how to people like this manage to live to be an age like that?  the stupidity is astounding
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 06, 2015, 03:32 AM

Where did you find this video? Has a pretty low view count.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 06, 2015, 03:37 AM
how to people like this manage to live to be an age like that?  the stupidity is astounding
Some of it is like what are you talking about?  

And others parts are like no way!  That's basically what modern science predicts.  

Like it seems like Earth is at the center.  
Okay, let's make a graph.  

No matter where I put the center, it always looks like it could be the real center.  There's no unique center.  

Where did you find this video? Has a pretty low view count.
It's the third result when I search geocentric.
But most importantly someone posted a question on this other site I was looking at.

Is atheism struggling to keep a lid on the new scientific evidence that proves geocentrism is true? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-struggling-to-keep-a-lid-on-the-new-scientific-evidence-that-proves-geocentrism-is-true)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 15, 2015, 07:08 AM
Astronomers may have found giant alien 'megastructures' orbiting star near the Milky Way | World | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/forget-water-on-mars-astronomers-may-have-just-found-giant-alien-megastructures-orbiting-a-star-near-a6693886.html)

 Astronomers may have found giant alien 'megastructures' orbiting star near the Milky Way : Futurology (https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/3oszaz/astronomers_may_have_found_giant_alien/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Oct 15, 2015, 08:36 PM
 :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 15, 2015, 08:39 PM
:o
aliens!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Oct 15, 2015, 09:03 PM
aliens!
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp9ql5pnge1qlfn6vo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 16, 2015, 10:13 PM
Pluto

(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/aad1815/F1.large.jpg)

not true color
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 16, 2015, 10:18 PM
amazing
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 22, 2015, 03:23 PM
http://gds.astro.rub.de/


56billion pixel image of the milky way,   it seems to be loading rather slow right now though
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 22, 2015, 04:10 PM
http://gds.astro.rub.de/


56billion pixel image of the milky way,   it seems to be loading rather slow right now though
56 gigapixels?  :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 22, 2015, 04:20 PM
56 gigapixels?  :o
yup  46 Billion Pixel Image of the Milky Way - NeoGAF (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1128047)

Quote
Quote
For five years, the astronomers from Bochum have been monitoring our Galaxy in the search of objects with variable brightness.  Those objects may, for example, include stars in front of which a planet is passing, or multiple systems where stars orbit each other and which obscure each other every now and then.  For his PhD thesis, Moritz Hackstein is compiling a catalogue of such variable objects of medium brightness. It uses data from a team led by the University's Chair of Astrophysics that takes pictures of the southern sky night after night. They use the telescopes at Bochum's university observatory in the Atacama Desert in Chile. More than 50,000 new variable objects, which had hitherto not been recorded in databanks, have been discovered by the researchers so far.

 
Scaled Image(http://static.latercera.com/20151021/2201394.jpg) Interactive Image (Currently it's a little bit slow)http://gds.astro.rub.de/ How they made it
Quote
The area that the astronomers observe is so large that they have to subdivide it into 268 sections.  They photograph each section in intervals of several days.  By comparing the images, they are able to identify the variable objects.  The team has assembled the individual images of the 268 sections into one comprehensive image.  Following a calculation period of several weeks, they created a 194 Gigabyte file, into which images taken with different filters have been entered.

 
i love it

"The area that the astronomers observe is so large that they have to subdivide it into 268 sections.
 They photograph each section in intervals of several days.
 By comparing the images, they are able to identify the variable objects.
 The team has assembled the individual images of the 268 sections into one comprehensive image.
 Following a calculation period of several weeks, they created a 194 Gigabyte file, into which images taken with different filters have been entered."
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 23, 2015, 07:11 AM
Scientists find two distant stars touching, and the results could be catastrophic - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-find-two-distant-stars-touching-and-the-results-could-be-catastrophic)

(http://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/eso1540a_1024.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 23, 2015, 09:53 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 25, 2015, 10:16 PM
Spoiler for Large GIF:
(http://i.imgur.com/dtb8WrD.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 26, 2015, 05:40 AM
Spoiler for Large GIF:
(http://i.imgur.com/3GpLLJL.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 31, 2015, 02:53 AM
(http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS91/N00250022.jpg)

Fresh photo of Enceladus. So beautiful.

Fun fact, its oceans of liquid water are more than twice as deep as Earth's.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 31, 2015, 06:12 PM
All real images. Looks like something from the 50s though


                Cassini - Gfycat
     (http://gfycat.com/PoshSpicyHorse)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Oct 31, 2015, 06:47 PM
WTF did I just look at?!  :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 31, 2015, 06:55 PM
WTF did I just look at?!  :o
Cassini space probe is flying around Saturn. These are its most recent images animated into a gif.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Oct 31, 2015, 07:01 PM
Cassini space probe is flying around Saturn. These are its most recent images animated into a gif.
Those look kinda old don't they think?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 31, 2015, 07:10 PM
Those look kinda old don't they think?
Well the probe was launched in 1998.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Oct 31, 2015, 07:11 PM
Well the probe was launched in 1998.
Still??
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 31, 2015, 07:30 PM
Still??
Still what?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Oct 31, 2015, 07:47 PM
Still what?
Its looks like its from the 40s.  :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 31, 2015, 08:06 PM
Its looks like its from the 40s.  :P
Yeah isn't that cool!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Nov 04, 2015, 03:56 AM


holly crud!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 05, 2015, 03:20 AM
Spoiler for hugeimage:
(http://i.imgur.com/ks6eB1l.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Nov 05, 2015, 11:46 AM
Those are very cool.  ;D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 06, 2015, 06:30 AM
I love space! (shocking)

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 10, 2015, 07:49 PM
Pluto might have ice volcanoes!

(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/15-214b_0.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 12, 2015, 08:20 AM
Wow I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier.


As a kid I learned of the big bang as an explosion like a supernova. Pretty sure every layman thinks of it like that, yet I kept this understanding even after learning about cosmic background radiation, higher dimensions, expansion, etc. Wasn't till an hour ago that something caused me to think about it and realise what we learn as kids is wrong.



The universe was always infinite in size and practically infinite in energy at every single area. The big bang was more like a big stretch, where the infinite universe expanded and decreased density. No explosion :(



Now for my personal line of probably incredibly flawed thought, I wonder if the universe has cycles like stars. The initial state of the big bang sounds a heck of a lot like the eventual heat death of the universe, just with a different density value. It seems reasonable that before the big bang a super high energy low entropy state could have existed that slowly evened out, and a super low energy high entropy state could form after the heat death, with new physics emerging at every transition. All our forces were originally combined during the first moments. IDK, it's always fun thinking about this stuff before bed.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 12, 2015, 02:24 PM
Wow I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier.

As a kid I learned of the big bang as an explosion like a supernova. Pretty sure every layman thinks of it like that, yet I kept this understanding even after learning about cosmic background radiation, higher dimensions, expansion, etc. Wasn't till an hour ago that something caused me to think about it and realise what we learn as kids is wrong.
I feel like I'm learning lots of things.  
Definitely about the bolded.  Just search big bang explosion.  Lots of people asking about the big bang explosion, or articles writing about it and then someone or the article "it wasn't actually an explosion."


The universe was always infinite in size and practically infinite in energy at every single area. The big bang was more like a big stretch, where the infinite universe expanded and decreased density. No explosion :(
I'm not quite so sure about the bolded, but the rest of it is quite correct.


Now for my personal line of probably incredibly flawed thought, I wonder if the universe has cycles like stars. The initial state of the big bang sounds a heck of a lot like the eventual heat death of the universe, just with a different density value. It seems reasonable that before the big bang a super high energy low entropy state could have existed that slowly evened out, and a super low energy high entropy state could form after the heat death, with new physics emerging at every transition. All our forces were originally combined during the first moments. IDK, it's always fun thinking about this stuff before bed.
This is something that I've heard at least considered.  A TV show actually made some idea similar to this.  And I've heard about similar ideas in other places too.

Well in Futurama what happened is that after the universe dies, there is another big bang. One of the guys who worked on Futurama actually has a Physics degree from Harvard.  So while the show certainly takes unrealistic liberties, someone there actually has some experience to draw from.  

There are these ideas about the end of the universe like Big Crunch, Big Rip that might be interesting to you, if you haven't heard of them.  

I'm sure Xev will be able to tell us lot's of stuff once he's done.  ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 12, 2015, 06:09 PM
I'm not quite so sure about the bolded, but the rest of it is quite correct.
The universe might loop, but you can travel in every direction an infinite distance (excluding black holes). That's all I meant.
.
This is something that I've heard at least considered.  A TV show actually made some idea similar to this.  And I've heard about similar ideas in other places too.

Well in Futurama what happened is that after the universe dies, there is another big bang. One of the guys who worked on Futurama actually has a Physics degree from Harvard.  So while the show certainly takes unrealistic liberties, someone there actually has some experience to draw from.  

There are these ideas about the end of the universe like Big Crunch, Big Rip that might be interesting to you, if you haven't heard of them.  

I'm sure Xev will be able to tell us lot's of stuff once he's done.  ;)
I've read up on the Big Crunch and Big Rip, I just never made the connection that my childhood understanding of it starting with an explosion was wrong.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 12, 2015, 07:19 PM
Didn't realise it had two failed attempts.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 12, 2015, 09:29 PM
I have low standards for humor...

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 12, 2015, 11:28 PM
Oldest stars ever found discovered near the centre of Milky Way - Science - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/oldest-stars-discovered-milky-way-galaxy/6931912)

13.6 billion years old.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 12, 2015, 11:50 PM
Didn't realise it had two failed attempts.


looks like me playing kerbals lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 19, 2015, 08:43 PM
It's very interesting that things can be mathematically modeled at all. Figuring out spring tension uses such a simple equation for example, even though on the micro level it's incredibly complex. Or traffic patterns. All the intricacies of human complexity fade away and a general math equation still works.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 20, 2015, 12:36 AM
Math is incredible.  Unlike any other subject in my opinion.  
It evolved, and originally negative numbers didn't exist.  And over time stuff filled in.  
What's really cool are complex numbers. How they work seems so different from the normal number system, yet it came out of it.  Suddenly not only do negative numbers have square roots, but this opens up algebra with trigonometry.  
e^(ix) is a rotation in the complex plane.  So cool how the square root of negative one has so many trigonometric and algebraic uses.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 20, 2015, 01:32 PM
Suppose we have the vector {x,y} = x+iy   and we have {cos(z),sin(z)} = cos(z) + i*sin(z)
(x+iy)(cos(z)+isin(z)= xcos(z) + xisin(z) + iycos(z) -ysin(z) = {xcos(z) - ysin(z), xsin(z)+ycos(z)}

How crazy is that!?  
If it's not clear yet, I'll write it in a more common way.  ;)
Code: [Select]

[x'] = [cos(z)  -sin(z)][x]
[y']   [sin(z)   cos(z)][y]

The rotation matrix works the same way as i does!  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 21, 2015, 02:55 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 01, 2015, 04:43 AM
Is it true that we have lost the technology to visit moon?
Quote from: Instructor and Flight Controller at NASA
Why does it take 3 years to develop a new car, when it shares 90% of its "DNA" with the previous model?  Why does it take 6 years to develop a new airplane when it shares 90% of its "DNA" with the previous model?

The answer is that they are complex devices.  A launch vehicle and spacecraft destined to go to the moon is much more complex and operates at the edge of the envelope where there is little tolerance for imprecision and error.

When operating on the edge of the envelope, thousands and thousands of hours go into testing and tweaking.  The development and operations teams acquire expertise that no one else on the planet has.  The vehicle cannot be built or operated without that expertise.

Operating a space mission involves reams of paper in the forms of flight rules and operational procedures.  Those rules and procedures are drafted over thousands of hours of test and simulations.  A change in the vehicle can send ripples of changes through those documents.

The Saturn V rocket had over 3 million parts.  The command and service modules and lunar module were composed of millions of additional parts.  An individual person cannot contemplate the scale of detail needed to assemble and operate those vehicles.

So, when the Apollo program ended, the factories that assembled those vehicles were retasked or shut down.  The jigs were disassembled.  The molds were destroyed.  The technicians, engineers, scientists, and flight controllers moved onto other jobs.  Over time, some of the materials used became obsolete.

If we, today, said - "Let us build another Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM/LEM and go to the moon!"  it would not be a simple task of pulling out the blueprints and bending and cutting metal.

We don't have the factories or tools.  We don't have the materials.  We don't have the expertise to understand how the real vehicle differed from the drawings.  We don't have the expertise to operate the vehicle.

We would have to substitute modern materials.  That changes the vehicle.  It changes the mass, it changes the stresses and strains, it changes the interactions.  It changes the possible malfunctions.  It changes the capabilities of the vehicle.

We would have to spend a few years re-developing the expertise.  We would have to conduct new tests and simulations.  We would have to draft new flight rules and procedures.  We would have to certify new flight controllers and crew.

We would essentially be building a new vehicle.

And that's what we are doing.  As similar as Orion looks to an Apollo Command Module, as much as we think we understand heat shields and parachute deploy systems - we have to understand these specific heat shields and parachute deploy systems.  NASA has people doing these tests, every day.

Ars Technica did an excellent story on the work NASA needed to do to reconstruct the F-1 engine from the Saturn V for use on the SLS.  How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 Moon Rocket Engine back to life (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/)
How did we lose the technology to go to the Moon? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-did-we-lose-the-technology-to-go-to-the-Moon)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Dec 01, 2015, 05:00 AM
Is it true that we have lost the technology to visit moon?
Lost the technology? Nah. More like someone who only drove a car once in their life decades ago and is now in a newer car and trying to relearn how to drive I'd say.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 01, 2015, 05:01 AM
Yeah trying to "resurrect" the original launch plans/techniques would take so much freaking work.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 03, 2015, 04:42 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 03, 2015, 04:57 AM
You've got the wrong sky! How James Cameron altered night sky in reworked Titanic 3D after ten years of complaints from outspoken astronomer | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125209/Youve-got-wrong-sky-How-James-Cameron-altered-night-sky-reworked-Titanic-3D-years-complaints-outspoken-astronomer.html)

Did not know about that, kinda funny.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 03, 2015, 05:06 AM
You've got the wrong sky! How James Cameron altered night sky in reworked Titanic 3D after ten years of complaints from outspoken astronomer | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125209/Youve-got-wrong-sky-How-James-Cameron-altered-night-sky-reworked-Titanic-3D-years-complaints-outspoken-astronomer.html)

Did not know about that, kinda funny.  
Haha yeah I heard about that one. Wish more movies put that level of detail into the night sky.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 04, 2015, 10:15 PM
LRO finds Apollo 16 booster rocket impact site (http://phys.org/news/2015-12-lro-apollo-booster-rocket-impact.html)

(http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/lrofindsapol.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 05, 2015, 03:28 AM
I think it'd be really cool if we could have AI systems that could drive narratives.  

Someone creates a character and an environment, etc.  
Then a player adds things into an environment.  

You're watching Simpsons, what if you add a character.  Maybe a random one to the show.  Maybe you add a pre-made one, or make your own.  Suddenly some character from South Park or Family Guy is in the Simpsons story.  

Think it'd be interesting.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 05, 2015, 05:03 AM
I think it'd be really cool if we could have AI systems that could drive narratives.  

Someone creates a character and an environment, etc.  
Then a player adds things into an environment.  

You're watching Simpsons, what if you add a character.  Maybe a random one to the show.  Maybe you add a pre-made one, or make your own.  Suddenly some character from South Park or Family Guy is in the Simpsons story.  

Think it'd be interesting.  
Great for kids, but I'd hate it as an adult. Shows like simpsons and Family guy are about turning off your brain, not coming up with entertaining scenarios haha.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 05, 2015, 05:05 AM
Great for kids, but I'd hate it as an adult. Shows like simpsons and Family guy are about turning off your brain, not coming up with entertaining scenarios haha.
The way I would do it, one wouldn't have to add anything.  The option is there, or else the program will run as it normally would.  Ideally the AI would take care of the interactions.  :)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 10, 2015, 03:06 AM
A fundamental quantum physics problem has been proved unsolvable - Factor (http://factor-tech.com/connected-world/21062-a-fundamental-quantum-physics-problem-has-been-proved-unsolvable/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 10, 2015, 03:15 AM
A fundamental quantum physics problem has been proved unsolvable - Factor (http://factor-tech.com/connected-world/21062-a-fundamental-quantum-physics-problem-has-been-proved-unsolvable/)
I wonder to what extent it is undecidable.  
The actual paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573v2.pdf
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 10, 2015, 03:44 AM
I don't understand the entirety of that.  

But from what I have read a while ago.
For Godel's stuff:
Just because there are statements that can't be proved within a system, doesn't mean that another system can't be constructed to prove something.  
And there are an infinite number of statements that could be proved, but that doesn't mean that all of them are interesting.

For Turing's stuff.  
It's not necessarily that it can't be solved, it's just you can't construct an algorithm that can solve every case.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 10, 2015, 03:49 AM
With the physics major, it seems like a lot of the upper level courses just build on the intro classes.    

Like in the intro class, you'll see heat, sound, electricity, magnetism, light.  But then there are upper level classes for some of those.  Like there's a 400 level class for electricity and magnetism.  

It seems very different from the other majors.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 12, 2015, 04:56 PM
The power of a solar flare (http://i.imgur.com/D5GOZ1K.gifv)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 13, 2015, 10:44 PM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_three_laws_of_robotics.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 18, 2015, 09:53 PM
Comet 67P Animated Gif (http://i.imgur.com/Pk8Iani.gifv)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Dec 19, 2015, 05:54 PM
Omnibus Sets Up Major Boosts for Several Science Agencies | AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society (http://www.aaas.org/news/omnibus-sets-major-boosts-several-science-agencies)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 20, 2015, 05:05 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 20, 2015, 05:42 AM

you can find the whole thing on youtube,  I love listening to him explain things
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 20, 2015, 05:53 AM
Here's the whole video.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 22, 2015, 12:17 AM


Next SpaceX launch,  with attempted first stage on land.   stream starts in a bit over an hour.   launch is like 20 minutes after that i think
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 12:48 AM


Next SpaceX launch,  with attempted first stage on land.   stream starts in a bit over an hour.   launch is like 20 minutes after that i think
I bet they will not land.

Pessimist!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 22, 2015, 01:11 AM
I bet they will not land.

Pessimist!!!
either way itll be fun to watch haha
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 01:21 AM
either way itll be fun to watch haha
20k viewers atm.

People are interested in space!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 22, 2015, 01:26 AM
20k viewers atm.

People are interested in space!
27k now,   one of the biggest launches in a while!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 22, 2015, 01:27 AM
20k viewers atm.

People are interested in space!
Getting people interested in space?
Fairly easy.

Math?
Impossible!!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 01:33 AM
36k
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 22, 2015, 01:34 AM
Psh,500-600 million people watched the moon landing.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 01:38 AM
I can't believe it but I think this might be the first live rocket launch I've watched.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 01:39 AM
YEBUFksjenfaaw!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 22, 2015, 01:41 AM
they fudgy did it!  holy shame

(http://i.imgur.com/AGChkrz.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 01:51 AM
Now the real test will be if this stage can be launched and landed again.

Space is about to get a lot cheaper!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 22, 2015, 01:54 AM
Now the real test will be if this stage can be launched and landed again.

Space is about to get a lot cheaper!
yup, i wonder how ling itll take to refurbish
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Dec 22, 2015, 04:33 AM


Want. And amazed.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 22, 2015, 09:57 PM
U.S. Demonstrates Production of Fuel for Missions to the Solar System and Beyond | Department of Energy (http://energy.gov/articles/us-demonstrates-production-fuel-missions-solar-system-and-beyond)

BREAKING: InSight won't launch in March due to a problem with a CNES-built instrument. Launch will be delayed at least 26 months! : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/3xufcf/breaking_insight_wont_launch_in_march_due_to_a/)

Both good and bad news, yay!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 23, 2015, 09:36 PM
awesome!!!!!!!!  more 238 is a dam good thing.. lol  was getting a bit worried with stockpiles getting so low.  reusable rockets and this in one week,   get news for the future

and i heard about Insight yesterday,  sucks..  but atleast they found a problem now instead of after launch lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 28, 2015, 09:22 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 29, 2015, 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 01, 2016, 05:21 PM
Elon Musk says the Falcon 9 rocket SpaceX successfully landed is 'ready to fire again' | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/1/10697914/elon-musk-says-falcon-9-rocket-spacex-ready-to-fire)

AMAZING!



Their plan is to dry test the rocket again just to see how it performs, and then ship it off to a museum.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 01, 2016, 08:12 PM
Awesome! I figured  theey would have to refurb it lol it being ready to go is like a dream. :D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 02, 2016, 05:58 PM
Four elements earn permanent seats on the periodic table  | Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/four-elements-earn-permanent-seats-periodic-table)

Good by Unununium :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 04, 2016, 01:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4EEWTCz.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 05, 2016, 07:27 PM
European Space Agency announces plans to build a 'Moon village' by 2030 - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/europe-plans-to-build-a-moon-village-by-2030-space-agency-announces)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 07, 2016, 03:19 AM
Effectively the same video with different touches.  




Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 07, 2016, 03:34 AM
In similar news, North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb the other day.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 07, 2016, 04:02 AM
In similar news, North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb the other day.
Ive been reading about this.  A few people are suggesting that it's propaganda.  

The hydrogen bomb would have been much smaller than anything prior.  A physics professor Richard Miller was suggesting that it was a boosted fission bomb rather than a hydrogen one.  

Quote
The size of the explosion, yielding a 5.1 magnitude earthquake, is roughly what you would get from a 10 kiloton bomb, half of the energy release of the first US pure fission bomb exploded in New Mexico. So they are still producing duds.  The first three US fission bombs were not boosted, and they released considerably more energy than did this North Korean test.
Nonetheless, I suspect that the engineers and physicists responsible for this bomb told Kim Jong Un that they had successfully exploded a hydrogen bomb. It was their quickest way to be able to claim "hydrogen" -- by assembling a boosted fission bomb.
Moreover, I suspect the bomb was even smaller than 10 kilotons. It is in the North Korean interest to try to exaggerate the size of the blast. If I were given the job of doing that, I would do it by increasing the coupling between the explosion and the rock. (If you are trying to hide a bomb, you decrease that coupling.) The goal would be to transfer more energy to the rock, thereby fooling the seismic people into thinking that a bigger bomb was exploded. Increasing that coupling is technically far far easier than making a bigger bomb, so I assume that's what they did. That means that their "hydrogen bomb" might have been only a few kilotons, maybe 1/10 the size of the first WWII US weapons.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Jan 07, 2016, 04:07 AM
In similar news, North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb the other day.
I think it was more of an atom bomb with hydrogen inside.

Anyways, I just find it to be just another one of North Korea's routine "Hey, you nitwits! Pay attention to us!" to the US and South Korea.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: ZhugeEX on Jan 07, 2016, 04:21 AM
In similar news, North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb the other day.
Chinese News posted how to build Hydrogen bomb.

How many steps does it take to make a Hydrogen Bomb? - Xinhua | English.news.cn
 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/07/c_134986234.htm)

(Not my fault if you end up on government list for clicking this link)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 08, 2016, 10:34 PM
People are really scientifically illiterate....

Someone just posted on facebook about testing light bulbs for radiation.  They only tested the CFL bulbs, and they started complaining that it was giving off radiation.... 

Well, visible light is a form of radiation...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 09, 2016, 12:56 AM

When feminists say that men and women are equally capable at math, do they mean that the mean is equal or that they're from the same distribution? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/When-feminists-say-that-men-and-women-are-equally-capable-at-math-do-they-mean-that-the-mean-is-equal-or-that-theyre-from-the-same-distribution)
Quote
From the research I've seen, boys and girls tend to be about the same (or girls slightly better) at math until puberty. It is then that boys start pulling ahead, on average.
This actually makes pretty good sense. At puberty, boys get their testosterone levels up. This makes them stronger, more aggressive, and more focused (in order to fight off aggressors). On the other hand, at puberty, girls bodies and brains turn into baby-making machines.
This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view. Most people who lived to adulthood didn't live very long - around age 40 or so. So women would have spent most of their adult lives having and raising children. To do so successfully, they would have to develop better social skills than men.
Primitive men would need to be patient and single-minded when it comes to hunting or protecting.
So now let's think about Einstein. From 1905 to 1915, he spent most of his time thinking about the General Theory of Relativity. It's a wonderful theory, but how many women do you know that would spend 10 years focused on such an abstract topic?
Women, on average, are more social beings.  This has a tremendously beneficial influence on our culture. Biologically, there would be less desire to become a mathematician or theoretical physicist. More women today are becoming doctors, and there's some pretty good evidence that they are better doctors than men, because they listen better.
My wife, daughter and sister all are extremely intelligent. But none of them will stay up all night, as I sometimes do, to solve a math problem, or write a computer program.
I'm sure there are cultural forces at play here. And there probably always will be.
Yet, there are many women who do make great mathematicians. And our society should encourage all children to pursue their passions.
We have some excellent programs at UT Dallas, that are aimed at assisting women to feeling welcome in our Computer Science Department. I strongly commend these efforts.
Those who think that 'true equality' would mean that we should get to the point where every field has 50/50 men and women are not for equality; they are for quotas.    
Only women can give birth to another human - and that mother has more influence on the future of that child than anyone else in the world. If we tried to downplay this, as our culture has done, it will be to the detriment of all.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 09, 2016, 01:10 AM
Eh, that kind of seems a bit off

Quote
So now let's think about Einstein. From 1905 to 1915, he spent most of his time thinking about the General Theory of Relativity. It's a wonderful theory, but how many women do you know that would spend 10 years focused on such an abstract topic?
I can think of zero woman, but I can also only think of 1 man. Such a weird point.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 09, 2016, 01:18 AM
Eh, that kind of seems a bit off
I can think of zero woman, but I can also only think of 1 man. Such a weird point.
Lol, it's true.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 11, 2016, 08:56 PM
Rumors Are Flying That We Finally Found Gravitational Waves  (http://gizmodo.com/rumors-are-flying-that-we-may-have-finally-found-gravit-1752259868)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 11, 2016, 09:06 PM
Rumors Are Flying That We Finally Found Gravitational Waves  (http://gizmodo.com/rumors-are-flying-that-we-may-have-finally-found-gravit-1752259868)
YES!!!

They were detected a few months ago, but this new round of rumours seems to suggest it wasn't just a test!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jan 12, 2016, 02:59 AM
Holy shame. This would be a significant leap forward.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2016, 05:30 PM
SpaceX to Attempt Another Rocket Landing Sunday (http://www.space.com/31582-spacex-rocket-landing-jason3-satellite-launch.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2016, 05:34 PM




Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 12, 2016, 05:36 PM
SpaceX to Attempt Another Rocket Landing Sunday (http://www.space.com/31582-spacex-rocket-landing-jason3-satellite-launch.html)
super excited!! but another sea landing..  i guess they gotta get that nailed down for the falcon heavy. lol I remember hearing that the center rocket would be to far down range to land at the same spot as the other 2
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2016, 05:43 PM
super excited!! but another sea landing..  i guess they gotta get that nailed down for the falcon heavy. lol I remember hearing that the center rocket would be to far down range to land at the same spot as the other 2
This rocket is being launched from a different location so their options were sea landing or nothing at all.

However I have a good feeling they'll get this right assuming no pre-landing failures. All the data from last time should help a lot.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 12, 2016, 05:45 PM
This rocket is being launched from a different location so their options were sea landing or nothing at all.

However I have a good feeling they'll get this right assuming no pre-landing failures. All the data from last time should help a lot.
i think they will make it to,  or atleast really hope they do.    where is this on being launched from?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2016, 05:48 PM
i think they will make it to,  or atleast really hope they do.    where is this on being launched from?
EDT: Vandenberg Air Force Base California
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2016, 05:49 PM
No one seemed to take note that Stephen Hawkings face and a mysterious numerical code took over a group of billboards in Times Square this morning. I took a picture. What does it mean? : interestingasfuck (https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/40jdkj/no_one_seemed_to_take_note_that_stephen_hawkings/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 12, 2016, 05:55 PM
EDT: California
ah,  vandenberg?   have they launched from there before?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2016, 06:07 PM
ah,  vandenberg?   have they launched from there before?
No clue
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jan 13, 2016, 01:14 AM
http://www.iflscience.com/artificial-gravitational-fields-are-possible-current-technology
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 13, 2016, 03:28 PM


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 13, 2016, 03:33 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 14, 2016, 05:52 PM
a new oddly dimming star

(1601.03256) KIC 8462852 Faded at an Average Rate of 0.165+-0.013 Magnitudes Per
  Century From 1890 To 1989 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03256)

" The star KIC 8462852 is a completely-ordinary F3 main sequence star, except that the light curve from the Kepler spacecraft shows episodes of unique and inexplicable day-long dips with up to 20% dimming.  Here, I provide a light curve of 1232 Johnson B-band magnitudes from 1890 to 1989 taken from archival photographic plates at Harvard. KIC 8462852 displays a highly significant and highly confident secular dimming at an average rate of 0.165+-0.013 magnitudes per century. From the early 1890s to the late 1980s, KIC 8462852 has faded by 0.193+-0.030 mag. This century-long dimming is completely unprecedented for any F-type main sequence star."
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 14, 2016, 06:00 PM
a new oddly dimming star

(1601.03256) KIC 8462852 Faded at an Average Rate of 0.165+-0.013 Magnitudes Per
  Century From 1890 To 1989 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03256)

" The star KIC 8462852 is a completely-ordinary F3 main sequence star, except that the light curve from the Kepler spacecraft shows episodes of unique and inexplicable day-long dips with up to 20% dimming.  Here, I provide a light curve of 1232 Johnson B-band magnitudes from 1890 to 1989 taken from archival photographic plates at Harvard. KIC 8462852 displays a highly significant and highly confident secular dimming at an average rate of 0.165+-0.013 magnitudes per century. From the early 1890s to the late 1980s, KIC 8462852 has faded by 0.193+-0.030 mag. This century-long dimming is completely unprecedented for any F-type main sequence star."
This just feels exactly like the beginning of a sci fi movie.

All we need is a few more dimming stars to pop up.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 14, 2016, 06:01 PM
NASA to Make Major Space Station Cargo Transport Announcement Today | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-make-major-space-station-cargo-transport-announcement-today)

That's nasa.gov, not a third party hyping it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 14, 2016, 06:05 PM
NASA to Make Major Space Station Cargo Transport Announcement Today | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-make-major-space-station-cargo-transport-announcement-today)

That's nasa.gov, not a third party hyping it.
hmm i wonder what that could be..   what would be considered major in relation to cargo resupplies? 

quick edit:   could they be announcing space x getting a contract?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 14, 2016, 06:23 PM
hmm i wonder what that could be..   what would be considered major in relation to cargo resupplies?  

quick edit:   could they be announcing space x getting a contract?
It's assumed they are announcing the CRS2 so hopefully spacex.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 14, 2016, 06:28 PM
It's assumed they are announcing the CRS2 so hopefully spacex.
that would be sweet.  so much going on for space x
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 14, 2016, 09:39 PM
So they split the contract?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 14, 2016, 09:54 PM
So they split the contract?
It was always going to be split at least somewhat.

NASA Awards International Space Station Cargo Transport Contracts | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-international-space-station-cargo-transport-contracts)

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 14, 2016, 10:07 PM
It was always going to be split at least somewhat.

NASA Awards International Space Station Cargo Transport Contracts | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-international-space-station-cargo-transport-contracts)


thanx for the link.   so a mininum of 6 launches per group.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 16, 2016, 01:54 AM
For Christmas I received a telescope camera. I tried it out a while ago but just couldn't for the life of me get anything to show up.

So I waited for a nice night and tried just to even find the moon. Man is it a narrow lense!

Here's my first ever video of space.



Later on I'll try for jupiter but I doubt I'll be able to find it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 16, 2016, 07:03 AM


Also the barge is ready for Sunday.
(http://i.imgur.com/pANdna4.jpg)

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 16, 2016, 08:15 AM
intersting lol  with 9 rocket engines, 1 having issues isnt so bad

i wonder if the sea will continue to play a roll..  maybe they need a bigger barge lol

really excited for sunday
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 16, 2016, 04:59 PM
intersting lol  with 9 rocket engines, 1 having issues isnt so bad

i wonder if the sea will continue to play a roll..  maybe they need a bigger barge lol

really excited for sunday
Well both sea landings did at least manage to hit the barge. Also apparently both had hardware failure during landing; they weren't just miscalculated attempts.

In other news: Scientists Find a Supernova So Bright It Tests the Laws of Physics    | Mental Floss (http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/73748/scientists-find-supernova-so-bright-it-tests-laws-physics)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 16, 2016, 06:06 PM
1:42PM ET for spacex tomorrow
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 16, 2016, 06:59 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 16, 2016, 07:28 PM
1:42PM ET for spacex tomorrow
Exciting! Will it be streamed again?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 16, 2016, 07:29 PM
Exciting! Will it be streamed again?
Not sure. They mentioned it'd be hard streaming from the ocean.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 17, 2016, 07:09 PM
awe...  on target, but landing leg broke and tipped over.  atleast thats what they are saying so far.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 17, 2016, 07:53 PM
I watched the revenent instead.

Sucks it broke.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 17, 2016, 08:10 PM
They need a ship  with really high walls covered in massice airbags so that if it tips, they catch it with the pillows lol

Viewing Single Post - NeoGAF (http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=192478379)

(https://i.imgur.com/MtzVw6V.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 17, 2016, 10:06 PM


Guess no explosion really.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 17, 2016, 10:08 PM
Invalid Tweet ID

Guess no explosion really.
Yup and i love his sense of humor lol

So apparently one of the latches didnt engage properly so leg 3 failed, sounds like it would have failed on land as well.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 18, 2016, 12:15 AM


All these hardware failures!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 18, 2016, 03:40 AM


Guess no explosion really.

Instagram
 (https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/)

lol still an explosion,  they were so close
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jan 18, 2016, 04:06 AM

Instagram
 (https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/)

lol still an explosion,  they were so close
Man that sucks. It looks like they should move the leg mounts up about 6 feet.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 18, 2016, 06:48 AM

Instagram
 (https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/)

lol still an explosion,  they were so close
Perfect landing! Super close!!! Amazing video.

Man that sucks. It looks like they should move the leg mounts up about 6 feet.
Seems it didn't latch in place, but structurally it was fine.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 18, 2016, 06:56 AM
They've come so far from the first two attempts:

Watch SpaceX's Vine "Close, but no cigar. This time." (https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK)

Watch SpaceX's Vine "Falcon 9 first stage landing burn and touchdown on Just Read the Instructions" (https://vine.co/v/euEpIVegiIx)

Both hectic landings that almost save themselves, while this and the last one looked smooth and graceful on approach. Definitely upgraded their steering program.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 18, 2016, 10:36 PM
My brightness settings were off, but here's my picture of Jupiter.

(http://i.imgur.com/0nHOT4g.png)

Planet is rotated 90 degrees with north pointing right.

Next I'll try Saturn since the rings should make for a much nicer image.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Jan 18, 2016, 11:21 PM
Chemistry sucks lollipop
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 18, 2016, 11:48 PM
So next space x launch is in just under 3 weeks i think (SES-9),  currently with a date of the 6th.    out of cape Canaveral.    
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 18, 2016, 11:50 PM
So next space x launch is in just under 3 weeks i think (SES-9),  currently with a date of the 6th.    out of cape Canaveral.    
Sweet!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Jan 19, 2016, 01:55 AM
Chemistry sucks lollipop
Organic chemistry is an even worse nightmare.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 19, 2016, 01:56 AM
Organic chemistry is an even worse nightmare.
My fiance is taking that class soon.  
I believe she also has to take a Biochem class.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 20, 2016, 04:19 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/99PMMY6.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 20, 2016, 05:16 PM
 New evidence suggests a ninth planet lurking at the edge of the solar system - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/new-evidence-suggests-a-ninth-planet-lurking-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system/?tid=sm_fb)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 20, 2016, 06:21 PM
New evidence suggests a ninth planet lurking at the edge of the solar system - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/new-evidence-suggests-a-ninth-planet-lurking-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system/?tid=sm_fb)
I'll believe it when I see it.

Historically this technique has only worked once, and that was with Pluto. Neptune
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 20, 2016, 06:26 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

Historically this technique has only worked once, and that was with Pluto.
well one of the researches was partly responsible for pluto's demotion lol  I will remain optomistic lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 20, 2016, 06:36 PM
well one of the researches was partly responsible for pluto's demotion lol  I will remain optomistic lol
Oops I meant Neptune, also here is a much more scientific article.

Astronomers say a Neptune-sized planet lurks beyond Pluto | Science | AAAS (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system)

It's almost the size of Neptune, and orbits 200 to 1,200 AU away from the Sun. Should be easily visible once they have a telescope pointed there.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 20, 2016, 06:41 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.
Historically this technique has only worked once, and that was with Pluto.
"Uranus's orbit is a little strange, I think there's something else out there.  Aha Neptune (http://www.space.com/41-neptune-the-other-blue-planet-in-our-solar-system.html)"
"Neptune's orbit is a little strange, I think there's something else out there.  Aha Pluto"
"Nah Pluto's too small, there's something else out there."
"Maybe it's this? Nah too small."
"Oh wait, we don't need a 10th planet for this."

"WAIT GUYS I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE!!! LOOK AT THIS!"
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 20, 2016, 08:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/3B9YsPB.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 22, 2016, 12:52 AM


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 24, 2016, 10:54 PM
What if we could scan people's brains and find things that people like?

Based on your brain, you should like "Some Song" by Artist, you'd also like "Game" by Game Studios, and you may like "food".
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 26, 2016, 08:50 PM
I think memory is interesting, because we all trust our memories to be pretty reliable most of the time.  Maybe sometimes we know it isn't perfect, but we still trust it.  

The reality is that memory is like some student that misses a lot of class.  When it comes to test day he makes something up that seems believable.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 27, 2016, 01:46 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Jan 27, 2016, 01:50 AM
So apparently the doomsday clock is stuck at 3 mins before midnight.
Oh shame we gonna die.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jan 27, 2016, 03:00 AM
So apparently the doomsday clock is stuck at 3 mins before midnight.
Oh shame we gonna die.
Bro, I don't even have enough liquor in the house for an end of the world party.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 28, 2016, 02:18 AM
So in an interview today, apparently Musk said he will show off the plans for the MCT this september.   Man i am excited for that.. itll be a Big fudgy Rocket ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 03, 2016, 04:17 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 03, 2016, 05:48 PM

What was this?

I was busy with the witness.

So in an interview today, apparently Musk said he will show off the plans for the MCT this september.   Man i am excited for that.. itll be a Big fudgy Rocket ;)

Mars by 2025 maybe!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 03, 2016, 06:38 PM
What was this?

I was busy with the witness.
Mars by 2025 maybe!
Wtf i wonder why they took it down,  video for the sls

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 04, 2016, 05:18 AM
First hydrogen plasma in Wendelstein 7-X | Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik (http://www.ipp.mpg.de/4010154/02_16)


Id pull some quotes but im not home right now. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 10, 2016, 04:40 PM
Gravitational waves: Why they're such a big deal - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/lisa-pathfinder-waves-1.3347724)

Ligo to make announcement tomorrow.  Gravity waves confirmed?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 10, 2016, 05:24 PM
Gravitational waves: Why they're such a big deal - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/lisa-pathfinder-waves-1.3347724)

Ligo to make announcement tomorrow.  Gravity waves confirmed?
(https://i.imgur.com/89HANHgh.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 11, 2016, 03:16 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 11, 2016, 03:30 PM
Live
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 11, 2016, 03:34 PM
Found them!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 11, 2016, 04:43 PM
Found them!!!
This is so exciting!

It's amazing that they've finally found them, I can't wait to see what else they'll discover now they know how to do it!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 11, 2016, 09:01 PM
This is so exciting!

It's amazing that they've finally found them, I can't wait to see what else they'll discover now they know how to do it!
Well they already kinda knew how to do it, but there was always the worry some prediction or calculation was wrong. Now that it's confirmed to be useful science, investing in more interferometers isn't as risky.


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 11, 2016, 09:04 PM




This was in my feed.

Richard Muller: What, if anything, does the detection of gravitational waves mean for physics? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/Richard-Muller-What-if-anything-does-the-detection-of-gravitational-waves-mean-for-physics)

Quote from: Richard Muller
I am hoping the successful detection of gravitational waves will open the door for the discovery of unexpected phenomena, particularly in the Milky Way galaxy, possibly in the nature of strong gravity.
It is wonderful that their first detection came so soon after they turned the detectors on; that suggests that there will be many detections per year. In addition, the nature of the discovery-- a rapidly oscillating signal that decayed quickly -- is exciting. It's obvious interpretation, that of a black hole and star falling into each other, is very interesting. It is,perhaps, the most interesting of the expected phenomena, and if it is common, then it is even more interesting.  It is not yet clear what will will learn from the observation, particularly if it just verifies what we expected, but it is likely that there will be something unexpected too.
I emphases again, as I did in previous postings to Quora, that this is not the first proof that gravity waves exist, nor is there anything yet that verifies something in general relativity that was previously unverified. The Taylor-Hulse binary pulsar, back in the 1970s, accomplished that.  Indeed, the discovery of that binary pulsar was a prime motivation and justification for building the new detector array, called LIGO. It demonstrated that rapidly rotating binary stars do emit gravitational waves, and therefore a design such as LIGO will indeed make detections, if it could be built to the claimed sensitivity. That has now been accomplished.
The fact that the signal was seen in two detectors (one in Washington and one in Louisiana) was absolute critical to their announcement. If it had been seen in only one, there is not sufficient surety of the signal behavior to enable it to be verified as a gravitational wave. The fact that it was seen on two detectors also allows us to determine the direction to within a band on the sky, the center of the band determined by the relative arrival time at the two detectors, and the width of the band determined by the uncertainty in that arrival time.
Unfortunately, that same event is a one-timer, so it will not be seen again. (It would be great if it were! That would indicate something unexpected.) If it were seen again, as the Earth rotates, it would be a different band on the sky, and the intersection of the two bands would allow us to locate it to within two small regions; regions that could be examined optically.
It is unfortunate to see so much discussion online about a Nobel Prize. No fundamental discovery has been made -- yet. An elegant and clever instrument was built that does what it was meant to do, and it made an observation. The discoveries are yet to come.  LIGO may change our understanding of the dynamics of black holes, of gravity waves, and of the nature and make-up of the Milky Way galaxy. It hasn't done so yet, but the odds are in its favor.
This is so exciting!

It's amazing that they've finally found them, I can't wait to see what else they'll discover now they know how to do it!
It sounds like they had indirect proof of it, but this is the first direct proof of waves.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 18, 2016, 07:40 PM
Virgin Galactic will unveil its new spaceplane tomorrow | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/18/11045184/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-reusable-spaceplane-unveiling)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Feb 19, 2016, 02:48 AM
I hate chemistry and physics and anatomy and psychology and geology and geography.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 19, 2016, 02:58 AM
I hate chemistry and physics and anatomy and psychology and geology and geography.
Physics can't be hated.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 19, 2016, 03:01 AM
Physics can't be hated.  
(http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr230/mango259/916AC3DF-C962-4D37-A441-5AEE426D95FC-5218-000003F7FDACC837.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 19, 2016, 07:52 PM
http://60abc.com/2016/02/19/bransons-virgin-galactic-spaceship-two-is-getting-ready-to-launch/
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 19, 2016, 08:07 PM
I hate chemistry and physics and anatomy and psychology and geology and geography.
Explain yourself! Right now!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 22, 2016, 05:19 PM
SpaceX is hoping to do the Static fire test for the Ses-9 mission today,   with launch windows on wensday and thursday.

Launching from florida, with the landing attempt on a drone ship.  although ive heard that landing of the first stage  will be dubious because of the launch profile.  something about it putting the first stage right around the edge of its survivalbility on re-entry
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 22, 2016, 05:33 PM
SpaceX is hoping to do the Static fire test for the Ses-9 mission today,   with launch windows on wensday and thursday.

Launching from florida, with the landing attempt on a drone ship.  although ive heard that landing of the first stage  will be dubious because of the launch profile.  something about it putting the first stage right around the edge of its survivalbility on re-entry
I have faith!


SpaceX has gotten really good at reaching the landing pad successfully. Any failure I bet would occur at the last second.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 22, 2016, 05:49 PM
I have faith!


SpaceX has gotten really good at reaching the landing pad successfully. Any failure I bet would occur at the last second.
i think opposite lol  they have got really good at getting it to the pad,  and would have made the last one if it wasnt for the hardware fail,  that aslong as it survives re-entry after stage seperation, i think they will land it.    If something fails it will be under the high stress while it still has all that velocity lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 22, 2016, 11:34 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12744402_10157087128070131_8685443912547304297_n.png?oh=5540210d8baba4638af78a77606eba2d&oe=5725551B)
Static test complete.   heres hoping the weather works on wensday!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 23, 2016, 01:00 AM
Ready to go!



EDT: wait, this tweet is before yours ^ oops
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 23, 2016, 01:14 AM
Ready to go!



EDT: wait, this tweet is before yours ^ oops
yup that was earlier today,  someone noticed that since the rocket was up they would be doing the static test, then later spacex confirmed the test. lol



the link for wensday for those who wanna watch it
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 23, 2016, 07:54 PM
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_ses9_press_kit_final.pdf

lol they say a successful landing isnt expected lol but who knows
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 04:06 PM


Robots are getting crazy good at walking.

Spoiler for Hidden:
<br>(http://i.imgur.com/ONIxhUE.gif)<br>
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 24, 2016, 04:09 PM


Robots are getting crazy good at walking.

Spoiler for Hidden:

(http://i.imgur.com/ONIxhUE.gif)

Doesn't fall
Doesn't fall.
Falls.
Doesn't fall.
Explosion.


Makes sense.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 04:10 PM
Doesn't fall
Doesn't fall.
Falls.
Doesn't fall.
Explosion.


Makes sense.  
The guy in the gif will be the first one terminated.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 08:09 PM


60% chance of launch tonight.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 24, 2016, 08:16 PM
yea clouds and wind. its been at the 60% mark since last week. fingers crossed.  its an ambitious landing attempt. really excited
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 10:10 PM
I'll bet $1,000 it makes it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 24, 2016, 10:18 PM
I'll bet $1,000 it makes it.
im not 100 percent sure, but i think it has like  2-3000kph  more then the orbbcom landing lol  if they pull it off itll be amazing.

ill bet we loose feed just before it lands  ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 10:32 PM
im not 100 percent sure, but i think it has like  2-3000kph  more then the orbbcom landing lol  if they pull it off itll be amazing.

ill bet we loose feed just before it lands  ;)
But does that extra speed matter? All previous problems have happened once the rocket was slowed down. They've yet to fail with getting the rocket to target.

Video will cut out for sure  ;D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 24, 2016, 10:48 PM
But does that extra speed matter? All previous problems have happened once the rocket was slowed down. They've yet to fail with getting the rocket to target.

Video will cut out for sure  ;D
well the breaking burn would probably need more deltav. bot sure if that plays into it.

apparently wind gusts at the landing zone lol not sure what the limit is for landing
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 24, 2016, 10:53 PM


Robots are getting crazy good at walking.

Spoiler for Hidden:

(http://i.imgur.com/ONIxhUE.gif)

God dang, that's pretty cool! I kind of felt bad for that robot, getting bullied so much.

I wonder how close we are to seeing these machines around, assisting us.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 10:54 PM
well the breaking burn would probably need more deltav. bot sure if that plays into it.

apparently wind gusts at the landing zone lol not sure what the limit is for landing
The very first time they tried reentry was with a similar flight plan to this. Twas Discover I think.

Didn't have a barge waiting for it, but the rocket made it down perfectly. I think they have this.


Would suck if it landed, but then tipped over a minute or two later from wind and waves.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 24, 2016, 11:11 PM
Delayed a day.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 24, 2016, 11:14 PM
Delayed a day.
nooooooo!  but not surprised
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 25, 2016, 07:54 PM


Robots are getting crazy good at walking.

Spoiler for Hidden:

(http://i.imgur.com/ONIxhUE.gif)

http://img.ifcdn.com/images/66f88a598a9fd9cbf925f6736bb87b7277f5eccd6f1f5833bb9836e7416d0dc4_1.webm
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 25, 2016, 09:34 PM
weather report shows 80percent chance for go! better weather at launch and for the asds.   excited!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 25, 2016, 11:27 PM
Launching in 20 minutes!

Webcast is liveish

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 25, 2016, 11:32 PM
already watchig lol  so stoked.  15 minutes.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 25, 2016, 11:38 PM


Oh gosh this is getting me worried!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 25, 2016, 11:40 PM


Oh gosh this is getting me worried!
yea i heard about stuff like that on the nasaspaceflight forum lol going to be a hair landing
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 25, 2016, 11:42 PM
Will be interesting seeing barge footage. This is their first night landing on one.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 25, 2016, 11:43 PM
this landig attempt is nuts compared to before..  ll go nuts if they pull it off
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 25, 2016, 11:46 PM
:(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 25, 2016, 11:47 PM
wtf..  :( what happened

scrubbed..  wtf happened
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 25, 2016, 11:48 PM
This rocket is never launching :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 25, 2016, 11:49 PM
depressing..

the nsf site is ser to member only.  i guess the site is getting hammered lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 27, 2016, 07:22 PM
looks like next attempt is sunday. same time of day
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2016, 11:18 PM
It's about that time again!

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 28, 2016, 11:19 PM
yup,  they are just starting prop load!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2016, 11:47 PM
Dooooom
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 28, 2016, 11:48 PM
oh ffs..
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2016, 11:48 PM
boat got in the way probably.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 28, 2016, 11:53 PM
boat got in the way probably.
fudge the boat, let them get hit by debris lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2016, 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 29, 2016, 12:00 AM

i can only imagine how furious he must be right now lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 29, 2016, 12:07 AM
You can listen in Port Canaveral Marine - Live Audio Feed Web Player (http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/21054/web)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 29, 2016, 12:09 AM
Launching in 9 minutes!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 29, 2016, 12:22 AM
omfg this launch is fudgy haunted
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 29, 2016, 12:23 AM
Aborted at literally the last second.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 29, 2016, 12:25 AM
they were in the middle of igniting..  ugh

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 29, 2016, 06:09 AM


Abort on the right.

so cool
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 29, 2016, 06:46 AM
so itll be atleast 48 hours until we get a range of dates apparently.

fudge this boat, i hope they get in shame lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 01, 2016, 08:49 PM


gonna tty again today!

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 01, 2016, 09:23 PM


gonna tty again today!


Pushed to Friday lol.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 01, 2016, 09:23 PM
cancel that!   musk tweeted its getting postponed till friday because of extremely high wind shear at high altitudes

Pushed to Friday lol.
ha i posted just as you types that
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 01, 2016, 09:32 PM
ha i posted just as you types that
Nah we were 10 seconds apart  ::)

I do believe this is now the must scrubbed falcon launch in SpaceX history.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 01, 2016, 09:41 PM
Nah we were 10 seconds apart  ::)

I do believe this is now the must scrubbed falcon launch in SpaceX history.
wouldnt surprise me, and at this point im starting to get a bad feeling about it.. lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 02, 2016, 12:09 AM
Well it's privately funded. They are going to be very careful.  They don't want to loose another rocket.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 05:42 PM


lets hope there is better luck today!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 06:01 PM
lets hope there is better luck today!!
I'm expecting a scrub announcement in the next few hours. Bad upper winds.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 06:52 PM
I'm expecting a scrub announcement in the next few hours. Bad upper winds.
fudge i hope not..  but havent seen anything official about that yet
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 06:58 PM
fudge i hope not..  but havent seen anything official about that yet
After 4 scrubs, I've gone cynical. This rocket is never launching!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 07:02 PM
After 4 scrubs, I've gone cynical. This rocket is never launching!
im starting to get that feeling that itll launch and something goes wrong
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 10:10 PM


Launch team go for fueling

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:01 PM
Might actually be happening!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 11:18 PM
webcast has music up,   2nd stage fueling complete
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:22 PM
Please be a success, please be a success, please be a success.

Isn't it sad we've stopped caring about the landing and just hope the rocket itself works haha.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 11:30 PM
haha so it was a freaking tug boat!!!!!   oh man..

i know what you mean,  it is pretty ironic how far theyve come, and we are again back to just hoping it launches lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:33 PM
Did you see the rocket tilting!?!?!?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 11:38 PM
Yeeeasß!!!!!!!!   goodluck ses 9!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:39 PM
Goood day!!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 11:42 PM
finally lol   so nervous for the landing!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:44 PM
blew up haha
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 11:45 PM
now the wait for the land lol and that last burn
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 04, 2016, 11:49 PM
Did it really blow up?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 04, 2016, 11:50 PM
Did it really blow up?

i think hes guessing,  the feed cut off before we saw anything lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:50 PM
Did it really blow up?

I rewatched the video. 80% sure it came in too fast.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 04, 2016, 11:59 PM
I doubt it but...

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 05, 2016, 12:02 AM
I doubt it but...


holy if true,..
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 05, 2016, 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 05, 2016, 12:18 AM
awe dam.. well i huess we wait for video lol

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 05, 2016, 12:51 AM
Confirmed landed hard.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 05, 2016, 12:55 AM
i believe next is the CRS-8 mission,   in like 3-4 weeks.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 05, 2016, 12:59 AM
i believe next is the CRS-8 mission,   in like 3-4 weeks.  
March 30
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 05, 2016, 01:09 AM
Hopefully they can stop loosing rockets.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 05, 2016, 01:15 AM
Extended recording from live stream.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 10, 2016, 03:51 PM
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=39350.0,3Battach=1103818,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.kloz0rWzEv.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/B84f3WG.png)

No ASDS in the mission patch,  could they be doing another RTLS
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 12, 2016, 10:55 PM
Exomars launch on the 14th (middle of the night/early morning for north america).
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 14, 2016, 11:08 PM
I learned something I didn't know, maybe if it's taught in chemistry? But Uranium will change 14 times over it's lifetime eventually turning into Lead. Pretty cool stuff.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 14, 2016, 11:12 PM
I learned something I didn't know, maybe if it's taught in chemistry? But Uranium will change 14 times over it's lifetime eventually turning into Lead. Pretty cool stuff.
That's physics. Its different types of radioactive decay. It emits alpha or beta particles in an attempt to become more stable. Lead has the highest proton number (82) of all the stable atoms so everything with more than that emits these particles to try and become lead. Some isotopes of lead are still unstable though. Uranium is quite far away so it has to decay 14 times.

Fun stuff.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 14, 2016, 11:13 PM
I learned something I didn't know, maybe if it's taught in chemistry? But Uranium will change 14 times over it's lifetime eventually turning into Lead. Pretty cool stuff.
Yeah, like the exact opposite of stars turning hydrogen into heavier elements.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 14, 2016, 11:15 PM
Yeah, like the exact opposite of stars turning hydrogen into heavier elements.
? They said Uranium was created from an exploding star. At least what we have here on earth.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 14, 2016, 11:18 PM
? They said Uranium was created from an exploding star. At least what we have here on earth.
Yeah the super heavy elements are created from supernovas, but lighter elements are created by fusion in the core.

Hydrogen becomes helium becomes oxygen and carbon becomes neon, sodium, magnesium, sulfur and silicon becomes calcium, iron, nickel, chromium, copper and others.

Wasn't a perfect comparison. ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 14, 2016, 11:20 PM
I learned something I didn't know, maybe if it's taught in chemistry?
Physics or Chemistry.  
Some of that stuff actually ends up getting taught in both.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 14, 2016, 11:22 PM
Physics or Chemistry.  
Some of that stuff actually ends up getting taught in both.  
yeah, I didn't take either class. I know the periodic table was taught in general science class but it didn't go deep into it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 14, 2016, 11:25 PM
Yeah, like the exact opposite of stars turning hydrogen into heavier elements.
I'm guessing you're referring to fission here and that's not technically true. Uranium does fission but that only happens when we cause it by firing neutrons at it and it will make much smaller atoms than lead so its not really a decay chain.
? They said Uranium was created from an exploding star. At least what we have here on earth.
That's how all naturally occurring elements (all up to Uranium in the periodic table) are made. Stars are big spheres of hydrogen gas that have such a huge temperature (due to the gravity) that hydrogen atoms get fused together when they hit each other. This makes Helium. When a star is alive it makes a few of the smaller elements by fusion, usually up to about carbon.

As they die the pressure increases vastly, hence the temperature increases and the collisions between particles will have much more energy, so bigger molecules can be fused. Most stars will only form elements up to Iron but the biggest stars, which go on to form things like supernovas, are so dense and have such a huge temperature that they can perform fusion and make elements all the way up to Uranium.

Once these eventually explode all the elements are scattered around and eventually they'll collect under gravity to form new stars and planets and stuff!

Uranium has 92 protons, if you try to make an element with any more then it is extremely unstable and decays almost instantly, hence Uranium is the biggest element we can find on Earth.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 14, 2016, 11:27 PM
Its used for dating aswell, since it can be measured so well.  I remember it mentioned in physics, chemistry and in the general "science" class of earlier grades.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 14, 2016, 11:30 PM
Uranium has 92 protons, if you try to make an element with any more then it is extremely unstable and decays almost instantly, hence Uranium is the biggest element we can find on Earth.
Some isotopes of Plutonium have long-ish half lives.  
Uranium 238 has a super super long half life though.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 14, 2016, 11:33 PM
I'm guessing you're referring to fission here and that's not technically true. Uranium does fission but that only happens when we cause it by firing neutrons at it and it will make much smaller atoms than lead so its not really a decay chain.
Nah didn't mean fission, although that'd be even more of an exact opposite.

Its used for dating aswell
I expected that to lead into a joke!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 14, 2016, 11:33 PM
Some isotopes of Plutonium have long-ish half lives.  
Uranium 238 has a super super long half life though.  
Yeah some of them do have fairly long half lives but not long enough for us to be able to find them naturally on Earth.

We only know about elements above Uranium because we made them ourselves by shoving protons in and quickly observing them before they decay.

I do really like this area of physics :D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 14, 2016, 11:34 PM
Nah didn't mean fission, although that'd be even more of an exact opposite.

I expected that to lead into a joke!
your moms age is no laughing matter..
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 14, 2016, 11:35 PM
@Xevross

What are your thoughts on larger elements being potentially stable? Is that something they think still might be possible?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 14, 2016, 11:37 PM
Nah didn't mean fission, although that'd be even more of an exact opposite.

I expected that to lead into a joke!
Yeah I guess. I wouldn't really consider alpha/beta decay opposite to fusion though because they're very different processes but they sort of do the opposite things. Fusion increases proton/ nucleon number while alpha reduces it. Beta can reduce or increase proton number while nucleon number always remains the same, so that definitely isn't opposite to fusion!

Same! Were you referring to carbon dating there, DD?

@Xevross

What are your thoughts on larger elements being potentially stable? Is that something they think still might be possible?
As far as I understand it, due to the standard model and the nuclear forces, the larger elements can never be stable.

They're unstable because the electrostatic force pushing the protons away from each other is too large for the strong nuclear force. At Uranium and below the SNF is just strong enough to hold the nucleus together against the EF. However at 93 protons and above the EF is always too strong and the SNF can't hold it together. Due to the way the universe is and how science works, I don't think we'll ever be able to overcome this.

That is, unless something radical and crazy gets invented which allows us to artificially change nuclear forces. That would be awesome. Very unlikely though.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 14, 2016, 11:41 PM
Same! Were you referring to carbon dating there, DD?
Potassium and Uranium are also used (fairly regularly) for dating.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 14, 2016, 11:42 PM
That is, unless something radical and crazy gets invented which allows us to artificially change nuclear forces. That would be awesome. Very unlikely though.
SuperGravity.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 14, 2016, 11:42 PM
Potassium and Uranium are also used (fairly regularly) for dating.  
True true. I've only ever learned about carbon dating though. ::)

SuperGravity.
Its interstellar all over again!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 14, 2016, 11:48 PM
Yeah I guess. I wouldn't really consider alpha/beta decay opposite to fusion though because they're very different processes but they sort of do the opposite things. Fusion increases proton/ nucleon number while alpha reduces it. Beta can reduce or increase proton number while nucleon number always remains the same, so that definitely isn't opposite to fusion!

Same! Were you referring to carbon dating there, DD?
As far as I understand it, due to the standard model and the nuclear forces, the larger elements can never be stable.

They're unstable because the electrostatic force pushing the protons away from each other is too large for the strong nuclear force. At Uranium and below the SNF is just strong enough to hold the nucleus together against the EF. However at 93 protons and above the EF is always too strong and the SNF can't hold it together. Due to the way the universe is and how science works, I don't think we'll ever be able to overcome this.

That is, unless something radical and crazy gets invented which allows us to artificially change nuclear forces. That would be awesome. Very unlikely though.
the first post was about radiometric dating, whenever i hear about the decay chain it makes me think of that.  especially since i have literally had arguments with people about if it is accurate.   sometimes with face palms when they say we cant know that the half lives werent alot shorter in the past.

uranium to lead is used one certain types of rocks to measure ages over a billion years and up to the 4.5billion for current estimates of earths age.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 15, 2016, 04:29 AM




Really like the contrast in this video, showing the advanced rocket in an empty field.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 15, 2016, 04:58 AM
Really like the contrast in this video, showing the advanced rocket in an empty field.


i saw that yesterday and noticed that to lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 18, 2016, 07:43 PM
CRS-8  Is officially scheduled for friday the 8th,  4:43pm edt.   looks like itll be a drone ship landing.   (info from nasaspaceflight.com)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 20, 2016, 05:02 PM
Woah this IS magic.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 20, 2016, 05:31 PM
Woah this IS magic.


Magnets are super cool.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Mar 20, 2016, 05:52 PM
So I am doing a research paper on CTE and the NFL it's pretty interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 21, 2016, 06:08 PM
Does anyone know what kind of or how powerful a telescope has to be to focus the light of a star on to a prism?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 21, 2016, 07:24 PM
Does anyone know what kind of or how powerful a telescope has to be to focus the light of a star on to a prism?
Can you specify? You'd need to work out a load of things like distance between the lenses of the telescope and the prism
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 21, 2016, 07:56 PM
Can you specify? You'd need to work out a load of things like distance between the lenses of the telescope and the prism
Basically I want to do it. But. Don't know where to start. I wanted to see the "code" of a start for my self. I forgot the real name of it. But basically if you look at star light threw a prism then magnify the light from the prism, you'll be able to see black linescreen in between the colors.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 21, 2016, 08:33 PM
so you want to make a spectrometer?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2016, 05:36 PM
Bob Ebeling, Challenger Engineer Who Forewarned Of Shuttle Disaster, Dead At 89 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/challenger-engineer-bob-ebeling-dies_us_56f09f3be4b09bf44a9e41f2)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 22, 2016, 06:50 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/996674_10207507621582964_1429691584946543009_n.jpg?oh=6d00a9ed71693913882015f04931940e&oe=574BC250)

friend of mine on facebook in florida grabbed a picture of this today lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2016, 07:01 PM
Sewage pipe or rocket?

Hmm....
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 22, 2016, 07:07 PM
Sewage pipe or rocket?

Hmm....
that must be a pretty dang imprtant sewage pipe for a police excort ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2016, 07:21 PM
that must be a pretty dang imprtant sewage pipe for a police excort ;)
Well to be fair police escorts are pretty common for oversized loads.

This is probably for the JCSAT-14.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2016, 07:58 PM
SpaceX barge needed some significant repairs after the last landing attempt.

(http://i.imgur.com/E8T9pEj.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 25, 2016, 11:04 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/996674_10207507621582964_1429691584946543009_n.jpg?oh=6d00a9ed71693913882015f04931940e&oe=574BC250)

friend of mine on facebook in florida grabbed a picture of this today lol
Another picture of it
spotted on a road in Florida : whatisthisthing (https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/4bpi3u/spotted_on_a_road_in_florida/)
(http://i.imgur.com/kCkaa0G.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 25, 2016, 11:26 PM
2 weeks till CRS-8!  

  Transporting every rocket via roads must be a headache to organize lol  they should just put in on a barge and float it around to the cape.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 28, 2016, 02:59 PM
New Horizons imagery reveals small, frozen lake on Pluto (http://phys.org/news/2016-03-horizons-imagery-reveals-small-frozen.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 28, 2016, 03:45 PM
New Horizons imagery reveals small, frozen lake on Pluto (http://phys.org/news/2016-03-horizons-imagery-reveals-small-frozen.html)
Ooh nice!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 30, 2016, 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 05, 2016, 10:21 PM
SHes verticle!    the falcon 9 is just about set for its static fire.

launch is friday at 4:43 eastern

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfUxfh-UAAAvUS2.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 06, 2016, 11:04 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/GzhGDPl.gif)
All good for Friday
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 06, 2016, 11:31 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/GzhGDPl.gif)
All good for Friday
perfect gif!   beats watching the 2 minute video when more then half of it is like nothing lol

also rofl at the debris getting blasted out of the flame trench, whatever it was lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 08, 2016, 05:18 PM


3 1/2 hours
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 08, 2016, 11:45 PM
Seems Blue Origin landed again too!



Just watch though how it hovers at the very end for a few seconds before landing. With that much margin for error, they should be able to just keep launching and landing without a problem.

(http://i.imgur.com/KPLHqiD.jpg)

Not big enough for orbit or payloads, but space tourism could be just a few years away.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 11, 2016, 06:59 PM
This is why I need a telescope.  :P
gamrConnect Forums - View Post (http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7850615)

Quote
Greetings, it's been nearly a year since I've posted here and updated this!

 Since then (I think) my skills have gotten better with working the camera and stuff :) Here's some new images of mine.

 

 Jupiter (With the Great Red Spot) visible in this photo, it was the first time I've personally seen it with my own eyes. It was great. I think this is my best image thus far.

 (http://i64.tinypic.com/2vkywl5.png)

 

 Saturn - Taken in Black and White earlier this year!

 (http://i68.tinypic.com/96vrkx.png)

 

 Moon with nice crispy craters!

 (http://i65.tinypic.com/2zgb6up.jpg)

 

 Sun! (With proper filter, never ever look at the sun with a telescope without a proper filter! Blind in a second :o)

 Sun spots visible in this too!

 (http://i65.tinypic.com/n312xv.jpg)

 

 More to come!
 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 12, 2016, 07:26 PM
 Plan to send probe to Alpha Centauri w/ Stephen Hawking - NeoGAF (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1207024)

Quote
$100 Million Plan Will Send Probes to the Nearest Star
 Funded by Russian entrepreneur Yuri Milner and with the blessing of Stephen Hawking, Breakthrough Starshot aims to send probes to Alpha Centauri in a generationhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nearest-star/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/100-million-plan-will-send-probes-to-the-nearest-star/)
Quote
For Yuri Milner, the Russian Internet entrepreneur and billionaire philanthropist who funds the world’s richest science prizes and searches for extraterrestrial intelligence, the sky is not the limit—and neither is the solar system. Flanked by physicist Stephen Hawking and other high-profile supporters today in New York, Milner announced his most ambitious investment yet: $100 million toward a research program to send robotic probes to nearby stars within a generation.

 
Quote
“Breakthrough Starshot,” the program Milner is backing, intends to squeeze all the key components of a robotic probe—cameras, sensors, maneuvering thrusters and communications equipment—into tiny gram-scale “nanocrafts.” These would be small enough to boost to enormous speeds using other technology the program plans to help develop, including a ground-based kilometer-scale laser array capable of beaming 100-gigawatt laser pulses through the atmosphere for a few minutes at a time, and atoms-thin, meter-wide “light sails” to ride those beams to other stars. Each pinging photon of light would impart a slight momentum to the sail and its cargo; in the microgravity vacuum of space, the torrent of photons unleashed by a gigawatt-class laser would rapidly push a nanocraft to relativistic speeds.
 Deployed by the thousands from a mothership launched into Earth orbit, each nanocraft would unfurl a sail and catch a laser pulse to accelerate to 20 percent the speed of light—some 60,000 kilometers per second. Using a sophisticated adaptive-optics system of deformable mirrors to keep each pulse coherent and sharp against the blurring effects of the atmosphere, the laser array would boost perhaps one orbiting nanocraft per day. Each laser pulse would contain as much power as that produced by a space shuttle rocketing into orbit.

 
I want to believe.
 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 12, 2016, 07:50 PM
If it actually happens, that'd be swell.

Hardest part seems to be making the craft strong enough to send back the data.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 12, 2016, 08:29 PM
I don't like this plan.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 16, 2016, 03:50 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 21, 2016, 04:34 PM
ESA Science & Technology: Venus Express' swansong experiment sheds light on Venus' polar atmosphere (http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57735-venus-express-swansong-experiment-sheds-light-on-venus-polar-atmosphere/)

so apparently venus has frozen poles..  wouldnt it make it a hell of alot easier to land?  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 21, 2016, 04:55 PM
ESA Science & Technology: Venus Express' swansong experiment sheds light on Venus' polar atmosphere (http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57735-venus-express-swansong-experiment-sheds-light-on-venus-polar-atmosphere/)

so apparently venus has frozen poles..  wouldnt it make it a hell of alot easier to land?  
What's the temperature on land though?  The paper referenced was talking about the atmosphere.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 21, 2016, 05:18 PM
What's the temperature on land though?  The paper referenced was talking about the atmosphere.  
it doesnt say,  but even having the cooler atmosphere would make probes last longer going down,  any little bit helps.  

JCSAT delayed a week,

on that note, should we have a dedicated spaceX thread? lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2016, 05:32 PM
it doesnt say,  but even having the cooler atmosphere would make probes last longer going down,  any little bit helps.  

JCSAT delayed a week,

on that note, should we have a dedicated spaceX thread? lol
I don't think we should have a dedicated spacex thread since the science thread already isn't that active.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 21, 2016, 05:39 PM
Im on team venus.


Mars is a lost cause. It lost its molten core a long yime ago. The planet is dead.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 21, 2016, 05:45 PM
Im on team venus.
Mars is a lost cause. It lost its molten core a long yime ago. The planet is dead.
It just needs some mouth to mouth resuscitation.  
And methane factories, and some water.  And some oxygen.  

Venus meanwhile, needs some O2.  A lot of O2.  And lot less CO2, if you catch my drift.  
And less fire.  
Seriously that place is hot.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 21, 2016, 05:54 PM
It just needs some mouth to mouth resuscitation.  
And methane factories, and some water.  And some oxygen.  

Venus meanwhile, needs some O2.  A lot of O2.  And lot less CO2, if you catch my drift.  
And less fire.  
Seriously that place is hot.  
Alll we need to do is stear o2 rich astroids into the planet. You get your water and a cooling system. Thow some tree seeds an grass all over and we are good to go.

dang it. When looking i discovered that venus is missing a magnetic feild too. The venus dream is dead.  :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2016, 06:11 PM
Im on team venus.


Mars is a lost cause. It lost its molten core a long yime ago. The planet is dead.
Venus has great gravity. If we discover problems with developing kids on Mars, we should try colonizing it instead.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 21, 2016, 06:36 PM
mars has the radiation problem,  venus has heat, and the atmosphere that is just rough..

we might have more luck on mars going underground lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2016, 06:48 PM
mars has the radiation problem,  venus has heat, and the atmosphere that is just rough..

we might have more luck on mars going underground lol
I don't think radiation is that much of a problem for humans. It's slow acting and wouldn't kill astronauts that fast.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 21, 2016, 06:49 PM
I don't think radiation is that much of a problem for humans. It's slow acting and wouldn't kill astronauts that fast.
but what about shielding crops and livestock?  i think we'll need to develop better radiation shielding
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 21, 2016, 06:50 PM
mars has the radiation problem,  venus has heat, and the atmosphere that is just rough..

we might have more luck on mars going underground lol
Apparently 30 miles up from the surface of Venus is about perfect.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 21, 2016, 06:52 PM
Apparently 30 miles up from the surface of Venus is about perfect.  
yup,  some have mentioned the idea of a floating habitat, that would be boyant because of the super dense atmosphere,  but im not sure the entire feasibility of that lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 21, 2016, 06:54 PM
yup,  some have mentioned the idea of a floating habitat, that would be boyant because of the super dense atmosphere,  but im not sure the entire feasibility of that lol
It would be odd knowing you're one small malfunction away from death.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2016, 06:59 PM
but what about shielding crops and livestock?  i think we'll need to develop better radiation shielding
Don't think the radiation is high enough to affect them that much.

I think electronics need radiation shielding the most.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Apr 21, 2016, 08:40 PM
It would be odd knowing you're one small malfunction away from death.
So pretty much like any other time?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 21, 2016, 10:46 PM
The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the "Impossible" EmDrive Thruster (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/)

hmmm .. I dont want to get excited, but any time i hear news that says its not bs i get a little bit more.. lol

http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 21, 2016, 11:32 PM
The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the "Impossible" EmDrive Thruster (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/)

hmmm .. I dont want to get excited, but any time i hear news that says its not bs i get a little bit more.. lol

http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
I've given up all hope with the Em drive. At first it was exciting that no one could disprove the thrust, but now it's annoying that no one can prove the thrust either. It's troublesome that no experiment has been able to produce consistent results.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 21, 2016, 11:39 PM
Thrust with no explanation.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 22, 2016, 07:53 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Apr 24, 2016, 12:17 AM
Aliens been discovered yet?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 24, 2016, 12:21 AM
Aliens been discovered yet?
no that's next week.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Apr 24, 2016, 03:36 AM
no that's next week.
Im guessing tine travels the week after  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 26, 2016, 07:42 PM
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/earth_and_limb_m1199291564l_color_2stretch_mask_0.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 27, 2016, 03:58 PM
SpaceX - SpaceX is planning to send Dragons to Mars as... | Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/posts/10157373585560131)

SpaceX is planning to send Dragons to Mars as early as 2018. Red Dragon missions will help inform the overall Mars architecture that will be unveiled later this year.
These missions will help demonstrate the technologies needed to land large payloads propulsively on Mars.

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/13083277_10157373584940131_2471403558326128093_n.jpg?oh=547b6ac7167b08c82e6efc368e0b23e3&oe=57AF6063)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 27, 2016, 04:06 PM
SpaceX is planning to send Dragons to Mars as early as 2018.
Take your pick for response.  
Quote from: Pi
Where are they getting dragons?
Dragons don't exist!
Quote from: Pi
Good, we need less dragons here.  They keep burning down my house.  :(
Thank you SpaceX for eliminating the dragon problem!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 27, 2016, 04:09 PM
HUGE NEWS!!!

SpaceX seems like they're actually capable of thier Mars colony dreams.


Tweet includes another photo.



Red Dragon | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/sets/72157667519938826)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 27, 2016, 04:13 PM
Take your pick for response.  
Dragons are just dinosaurs whove had their nostrils catch on fire from trying to breath in a lower oxygen environment ... ;)

 SpaceX says it will fly a spacecraft to Mars as soon as 2018 - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/27/spacex-says-it-will-fly-a-spacecraft-to-mars-as-soon-as-2018/)

Nasa providing technical support
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 27, 2016, 04:56 PM


Wonder how well it could handle Venus.

EDT lol

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 27, 2016, 05:26 PM
"Land on Venus?  No problem, but you ain't bringing that sucker back up again"
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 27, 2016, 05:49 PM
"Land on Venus?  No problem, but you ain't bringing that sucker back up again"
Dragons are landers only. They can't get back into orbit even on the moon.

NASA plans to store a small rocket inside a Dragon to bring back samples from Mars.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 27, 2016, 05:55 PM
Dragons are landers only. They can't get back into orbit even on the moon.
NASA plans to store a small rocket inside a Dragon to bring back samples from Mars.
That explains why dragons died out.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 27, 2016, 06:23 PM
this is just so exciting! landing rockets on boats, and putting landers on planets lol

i cant wait for the first FH launch this year to!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 29, 2016, 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 30, 2016, 12:52 AM
That's awesome.

Hopefully next time they can use a 3D camera for VR!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Apr 30, 2016, 01:03 AM
That's awesome.

Hopefully next time they can use a 3D camera for VR!
I'd pay for that ride. As long as it was streamed as close to live as possible. If it blows up I don't want the feed cut until the camera dies.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 30, 2016, 05:21 AM
That's awesome.
Hopefully next time they can use a 3D camera for VR!
Hopefully.  We already have a couple of really cool space VR things.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 30, 2016, 04:39 PM
Freaking sweet!!!  ;D



Should be before the end of the year.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Apr 30, 2016, 04:41 PM
Oh my god..thats gonna be amazing
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 30, 2016, 04:58 PM
nice!! i kinda assumed they would but notnsure if itll be the 2 rtls/1 asds  like in the promo video lol

it was slated for may a few months ago, but its been pushed back to fall.  im very tempted to get an l2 subscription to nasaspaceflight lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 30, 2016, 07:00 PM
Evidence from Curiosity Rover Shows Mars Once Had Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere « AmericaSpace (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=93145)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 30, 2016, 07:10 PM
Evidence from Curiosity Rover Shows Mars Once Had Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere « AmericaSpace (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=93145)
"iron oxide" exactly what I was thinking.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 30, 2016, 07:26 PM
I wonder if oxygen could be the great equalizer in the fermi paradox.

It's responsible for the largest mass extinction on Earth, and maybe was responsible for the extinction of life on Mars.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Apr 30, 2016, 10:22 PM
I want to grow a weed on the moon
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 30, 2016, 10:34 PM
I want to grow a weed on the moon
youll need grow lamps,  the day night cycle on the moon wouldnt work.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 30, 2016, 11:34 PM
youll need grow lamps,  the day night cycle on the moon wouldnt work.
He said "a weed." I'm sure some plant is resilient enough to the month long light cycle.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 01, 2016, 12:02 AM
He said "a weed." I'm sure some plant is resilient enough to the month long light cycle.
lol gee i wonder why i read that the way i did.. lol   im positive there are plants that would be able to handle long light, since we have plants that grow in northern latitudes during the midnight sun.  im not sure how the night cycle would effect the plants tho lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on May 01, 2016, 12:05 AM
Weeds are very important and Im gonna use a lava lamp for it.
I need that neon.  ::)

So apparently a new beetle was discovered and is called chewbacca
I shame you not
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 01, 2016, 01:21 PM
So this is going around facebook.  ::)

(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/saturnSize.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 01, 2016, 02:17 PM
My aunt shared that.  :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 01, 2016, 02:33 PM
My aunt shared that.  :P
If Saturn ever got that close to earth we would all be dead.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on May 01, 2016, 05:05 PM
Terribke photoshop plus we would be dead cause saturn is a baby.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 01, 2016, 05:45 PM
We just need to get a really big bathtub and put Saturn in it.  

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBZf_EHCQAAq2yq.jpg)
It's the only way.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 02, 2016, 02:24 AM
spacex reports static fire complete, launch window is 2 hours starting 1:21am  est on may 5th
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 02, 2016, 03:19 AM
spacex reports static fire complete, launch window is 2 hours starting 1:21am  est on may 5th
This wednesday night is freaking packed. Persona 5 event, rocket launch, and Uncharted reviews.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 02, 2016, 03:40 AM
This wednesday night is freaking packed. Persona 5 event, rocket launch, and Uncharted reviews.
this whole week is exciting
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on May 02, 2016, 04:45 PM
Stuff
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 03, 2016, 09:58 PM
Stuff
You forgot your link  :P

Scientists discover nearby planets that could host life (https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/scientists-discover-nearby-planets-that-could-host-life)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 03, 2016, 10:31 PM
The word on the street is that SpaceX will attempt fairing recovery with tomorrow's launch.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 04, 2016, 12:11 AM
The word on the street is that SpaceX will attempt fairing recovery with tomorrow's launch.
arent they doing mid air helicopter grab?   if only there was a way for them to have a camera for that lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 04, 2016, 03:19 PM
Scrubbed 24 hours.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 05, 2016, 04:15 PM
NASA had a gigantic budget during the 60's.  :o
$30-40 billion a year (in 2014 dollars).  
It's getting less than 20 billion right now.

The crazier part of it though, is that at the time NASA was about 3-4% of the federal budget.  (4.5% at peak.)
If NASA was getting 4.5% of the budget today, they would be getting $180 billion.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 12:23 AM
Let's go!

Who else is staying up to watch?

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 12:37 AM
10 21 my time, im always up  that time already lol  ill definitly be watching,  even tho low chance of recovery.

any word if they will attempt fairing recovery?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 02:04 AM
10 21 my time, im always up  that time already lol  ill definitly be watching,  even tho low chance of recovery.

any word if they will attempt fairing recovery?
No clue on fairings.

Have heard that Elon expects a successful landing though. It's still a three engine burn, but I guess the lighter payload and data from past landings helps a lot.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 02:25 AM
No clue on fairings.

Have heard that Elon expects a successful landing though. It's still a three engine burn, but I guess the lighter payload and data from past landings helps a lot.
oo thats good to hear, i heard it had a similar trajectory to ses-9, so i was assuming an rough landing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 04:11 AM
oo thats good to hear, i heard it had a similar trajectory to ses-9, so i was assuming an rough landing.
Yeah similar trajectory but ses-9 ran out of fuel on the way down supposedly.

This one will have enough fuel to perform the 3 engine hoverslam.

And 50 minutes till webcast!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 04:44 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 04:48 AM
Yeah similar trajectory but ses-9 ran out of fuel on the way down supposedly.

This one will have enough fuel to perform the 3 engine hoverslam.

And 50 minutes till webcast!
encouraging!  i wonder how the lighting will be
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 04:48 AM
encouraging!  i wonder how the lighting will be
Should be brightened by the rocket engine  ::)

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 04:52 AM
Should be brightened by the rocket engine  ::)


So a descending flame, and cheering when it dissapears and no explosion follows.. lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 05:00 AM
So a descending flame, and cheering when it dissapears and no explosion follows.. lol
This one was at night

(https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/spacex.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 05:03 AM
This one was at night

(https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/spacex.gif)
true,  and the Orbcomm launch wasnt the brightest either.  

3 minutes!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 05:18 AM
2 minutes!

not exploded yet!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 05:26 AM
s2 taking it to GTO,  few minutes till landing lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 05:30 AM
landed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 05:30 AM
THEY fudgy DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

is it burning? lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 05:37 AM
THEY fudgy DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

is it burning? lol
It's turbopump exhaust.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 05:45 AM
It's turbopump exhaust.
ah okay i kept waiting for it to go out lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 06, 2016, 06:01 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/8nDnSrr.jpg)

"zillion" haha
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 06:03 AM
I love the sense of humor they have lol

I like how i already understand all the stuff they explain, like the words they use,  all thanx to KPS lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 06, 2016, 06:08 PM
Launch Schedule - Spaceflight Now (http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)

currently showing may 26th for thaicom -8
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 09, 2016, 05:29 PM
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/dragon-crs8.jpg)

Will be splashing down on Wednesday.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 09, 2016, 06:40 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/AHfzDpS.jpg)

Will probably be arriving to port in 6 hours. Should finally get good video of the landing tomorrow.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 09, 2016, 09:04 PM
Here she comes!

(http://i.imgur.com/woijCTr.jpg)

The turn around on this landing has been so much faster than last time. Should be able to schedule rockets closer without worrying about drone ship availability.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 09, 2016, 09:09 PM
hopefully they can speed up testing of the crs 7 core so we know how much refurb attention they need.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 09, 2016, 09:26 PM
Hmm. Wonder if I should try to get a job at space x
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 09, 2016, 09:43 PM
Hmm. Wonder if I should try to get a job at space x

They demand a lot out of you from what I've heard.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 09, 2016, 09:52 PM
They demand a lot out of you from what I've heard.
What hours?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 09, 2016, 10:11 PM
What hours?
I don't know anything specific, but Working at SpaceX: 70 Reviews | Indeed.com (http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Spacex/reviews?fcountry=US)


Not liking your odds at the current job?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 09, 2016, 10:17 PM
I don't know anything specific, but Working at SpaceX: 70 Reviews | Indeed.com (http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Spacex/reviews?fcountry=US)


Not liking your odds at the current job?
I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 10, 2016, 02:16 AM
Rocket is coming into port right now.

And blue origin released a video of their landing!

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 10, 2016, 02:22 AM
I don't know anything specific, but Working at SpaceX: 70 Reviews | Indeed.com (http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Spacex/reviews?fcountry=US)


Not liking your odds at the current job?
Reviews seem to be all over the place. Some good some bad. Management sounds like dog hats. Just like any aerospace company that I've dealt with yet. That's what happens when you hire people based on a college education alone. Most of the time they are the worst of the bunch when it comes to management.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 10, 2016, 02:29 AM
Reviews seem to be all over the place. Some good some bad. Management sounds like dog hats. Just like any aerospace company that I've dealt with yet. That's what happens when you hire people based on a college education alone. Most of the time they are the worst of the bunch when it comes to management.
Tacos, how does one get into a Airplane type job?

I have a friend who wants to be able to build airplanes.  (Well he kind of is right now.)  But he wants to get a job in that.  It's been my understanding that Mechanical Engineers can get jobs in the field, but aeronautical engineers may be better.

Any idea?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 10, 2016, 03:53 AM
Tacos, how does one get into a Airplane type job?

I have a friend who wants to be able to build airplanes.  (Well he kind of is right now.)  But he wants to get a job in that.  It's been my understanding that Mechanical Engineers can get jobs in the field, but aeronautical engineers may be better.

Any idea?
Is he an engineer? Of so it would be pretty easy.

If he want to actually build them then there's schools to get an A&PC license. Which cost way to much. It's actually easier to sign up at a contract house. And say he has a year of experience, even if he doesnt. Contract house won't check. Then once he gets a gig he can use that as experienced and go from there. But don't lie about an A&P
 That will be checked.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 10, 2016, 04:02 AM
Is he an engineer? Of so it would be pretty easy.

If he want to actually build them then there's schools to get an A&PC license. Which cost way to much. It's actually easier to sign up at a contract house. And say he has a year of experience, even if he doesnt. Contract house won't check. Then once he gets a gig he can use that as experienced and go from there. But don't lie about an A&P
 That will be checked.
He wants to go to school for Engineering, deciding between mechanical and aeronautical.
Right now he's finishing an A&P program.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 10, 2016, 04:10 AM
He wants to go to school for Engineering, deciding between mechanical and aeronautical.
Right now he's finishing an A&P program.
Alright, then he will be fine. It's still hard to get a job with out any experiance, but his school might be able to place him somewhere. I got lucky and they took my Autobody experience. So I didn't have to go to school for any of it. I'm pretty Sure I could go take the A right now and pass it. The P would be a bit harder, but with some study I could pass that too. It's just these schools don't like people to just take the test, So they are dicks when you do it with out the school and are harder on you when you go to the practical part of the test.

Once he lands a job he should take advantage of their college programs. My work pays 10,000 a year for a 3.0 average and has a deal where you only have to work 30 hours a week.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 10, 2016, 06:04 PM
NASA News Audio | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html)

1284 new exoplanets discovered, the largest in a single announcement.

(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/fig8-new-20use20this20one.jpg?itok=5FjE-hKr)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2016, 03:56 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ZkOGTTP.jpg)

Seems it was a hot reentry.

(http://i.imgur.com/PtWyo0t.jpg)

Service panels were blown out on landing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 15, 2016, 05:55 PM
hmm wow alot of heat damage from re-entry.  hopefully just superficial
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2016, 07:49 PM
hmm wow alot of heat damage from re-entry.  hopefully just superficial
Either way the data should be great.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7491/26428478544_2bff22971f_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 15, 2016, 08:13 PM
lol do they even have room for another? lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 15, 2016, 11:35 PM
.
Where do you work?  
Do you know what kind of places do this kind of thing?
 
pays 10,000 a year for a 3.0 average and has a deal where you only have to work 30 hours a week.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 16, 2016, 01:02 AM
Where do you work? 
Do you know what kind of places do this kind of thing?
 
Most of the big ones do. the company that bought my program only pays 5400. :(

Triumph
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 16, 2016, 06:10 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 17, 2016, 02:34 AM
spacex fb said next launxh in 10 days..  what ia schedule next, eutelsat or thaicom
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 17, 2016, 02:38 AM
spacex fb said next launxh in 10 days..  what ia schedule next, eutelsat or thaicom
Thiacom.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 17, 2016, 02:52 AM
Thiacom.
thanz i got a good feeling about that one since its relatively light
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 17, 2016, 03:38 AM
thanz i got a good feeling about that one since its relatively light
Well after this past one, I've got a good feeling about all of them.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 17, 2016, 08:05 PM
Second ExoMars mission moves to next launch opportunity in 2020 / ExoMars / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Second_ExoMars_mission_moves_to_next_launch_opportunity_in_2020)

Delayed two years, again.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 17, 2016, 08:11 PM
ffs its haunted.. lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 18, 2016, 04:54 PM
Volcano on IO

(http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA02550.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 18, 2016, 08:31 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 19, 2016, 03:45 AM
Spoiler for Large GIF:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qEcoHrnQthRmCzK/giphy.gif)


SpaceX booster landing captured.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 21, 2016, 01:37 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4FEY3r1.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 24, 2016, 12:27 AM
BEAM on the ISS is set to be expanded early Thursday morning.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 24, 2016, 04:10 AM
and it looks like we gotta wait till tomorrow for news on thaicoms static fire.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 24, 2016, 04:23 AM
and it looks like we gotta wait till tomorrow for news on thaicoms static fire.
At least the date hasn't slipped.

In other space news, I just read that the Space Shuttle was forced by the military to be capable of capturing foreign satellites and returning them to Earth. That would have been pretty cool to see.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 25, 2016, 12:54 AM
At least the date hasn't slipped.

In other space news, I just read that the Space Shuttle was forced by the military to be capable of capturing foreign satellites and returning them to Earth. That would have been pretty cool to see.
that would have been really cool to see, but could also be a good thing it never had to ;)  


Shes vertical on the pad



Instagram
 (https://www.instagram.com/p/BFzrDnLOqRD/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 03:07 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/JmcjqRz.jpg)
Ready for tomorrow.

Also beam is expanding in a few hours, just a reminder.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 03:47 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/JmcjqRz.jpg)
Ready for tomorrow.

Also beam is expanding in a few hours, just a reminder.
will the iss have live video? lol

i have to pick up my kids from school just as it launches :( imma miss this one :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 03:51 AM
will the iss have live video? lol

i have to pick up my kids from school just as it launches :( imma miss this one :(
Yeah NASA tv on youtube should have it live.


The Jason 3 rocket was the only one I've missed since I started watching them. In a way I was kinda happy when it didn't land >:D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 03:54 AM
Yeah NASA tv on youtube should have it live.


The Jason 3 rocket was the only one I've missed since I started watching them. In a way I was kinda happy when it didn't land >:D
yea i missed jason 3 aswell lol   im so mad im going to miss it, I might get lucky and be able to get it on my phone lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 02:43 PM
BEAM had issues expanding so they're trying again later.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 08:55 PM
30 minutes till launch. Guess I might be the only one here watching today  :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 09:14 PM
30 minutes till launch. Guess I might be the only one here watching today  :P
im followig on my phone lol im hoping ill get ti steal wifi when i drop my gf at work lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 09:24 PM
im followig on my phone lol im hoping ill get ti steal wifi when i drop my gf at work lol
DELAYED!!!

Spoiler for Hidden:
Only by a few minutes/hour.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 09:25 PM
DELAYED!!!

Spoiler for Hidden:
Only by a few minutes/hour.

ooooo whats up?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 09:31 PM
ooooo whats up?
No clue yet, but at the moment everything with the rocket seems fine.

EDT: Might be a boat.

EDT: delayed two hours.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 09:47 PM
No clue yet, but at the moment everything with the rocket seems fine.

EDT: Might be a boat.

EDT: delayed two hours.
just saw that on NSF forum.  im on her works wifi lol   ill be home then for it !
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 09:48 PM
just saw that on NSF forum.  im on her works wifi lol   ill be home then for it !
YAY!!!

EDT: might be launching in 30 minutes.

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/Confusion--Confusion.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on May 26, 2016, 09:54 PM
YAY!!!

EDT: might be launching in 30 minutes.

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/Confusion--Confusion.jpg)
Link to watch it? Lazy.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 09:56 PM
Link to watch it? Lazy.


edt: confirmed 2 hour delay.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 10:06 PM
yay im home,  stream open waiting for it to start..   hour  n a half lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2016, 10:44 PM
scrub
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 26, 2016, 10:47 PM
dang... oh well :/
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 05:38 AM
Rocks on Mars are so cool.

(http://i.imgur.com/c0zmLKR.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 07:37 PM
Rosetta's comet contains ingredients for life / Rosetta / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_contains_ingredients_for_life)

Also the falcon just went vertical. Might actually be launching in 2 hours.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 27, 2016, 08:10 PM
Rosetta's comet contains ingredients for life / Rosetta / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_contains_ingredients_for_life)

Also the falcon just went vertical. Might actually be launching in 2 hours.
hows the weather look?  i heard its 60percent
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 08:39 PM
hows the weather look?  i heard its 60percent

Yeah 60.

1 hour to go
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 09:18 PM
20 minutes

webcast is live!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 09:25 PM
80% weather now
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on May 27, 2016, 09:42 PM
Ermagerd
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 09:50 PM
Another day, another landing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 27, 2016, 09:50 PM
hahaha success!  wtf wat that white thing on the ground
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 27, 2016, 09:59 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cjfo1x4UgAAlh3x.jpg:orig)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 27, 2016, 10:26 PM
lol i didnt notice it but that thig seems to have been on the ground before hand.  maybe a camera setup of some kind lol

so awesome another landing.. now they just need to land one from a polar orbit trajectory lol   i think one from vanderburg is coming up
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 28, 2016, 12:20 AM


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 28, 2016, 12:23 AM
Well that's a new one!

Hopefully he's just being pessimistic in case the worse happens. Would really suck for it to fail after landing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 28, 2016, 02:20 AM



ive rewatched it a few times now.. so fudgy cool!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 28, 2016, 02:22 AM
WOW!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 28, 2016, 09:54 PM
not home but BEAM is fully expanded
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 30, 2016, 03:12 PM
not home but BEAM is fully expanded
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 30, 2016, 06:42 PM
Click at your own risk.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/potw1621a.jpg
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 01, 2016, 01:15 AM
Don't tip!

(http://i.imgur.com/WtGWWeM.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 01, 2016, 01:54 AM
Don't tip!
I always undertip.  :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 02, 2016, 03:00 PM
Musk: SpaceX could take humans to Mars in 9 years - Jun. 2, 2016  (http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/02/news/companies/musk-mars-2025/index.html?sr=fbCNN060216musk-mars-20250705AMVODtopLink&linkId=25100607)

Musk reiterated confidence in his Mars timeline at the Code Conference on Wednesday night.
"If things go according to plan, we should be able to -- we should be able to -- launch people in 2024, with arrival in 2025," Musk said.
"That's the game plan," he added.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 02, 2016, 03:14 PM
Musk: SpaceX could take humans to Mars in 9 years - Jun. 2, 2016  (http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/02/news/companies/musk-mars-2025/index.html?sr=fbCNN060216musk-mars-20250705AMVODtopLink&linkId=25100607)

Musk reiterated confidence in his Mars timeline at the Code Conference on Wednesday night.
"If things go according to plan, we should be able to -- we should be able to -- launch people in 2024, with arrival in 2025," Musk said.
"That's the game plan," he added.
Crazy.

Is he planning to have BFR human certified by then or will the first landing be with the help of multiple Falcon Heavys?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 02, 2016, 03:32 PM
Crazy.

Is he planning to have BFR human certified by then or will the first landing be with the help of multiple Falcon Heavys?
my guess would be MCT.  itll be unveiled in sept, so thats lots of time to get it ready.

itll beat nasa by like a decade lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 02, 2016, 03:37 PM
my guess would be MCT.  itll be unveiled in sept, so thats lots of time to get it ready.

itll beat nasa by like a decade lol
Revealed in Sept but manufacturing and testing will take a while. Could be close!


Also don't fall over!!!

(http://i.imgur.com/mZGH2yT.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 02, 2016, 03:51 PM
Revealed in Sept but manufacturing and testing will take a while. Could be close!


Also don't fall over!!!

(http://i.imgur.com/mZGH2yT.jpg)
man they need to figure out a way to bring those back in a less precarious manner. lol

and 5-6 years till first flight, 3-4 years of testing lol  itll be close but i think MCT is the plan
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 02, 2016, 04:46 PM
Safe in port.

(http://i.imgur.com/fQt8Pzd.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QoCkPIV.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 02, 2016, 04:52 PM
lol that thing looks like its in rough shape
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 02, 2016, 09:32 PM
eutelsat apparently moved up to the 14th.   1030am est early launch
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 02, 2016, 09:39 PM
eutelsat apparently moved up to the 14th.   1030am est early launch
Yay!


And no wonder the leg took damage!!!

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7337/26812792104_ced77afb70_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 02, 2016, 09:53 PM
woah ya no wonder!  that bodes well for landing tech that it was able to cope with that!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 03, 2016, 02:12 AM
Video of landing. https://my.mixtape.moe/alwwju.mp4
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 03, 2016, 08:52 PM
Cruise ship for scale.

(http://i.imgur.com/0dfTIVg.jpg)


And a wicked picture on a comet.

(https://planetgate.mps.mpg.de/Image_of_the_Day/public/NAC_2016-06-01T17.17.27.058Z_ID10_1397549002_F22.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 05, 2016, 04:08 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/rQ9zvrv.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 05, 2016, 05:44 AM
2013 but whoah The First Gear Discovered in Nature (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a9449/the-first-gear-discovered-in-nature-15916433/)

(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/05/54cb1b069eb5a_-_issus-02-0913-de.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 06, 2016, 08:35 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 07, 2016, 01:47 AM

Instagram
 (https://www.instagram.com/p/BGVXv41F8SW/)

so spacex posted a photo of the 4 returned boosters.. one seems to have been repainted!  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 07, 2016, 01:54 AM

Instagram
 (https://www.instagram.com/p/BGVXv41F8SW/)

so spacex posted a photo of the 4 returned boosters.. one seems to have been repainted!  
That's a good sign!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 07, 2016, 02:07 AM
That's a good sign!
I bet we see it fly this summer :D

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 09, 2016, 02:43 PM
Sometimes I wonder about time constraints for AI.  

Babies have like a decade or two to learn lots of stuff, and they get to play around the real world, being able to touch, smell, play around with physics, taste, etc.  
AI don't exactly have the ability to do really any of that stuff, while they do have their own benefits with tons of access to other types of information.  But I wonder.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 09, 2016, 02:57 PM
Sometimes I wonder about time constraints for AI.  

Babies have like a decade or two to learn lots of stuff, and they get to play around the real world, being able to touch, smell, play around with physics, taste, etc.  
AI don't exactly have the ability to do really any of that stuff, while they do have their own benefits with tons of access to other types of information.  But I wonder.
I think it's more likely the first AIs will be built intelegent from day one. Instead of being babies learning through play, they'll be adults learning through observation. IE Siri and Cortana learning through day to day operation.

Baby like AI learning seems like something that'll come after first gen AI, where seeking human like sentience is the primary goal.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 09, 2016, 03:25 PM
I think it's more likely the first AIs will be built intelegent from day one. Instead of being babies learning through play, they'll be adults learning through observation. IE Siri and Cortana learning through day to day operation.
This 100% seems to be the direction that we are going.  Don't see any indication something else will come up.  

Baby like AI learning seems like something that'll come after first gen AI, where seeking human like sentience is the primary goal.
Current AI is pretty cool, but so much of it seems problematic.  Even Microsoft's twitterbot, and most of the best bots still are not really great.  
I think it'd be interesting if there was some amazing algorithm that just required something different from what has really been tried in the field.  Like giving it more time, and giving it like a playground.  

Even if we had like a virtual playground, and virtually sped up time for an AI, I wonder if there could be some amazing way for Ai's to learn.  

I also think it'd be cool if we could like extract personalities from other sources and apply it to an Ai.  Like "Can we make a Homer Simpson AI?" and then the computer does analyzing on the show and makes something true to that character.
Think that'd be cool, but I can't imagine that happening (any time soon at least).  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 09, 2016, 03:36 PM
This 100% seems to be the direction that we are going.  Don't see any indication something else will come up.  
Current AI is pretty cool, but so much of it seems problematic.  Even Microsoft's twitterbot, and most of the best bots still are not really great.  
I think it'd be interesting if there was some amazing algorithm that just required something different from what has really been tried in the field.  Like giving it more time, and giving it like a playground.  

Even if we had like a virtual playground, and virtually sped up time for an AI, I wonder if there could be some amazing way for Ai's to learn.  

I also think it'd be cool if we could like extract personalities from other sources and apply it to an Ai.  Like "Can we make a Homer Simpson AI?" and then the computer does analyzing on the show and makes something true to that character.
Think that'd be cool, but I can't imagine that happening (any time soon at least).  
One AI concept I've had is ignoring the complex parts of consciousness and just try to make a program that predicts what a human would do. IE scan through every single post of a person online, calculate how they write and how they feel, and then simulate that person's online presence. To outsiders if the algorithm is good enough, it'd feel like AI. Yet on the programing side it'd have zero understanding of what it's actually saying or "thinking."
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 10, 2016, 05:26 AM
Sweet

World's first passenger drone cleared for testing in Nevada | Technology | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/08/worlds-first-passenger-drone-testing-ehang-nevada)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 12, 2016, 03:07 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/CvEstao.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 15, 2016, 03:54 AM
Launch tomorrow morning,  window opens at 10:29est.    launching Eutelsat and ABS!   itll be another one on "Of course i still love you" (drone ship)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 03:57 AM
Yup early launch. Before E3!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 01:44 PM
About an hour till launch.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 02:29 PM
LAUNCH!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 15, 2016, 02:36 PM
i slept in lol atleast im up to see the landing lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 02:38 PM
Failed landing?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 15, 2016, 02:40 PM
bad feeling about it.. that was a hell of alot of smoke..
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 02:42 PM
bad feeling about it.. that was a hell of alot of smoke..
Yeah it looked like it was standing fine, but that fire seemed large and the video didn't cut back in.

Probably fell over and exploded.

EDT: yup exploded. loss of signal.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 15, 2016, 02:48 PM
Yeah it looked like it was standing fine, but that fire seemed large and the video didn't cut back in.

Probably fell over and exploded.

EDT: yup exploded. loss of signal.
where do you get the info on explosion,   replay clips show an object standing upright, you can see the straight line of the core.    
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 02:53 PM
where do you get the info on explosion,   replay clips show an object standing upright, you can see the straight line of the core.    
I think it caught on fire and burnt up. LOS is the official part.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 02:56 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MUQ79sL.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 15, 2016, 03:08 PM
yea elon confirmed RUD in some tweets,   something about 1 of the 3 landing engines not producing enough thurst
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 15, 2016, 04:39 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 16, 2016, 06:28 AM
For second time, LIGO detects gravitational waves | MIT News (http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-ligo-detects-gravitational-waves-0615)


Super cool. We have a new form of telescopes now!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 16, 2016, 06:50 PM
New paper claims that the EM Drive doesn't defy Newton's 3rd law after all - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/new-paper-claims-that-the-em-drive-doesn-t-defy-newton-s-3rd-law-after-all)

id paste some of the article but im on my phone lol  thoughts ?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 20, 2016, 02:50 PM
It's fine if the em drive breaks it imo. It's just unlikely such a simple device would be the first time we observe the law failing.


Also spacex released a gif of the rocket landing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 22, 2016, 04:52 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 22, 2016, 04:54 PM
crs 9 is next right?

i think i remember hearing thatll be rtls
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 23, 2016, 09:02 PM


CRAZY!

crs 9 is next right?

i think i remember hearing thatll be rtls
Yup July 18th.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 23, 2016, 09:29 PM
exciting!   but i think i saw that itll be a night time launch. so views wont be as great lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 23, 2016, 09:29 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jun 23, 2016, 11:35 PM
Science!

FarmBot | Open-Source CNC Farming (https://farmbot.io/)

I might actually plant my own food if it was this easy.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 26, 2016, 06:37 PM
solid rocket booster for the SLS will have a ground fire test in a couple days,  nasa is gonna stream it
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 26, 2016, 06:50 PM
solid rocket booster for the SLS will have a ground fire test in a couple days,  nasa is gonna stream it
Another test?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 26, 2016, 06:53 PM
Another test?
ya. calling it a second qualification test.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 30, 2016, 10:44 PM
ya. calling it a second qualification test.
Worked perfectly.


Also
(http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2016-24-a-full_jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 01, 2016, 04:55 AM
Worked perfectly.


Also
(http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2016-24-a-full_jpg.jpg)
some kind of northern lights for jupiter?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 01, 2016, 06:00 AM
some kind of northern lights for jupiter?
Yup. Infrared photo overlayed on a true color photo, or some thing like that.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 01, 2016, 06:12 AM
Quote
The auroras were photographed by Hubble during a series of observations of Jupiter made in far ultraviolet-light. The full-color disk of Jupiter used in the image was photographed separately by Hubble at an earlier time.
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/health/hubble-jupiter-juno-auroras/)


Quote
To gain more data on the auroras, the Hubble Space Telescope has been staring at Jupiter for 45 minutes every day for the past month. At Earth, auroras light up when solar wind particles slam into molecules of air near the polar regions. At Jupiter, the charged particles come mostly from a different source: the volcanos of Io. Jupiter's powerful magnetic fields then accelerate the particles into the planet's atmosphere.

On Earth, auroras appear over an area about as large as the United States. Jupiter's auroras, like everything else there, are vastly larger, about as wide as five Earths.

"But we've never been able to get up close and really observe these processes," Fran Bagenal, a professor of astrophysical and planetary sciences at the University of Colorado and one of the mission scientists, said at the news conference. "So we can then compare them with what we see at Earth, what we seen at Saturn."
NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/science/jupiter-nasa-juno-hubble.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 01, 2016, 04:43 PM
So juno gets there monday or something!  very exciting,  i hope we get some crazy pictures
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 01, 2016, 05:54 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 01, 2016, 08:11 PM
No idea where to put this.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 01, 2016, 09:34 PM
Quote
During World War II, Wald applied his statistical skills when considering how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. Researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses had conducted a study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and had recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage. Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft that had survived their missions--the bombers that had been shot down were not present for the damage assessment. The holes in the returning aircraft, then, represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely. Wald proposed that the Navy instead reinforce the areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed, since those were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost.
Kind of a fun story.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 02, 2016, 09:12 PM
Kind of a fun story.  
Clever people can be very clever sometimes.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 02, 2016, 09:26 PM
Clever people can be very clever sometimes.
Seems a bit of common sense really.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 02, 2016, 09:53 PM
Seems a bit of common sense really.
If that was true then researchers wouldn't have suggested it
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 02, 2016, 10:23 PM
Seems a bit of common sense really.
It is, and it isn't.  

It isn't because it just seems like going to a doctor with a broken leg and the doctor insisting that the rest of your body needs to be X-rayed.  

At the same time, it's like"why didn't I think of that?"
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 02, 2016, 10:25 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/XWfAhn8.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 02, 2016, 11:09 PM
All this Jupiter stuff is really interesting. The auroras are so fudgy cool!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 03, 2016, 06:51 PM
Juno

(http://i.imgur.com/d3i0mM6.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 05, 2016, 05:44 PM
Seems that the BFR from spacex will be able to lift ~236 tons to low earth orbit. The Saturn V could do ~140.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 05, 2016, 07:26 PM
Seems that the BFR from spacex will be able to lift ~236 tons to low earth orbit. The Saturn V could do ~140.
ooo more details emerging?   we are going to mars!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 08, 2016, 08:27 PM
 Astronomers have discovered a planet with three suns - NeoGAF (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1244248)

Quote
Link. (https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1624/)  Searched and didn't see a thread.What the orbit might be like (YT video). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrzJEkovZLw)
Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/cmzTl9J.jpg)

 
Quote
Luke Skywalker's home planet, Tatooine, in the Star Wars saga, was a strange world with two suns in the sky, but astronomers have now found a planet in an even more exotic system, where an observer would either experience constant daylight or enjoy triple sunrises and sunsets each day, depending on the seasons, which last longer than human lifetimes. This world has been discovered by a team of astronomers led by the University of Arizona, USA, using direct imaging at ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. The planet, HD 131399Ab (1), is unlike any other known world -- its orbit around the brightest of the three stars is by far the widest known within a multi-star system. Such orbits are often unstable, because of the complex and changing gravitational attraction from the other two stars in the system, and planets in stable orbits were thought to be very unlikely. Located about 320 light-years from Earth in the constellation of Centaurus (The Centaur), HD 131399Ab is about 16 million years old, making it also one of the youngest exoplanets discovered to date, and one of very few directly imaged planets. With a temperature of around 580 degrees Celsius and an estimated mass of four Jupiter masses, it is also one of the coldest and least massive directly-imaged exoplanets."For about half of the planet's orbit, which lasts 550 Earth-years, three stars are visible in the sky; the fainter two are always much closer together, and change in apparent separation from the brightest star throughout the year," adds Kevin Wagner, the paper's first author and discoverer of HD 131399Ab

 
Quote
Although repeated and long-term observations will be needed to precisely determine the planet's trajectory among its host stars, observations and simulations seem to suggest the following scenario: the brightest star is estimated to be eighty percent more massive than the Sun and dubbed HD 131399A, which itself is orbited by the less massive stars, B and C, at about 300 au (one au, or astronomical unit, equals the average distance between the Earth and the Sun). All the while, B and C twirl around each other like a spinning dumbbell, separated by a distance roughly equal to that between the Sun and Saturn (10 au). In this scenario, planet HD 131399Ab travels around the star A in an orbit with a radius of about 80 au, about twice as large as Pluto's in the Solar System, and brings the planet to about one third of the separation between star A and the B/C star pair. The authors point out that a range of orbital scenarios is possible, and the verdict on the long-term stability of the system will have to wait for planned follow-up observations that will better constrain the planet's orbit.

 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 08, 2016, 08:58 PM
That's pretty cool, hehehe
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 09, 2016, 10:30 PM
This is probably not the place to put this, but whatever!  :P


(https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/blogs/ken-ham/2016/07/bill-nye-and-ken-ham-at-ice-age-exhibit.jpg)
Bill Nye gets a tour of Noah's Ark.
Bill Nye Visits the Ark Encounter | Answers in Genesis (https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/07/08/bill-nye-visits-ark-encounter/)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUT THIS IS WAAY EXCITING!!!

Quote
First Water Clouds Reported outside the Solar System

Signs seen on brown dwarf, an object bigger than a planet and smaller than a star
First Water Clouds Reported outside the Solar System - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-water-clouds-reported-outside-the-solar-system/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_SPC_NEWS)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 09, 2016, 10:36 PM
that thing is so sad..  it really highlights how absolutely bat shame the idea is
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 10, 2016, 12:40 AM
BUT THIS IS WAAY EXCITING!!!
First Water Clouds Reported outside the Solar System - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-water-clouds-reported-outside-the-solar-system/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_SPC_NEWS)
Wow that object is really cool and its very close to Earth!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 10, 2016, 12:42 AM
Wow that object is really cool and its very close to Earth!
"very"
:P
If you say so!  

It's certainly closer than a lot of things.  (Most things, almost all things really).  But still so so so far away.  :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 10, 2016, 12:57 AM
"very"
:P
If you say so!  

It's certainly closer than a lot of things.  (Most things, almost all things really).  But still so so so far away.  :P
Only far away in the human way of thinking about things.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 10, 2016, 09:25 AM
"very"
:P
If you say so!  

It's certainly closer than a lot of things.  (Most things, almost all things really).  But still so so so far away.  :P
Exactly!

Once we can travel at near the speed of light it will take less than 10 years to get there ;D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 12, 2016, 08:05 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/0lclfuh.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 15, 2016, 05:31 AM
(http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/5787982c5ef3a.jpg)

A slice through the map of the large-scale structure of the Universe from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and its Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. Each dot in this picture indicates the position of a galaxy six billion years into the past. The image covers about 1/20th of the sky, a slice of the Universe 6 billion light-years wide, 4.5 billion light-years high, and 500 million light-years thick. Color indicates distance from Earth, ranging from yellow on the near side of the slice to purple on the far side. Credit: Daniel Eisenstein and SDSS-III.


Read more at: Biggest galactic map will throw light on 'dark energy' (http://phys.org/news/2016-07-biggest-galactic-dark-energy.html#jCp)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2016, 05:07 PM
Yay I'm stupid!!!

I was excited for the SpaceX rocket launch on Tuesday the 18th. Only four more days!

But then I realised it was launching at 12:45 AM EST, so it would actually be Monday night for me! A day sooner!! Only three more days!!!

But then I realised the 18th is the Monday, not Tuesday, so it would actually be Sunday night for me!! Another day sooner!!! Only two more days!!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 15, 2016, 05:31 PM
Yay I'm stupid!!!

I was excited for the SpaceX rocket launch on Tuesday the 18th. Only four more days!

But then I realised it was launching at 12:45 AM EST, so it would actually be Monday night for me! A day sooner!! Only three more days!!!

But then I realised the 18th is the Monday, not Tuesday, so it would actually be Sunday night for me!! Another day sooner!!! Only two more days!!!!
hahaha thanx i didnt realize that and was expecting the rocket to be monday night for me lol now i wont miss it

havent been paying attention tho,  is it gonna be RTLS?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2016, 05:35 PM
hahaha thanx i didnt realize that and was expecting the rocket to be monday night for me lol now i wont miss it

havent been paying attention tho,  is it gonna be RTLS?
Yup a repeat of the December launch, just a bit later at night.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 15, 2016, 06:56 PM
Yay I'm stupid!!!

I was excited for the SpaceX rocket launch on Tuesday the 18th. Only four more days!

But then I realised it was launching at 12:45 AM EST, so it would actually be Monday night for me! A day sooner!! Only three more days!!!

But then I realised the 18th is the Monday, not Tuesday, so it would actually be Sunday night for me!! Another day sooner!!! Only two more days!!!!
YAY FOR BEING STUPID!  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 18, 2016, 01:58 AM
2 1/2 hours left!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 02:00 AM
Where can I view it??
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 02:17 AM
Where can I view it??





Hype!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 03:45 AM
Correct NASA link live



One hour to go.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 03:47 AM
So is it a launch and then goes into a landing soon after or is this just launch for something else?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 03:56 AM
So is it a launch and then goes into a landing soon after or is this just launch for something else?
Launch in 50 minutes. Then a few minutes after launch the second stage separates. That continues to the ISS while the first half turns around and goes back to Florida. That landing attempt will be part of the livestream too.

EDT: is this your first rocket livestream?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 04:00 AM
Launch in 50 minutes. Then a few minutes after launch the second stage separates. That continues to the ISS while the first half turns around and goes back to Florida. That landing attempt will be part of the livestream too.

EDT: is this your first rocket livestream?
Yes.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:04 AM
Yes.
Awesome!!!

This is the stream you'll want to watch:



It's the official one by SpaceX and is the most chill. They have fancy graphics and explain everything that is happening. Doesn't start for another 20 minutes though, so for the moment I'm watching NASA's stream.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 18, 2016, 04:05 AM
WOOOOO lol  like 40 mintues left till launch.    apparently all good for prop load
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 04:06 AM
Awesome!!!

This is the stream you'll want to watch:



It's the official one by SpaceX and is the most chill. They have fancy graphics and explain everything that is happening. Doesn't start for another 20 minutes though, so for the moment I'm watching NASA's stream.
The time we live in. Watching a fighting game tournament being held in Las Vegas with people from across the world with another tab running a live video of a rocket launch.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:10 AM
The time we live in. Watching a fighting game tournament being held in Las Vegas with people from across the world with another tab running a live video of a rocket launch.
Not just a live video of a rocket launch, but live video from onboard said rocket.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 04:14 AM
Not just a live video of a rocket launch, but live video from onboard said rocket.
(http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/2006_Scary_Movie_4/006SM4_Anthony_Anderson_006.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:29 AM
SpaceX stream is live. 15 minutes guys!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 04:32 AM
I'd like to get me some of that brown sugar.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:43 AM
(http://i.makeagif.com/media/10-28-2015/fEGc9i.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:46 AM
So far so good!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:54 AM
YAY PERFECT LANDING!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 04:54 AM
fudge YEAH!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 18, 2016, 04:55 AM
AMAZING!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 18, 2016, 04:57 AM
so awesome !  its become routine y
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 04:58 AM
so awesome !  its become routine y
Well it crashed last time so not yet  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 18, 2016, 04:58 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 05:01 AM
Pokemon go memes of course...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 18, 2016, 08:03 AM
Yay!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 03:37 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 18, 2016, 08:33 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 21, 2016, 04:32 AM
X marks the spot at centre of the Milky Way galaxy, indicates NASA's WISE mission - Science News - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/x-marks-the-centre-of-the-milky-way/7644944)

Some sort of X structure
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 27, 2016, 05:21 AM
Old vid.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 28, 2016, 01:52 AM
Wow SpaceX estimated to spend $300 million on Red Dragon mission - SpaceNews.com (http://spacenews.com/spacex-spending-about-300-million-on-red-dragon-mission/)

Old vid.

Haha that's the video my teacher showed us.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 28, 2016, 02:45 AM
mars wont come cheap!  i expected them to be spending atleast a couple hundred milllion

whats next, amos 6 or jcsat 16?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 28, 2016, 02:51 AM
mars wont come cheap!  i expected them to be spending atleast a couple hundred milllion

whats next, amos 6 or jcsat 16?
jcsat. Amos was delayed to early Sep.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2016, 01:19 AM
SpaceX test fires returned Falcon 9 booster at McGregor | NASASpaceFlight.com (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falcon-9-booster-mcgregor/)

(https://i.imgur.com/r22UCDH.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 29, 2016, 03:50 AM
SpaceX test fires returned Falcon 9 booster at McGregor | NASASpaceFlight.com (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falcon-9-booster-mcgregor/)

(https://i.imgur.com/r22UCDH.jpg)
woah do you know if they did a static fire yet?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2016, 03:58 AM
woah do you know if they did a static fire yet?
That's what the article says...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 29, 2016, 04:31 AM
That's what the article says...
rofl im tired.. i saw the pic but didnt see the article haha
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2016, 06:40 PM
feature=youtu.be

Well that lasted longer than I expected.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Jul 29, 2016, 10:08 PM
feature=youtu.be

Well that lasted longer than I expected.
Testing it to check if it will fire properly on the next mission? Also, I couldn't help but wonder how many times I could have filled up my car with the fuel they just burned in two minutes.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2016, 10:16 PM
Testing it to check if it will fire properly on the next mission? Also, I couldn't help but wonder how many times I could have filled up my car with the fuel they just burned in two minutes.
Yup that was a full duration burn, equivalent to actually launching it. Over 500 tons of fuel.

This isn't even the rocket they plan to first reuse.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 29, 2016, 10:41 PM
lol i wonder how well rp1 would work for a car..  a diesel might work but prolly not a gasoline engine lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 29, 2016, 11:41 PM
So I was looking on gaf  that's someone is going to jump from like 25,000 feet without a parachute and land into a net I guess it's happening this weekend that's science right?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 29, 2016, 11:51 PM
So I was looking on gaf  that's someone is going to jump from like 25,000 feet without a parachute and land into a net I guess it's happening this weekend that's science right?
Haha  that's cool.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 30, 2016, 12:05 AM
Haha  that's cool.
Untill

(https://abload.de/img/52590096zqy.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 30, 2016, 12:27 AM
haha ya i saw that on fb..  the guy is nuts lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 30, 2016, 12:51 AM
haha ya i saw that on fb..  the guy is nuts lol
Nah. As long as he can confidently fall in the correct spot, he'll be fine.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 30, 2016, 01:36 AM
Nah. As long as he can confidently fall in the correct spot, he'll be fine.
i hear they used a test dummy that crashed thru the net lol

i have a weird feeling about this one,  atleat compared to felix
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 31, 2016, 01:23 AM
http://i.imgur.com/o1RJWLC.gif

STRIDE GUM - Streamable (https://streamable.com/jzk2)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 31, 2016, 03:01 PM
http://i.imgur.com/o1RJWLC.gif

STRIDE GUM - Streamable (https://streamable.com/jzk2)
Wow that's incredible.

Here's a video showing the full fall too: Streamable - simple video sharing (https://streamable.com/h6bd)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jul 31, 2016, 03:17 PM
Wow that's incredible.

Here's a video showing the full fall too: Streamable - simple video sharing (https://streamable.com/h6bd)
Dat flat earth doe.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 01, 2016, 05:34 PM
Wow. Seems SpaceX has been doing those static fire tests daily for the same rocket. Up to 4 now?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 01, 2016, 07:13 PM
Wow. Seems SpaceX has been doing those static fire tests daily for the same rocket. Up to 4 now?
sounds promising! if they can refuel and fire over n over like that, it sure bodes well.  

didnt they say 5 test fires then a refly?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 13, 2016, 04:58 PM
~12 hours till the next SpaceX launch.

sounds promising! if they can refuel and fire over n over like that, it sure bodes well.  

didnt they say 5 test fires then a refly?
I don't think this one is going to refly. They're just going till it can't go no more.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Aug 14, 2016, 02:56 AM
Dang its a clear night. Wish i had a telescope.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 03:10 AM
Dang its a clear night. Wish i had a telescope.
You should get one!

Do you live in an area with lots of light pollution?

And ~2 hours for spacex!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Aug 14, 2016, 03:30 AM
You should get one!

Do you live in an area with lots of light pollution?

And ~2 hours for spacex!
Not really. My parents have a whole lot less though and they only live like 10 minutes from me
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 14, 2016, 03:31 AM
You should get one!

Do you live in an area with lots of light pollution?

And ~2 hours for spacex!
yay 2 hours lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 03:57 AM
Not really. My parents have a whole lot less though and they only live like 10 minutes from me
Yeah I'm lucky with that. My house is pretty good and can drive to the rockies.

Sucked for the shower last night though. Hard to see most of them.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 05:09 AM
Live

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 05:26 AM
Lift off!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 14, 2016, 05:30 AM
missed it.. hope it lands safe lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 05:35 AM
Aw shucks. :(


EDT: nevermidn!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 14, 2016, 05:37 AM
YAY lol another succesful landing lol

in musk we trust lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 05:41 AM
It's now labeled as a "landing attempt" instead of "experimental landing." Progress!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: NeverDies on Aug 14, 2016, 05:53 AM
I just get a laugh imagining some warehouse slowly being filled with these massive rockets.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 05:59 AM
I just get a laugh imagining some warehouse slowly being filled with these massive rockets.
(http://i.imgur.com/R0Tn39l.jpg)
(http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/37323/content/small_rocket-meme.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 14, 2016, 08:57 PM
Earth-Like Planet Around Proxima Centauri Discovered - Universe Today (http://www.universetoday.com/130276/earth-like-planet-around-proxima-centauri-discovered/#)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 14, 2016, 09:32 PM
lol but how to get there.. we need em drive
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Aug 14, 2016, 09:50 PM
Earth-Like Planet Around Proxima Centauri Discovered - Universe Today (http://www.universetoday.com/130276/earth-like-planet-around-proxima-centauri-discovered/#)
Just saw this earlier today.  Super exciting stuff.  Just wish we had the tech to see up close and personal or a way to get there quick.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 23, 2016, 06:15 PM
Earth-Like Planet Around Proxima Centauri Discovered - Universe Today (http://www.universetoday.com/130276/earth-like-planet-around-proxima-centauri-discovered/#)
ESO Breaks silence, says it will hold a press conference related to the 'planet around Proxima Centauri' rumour tomorrow (7:00 AM EDT) : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/4z5tqk/eso_breaks_silence_says_it_will_hold_a_press/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 23, 2016, 07:01 PM
well shame..  cant wait to hear what they say
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 23, 2016, 09:33 PM
well shame..  cant wait to hear what they say
"Yes it was a false positive. Goodbye."
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 24, 2016, 12:27 AM
"Yes it was a false positive. Goodbye."
haha but that would be easy to say in a release,   a whole conference?  lol

i have a feeling that itll be along the lines of looking like all these great things, but much more data is needed and a much better look.

the james webb is still 2 years out isnt?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 24, 2016, 12:41 AM
haha but that would be easy to say in a release,   a whole conference?  lol

i have a feeling that itll be along the lines of looking like all these great things, but much more data is needed and a much better look.

the james webb is still 2 years out isnt?
2 years, but actually might hit that date. They've finished putting on all the mirrors.

(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/16-013a.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 24, 2016, 01:18 AM
do you know if the mirror covers are removed in orbit? or before launch with hopes the fairing protects it?



that thing is a crazy piece of technology, im so glad they're still on schedule
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 24, 2016, 02:39 AM
do you know if the mirror covers are removed in orbit? or before launch with hopes the fairing protects it?



that thing is a crazy piece of technology, im so glad they're still on schedule
Before
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 25, 2016, 02:58 AM
so amos-6 is coming up, and noticed its weight.. 5500kg.  i think this is the heaviest payload going to gto in a while lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Aug 26, 2016, 02:32 AM
 A new class of galaxy has been discovered, one made almost entirely of dark matter - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/25/a-new-class-of-galaxy-has-been-discovered-one-made-almost-entirely-of-dark-matter/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 30, 2016, 07:13 PM
spacex juat announced that the crs8 booster will be the first to refly!

looks like itll be SES-10 that will be the first to use a reflown rocket!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 30, 2016, 08:40 PM
spacex juat announced that the crs8 booster will be the first to refly!

looks like itll be SES-10 that will be the first to use a reflown rocket!
Currently set to launch on Halloween!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 30, 2016, 08:50 PM
Currently set to launch on Halloween!
man the next few months should be pretty busy.     is the first Falcon heavy flight still slated for this year?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 30, 2016, 09:10 PM
man the next few months should be pretty busy.     is the first Falcon heavy flight still slated for this year?
No that was delayed a while ago.

If you ever want to know when FH is launching, just add six months to the current date  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 31, 2016, 04:56 PM
Bill Nye Saves The World on Netflix With New Talk Show Take in 2017 | IndieWire (http://www.indiewire.com/2016/08/netflix-bill-nye-saves-the-world-2017-1201721795/)

this sounds awesome
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 01, 2016, 07:24 AM
Sweet

These Might Be the Oldest Fossils Ever Discovered (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/news/a22646/oldest-fossils-ever-discovered/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 01, 2016, 05:14 PM
Sweet

These Might Be the Oldest Fossils Ever Discovered (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/news/a22646/oldest-fossils-ever-discovered/)
Way awesome!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 01, 2016, 07:40 PM
What a great day for space flight!

Did China just suffer the first space launch failure of 2016? | gbtimes.com (http://gbtimes.com/china/did-china-just-suffer-first-space-launch-failure-2016)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 02, 2016, 06:40 PM
Em drive might actually work!

Peer-Reviewed Paper On EmDrive To Be Published In December | IFLScience (http://www.iflscience.com/technology/rumored-emdrive-paper-suggests-the-controversial-thruster-actually-works/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 02, 2016, 07:17 PM
itll be interesting to see the papere when it comes out.   another step in the "hey maybe it does work"  direction.   The more stuff like this, the more people would actually start to look at it, and the sooner we will know if its legit or not
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 02, 2016, 07:27 PM
At this point I'm firmly in the "it's BS" camp.

It's been over a year of large public interest and yet no progress has been made. You'd think at this stage they'd have at least experimentally discovered what parameters produced stronger thrust if it was real.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Sep 02, 2016, 07:28 PM
At this point I'm firmly in the "it's BS" camp.

It's been over a year of large public interest and yet no progress has been made. You'd think at this stage they'd have at least experimentally discovered what parameters produced stronger thrust if it was real.
Well why do a paper?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 02, 2016, 07:50 PM
Well why do a paper?
To get results?

Something is still causing the measuring of thrust and should be conclusively determined. I just doubt it's a reactionless drive producing real thrust.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 05, 2016, 05:19 PM
Wow nice image!!

Philae found! / Rosetta / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Philae_found)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 07, 2016, 12:29 AM
The 'impossible' EM Drive is about to be tested in space - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/the-impossible-em-drive-is-about-to-be-tested-in-space)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 07, 2016, 01:43 AM
The 'impossible' EM Drive is about to be tested in space - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/the-impossible-em-drive-is-about-to-be-tested-in-space)
I bet $10,000 V bucks it never happens
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 08, 2016, 09:17 PM
man that atlas rocket set up with just a single booster looks odd as fudge lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 08, 2016, 10:49 PM
roughly 15 minutes till the Osiris Rex mission launch,  aboard an Atlas V 411.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 08, 2016, 10:53 PM
roughly 15 minutes till the Osiris Rex mission launch,  aboard an Atlas V 411.
I have to miss it :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 08, 2016, 10:56 PM
I have to miss it :(
dang : :(     well atleast there isnt a landing attempt lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 09, 2016, 12:01 AM
dang : :(     well atleast there isnt a landing attempt lol
Yeah screw this one republic show. I could be at home :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 09, 2016, 12:20 AM
it was neat seeing the launch,  that asymmetrical booster thing is nuts. i love that you can actually visually notice the thrust vectors to compensate.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 09, 2016, 01:00 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 09, 2016, 01:05 AM

saw that earlier.  that game teaches so much
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 09, 2016, 04:39 PM
Seems the SpaceX explosion is super complicated and they still have no idea what probably caused it. They're asking for the public to submit all video+audio they have from right before the explosion.

Stupid fan theory is that someone shot it with a rifle lol.



Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 09, 2016, 05:54 PM
yea i saw a fb post about that.    found it quite odd they were looking for public info.

something tells me future static fires will have a series of cameras on them
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 09, 2016, 06:08 PM
yea i saw a fb post about that.    found it quite odd they were looking for public info.

something tells me future static fires will have a series of cameras on them
SpaceX has loads of cameras. They want public stuff so that they can triangulate probably.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 17, 2016, 06:10 AM
NASA to hold teleconference about collaboration on the Red Dragon mission with SpaceX on 21 September, 3PM ET (http://spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=9300)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 17, 2016, 04:58 PM
NASA to hold teleconference about collaboration on the Red Dragon mission with SpaceX on 21 September, 3PM ET (http://spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=9300)
interesting. i wonder what they have to say.  any rumors?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 17, 2016, 05:08 PM
interesting. i wonder what they have to say.  any rumors?
Probably just share some details.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 18, 2016, 02:51 AM
Well that was crazy.

Got out of the car and looked up in the night sky like I usually do. Instantly spotted a faint satellite moving slowly since it was passing next to a planet. Within a second of spotting it, the satellite turned on a dime and launched roughly 90 degrees in a different direction and zoomed out of sight. WTF!?!? Took a while just staring at the sky coming to terms that what I witnessed was real and wasn't my brain doing any tricks. Whatever I saw, I really saw it. But since I'm a man of science and kept staring in the sky, I noticed the original satellite emerge from behind a tree and along its original course. Yay mystery solved! A second object, probably a shooting star, just happened to appear at the exact same spot as the satellite was. Since the second object was much brighter, it hid the original one and my brain tracked it as if they were the same thing. Was flipping cool.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 18, 2016, 03:09 AM
Well that was crazy.

Got out of the car and looked up in the night sky like I usually do. Instantly spotted a faint satellite moving slowly since it was passing next to a planet. Within a second of spotting it, the satellite turned on a dime and launched roughly 90 degrees in a different direction and zoomed out of sight. WTF!?!? Took a while just staring at the sky coming to terms that what I witnessed was real and wasn't my brain doing any tricks. Whatever I saw, I really saw it. But since I'm a man of science and kept staring in the sky, I noticed the original satellite emerge from behind a tree and along its original course. Yay mystery solved! A second object, probably a shooting star, just happened to appear at the exact same spot as the satellite was. Since the second object was much brighter, it hid the original one and my brain tracked it as if they were the same thing. Was flipping cool.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/cryptidz/images/6/6b/Aliens-meme.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150822174323)


Funnily enough, if aliens ever did come no one would believe it.  
"i'm a rational man of science, it can't be aliens."
*ends up being aliens*

That would be my second favorite bit, just the skepticism and ending up being wrong.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 18, 2016, 06:17 AM
i guess this is sorta science related..



i clicked on this on youtube,  and within 10 minutes i have laughed aloud many times. they essentially threw an ant colony at a wasp nest, blamed the wind and filmed what happened.   then decided it wasnt good enough, so they added sound effects of like alien noises and swords clashing lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 20, 2016, 08:57 PM
 MIT scientists use radio waves to sense human emotions - NeoGAF (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1281695)

Quote
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/20/tech...inkId=29006898 (http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/20/technology/mit-wireless-signals-emotions/index.html?sr=twCNN092016mit-wireless-signals-emotions0741PMVODtopPhoto&linkId=29006898)
 Interesting where this could lead.
 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 21, 2016, 12:47 AM
NASA to Hold Media Call on Evidence of Surprising Activity on Europa : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/53ph26/nasa_to_hold_media_call_on_evidence_of_surprising/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 21, 2016, 01:10 AM
probably water vapour?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 24, 2016, 05:24 PM
One thought that i have had for a while about AI is the ability to do neural profiling. 

I can imagine two types of profiling.  Behavioral profiling which analyzes behavior. Could be useful for creating a template AI that acts the same as a character or person.  Even ones that don't exist. 
And psychological profiling which would probably be better called real neurol profiling.  My idea would be probably scan the brain and create the template that way. 

My thoughts on this, is it could be used for tons and tons of things. 

I had an idea today of learning.  Basically test what would be the best way to learn a specific topic for a specific topic. 

This is person A, person A learns best by seeing pictures.  Person B learns best some other way. Person A could expect to learn this specific topic using these resources in about 45 minutes.  Or if they use these resources it might take closer to 2 hours. 

Person B should use the latter resources and they can expect to understand the material in about 55 min. 

That's the kind of stuff I'm pretty excited about.  If we are ever able to make great AI systems (basically near perfect) I think it would have a lot of potential that could utilized.  Basically harnassing the brain. Practically limitless potential I think. 

It could maybe even be utilized for therapy.  Person A's path to recovery is best done this way.  Etc. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 24, 2016, 10:39 PM
SpaceX Falcon Accident Investigation Points to Breach in Rocket's Helium System (http://www.space.com/34187-spacex-falcon-rocket-accident-investigation-helium-system.html)

well thats a step closer to an anwer
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 24, 2016, 11:04 PM
SpaceX Falcon Accident Investigation Points to Breach in Rocket's Helium System (http://www.space.com/34187-spacex-falcon-rocket-accident-investigation-helium-system.html)

well thats a step closer to an anwer
Wonder if it was overpressurized or the tank was faulty?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 25, 2016, 12:00 AM
Wonder if it was overpressurized or the tank was faulty?
wouldnt an over pressure be seen on sensors?   im going with a fault in the tank.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 26, 2016, 06:21 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2016, 02:35 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtQbdtJVIAA7HCC.jpg:orig)

What a wonderful tease for tomorrow!

Raptor is highly needed for SpaceX. Current second stage on Falcon 9 gets isp 348 in space while this one is 382 in space. Now I don't actually know what these numbers mean, but Kerbal Space Program tells me the second is a lot more efficient. A falcon 9 with a raptor second stage could significantly increase its load. Same with a Falcon Heavy.

Plus this is the engine that will send us to Mars.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 26, 2016, 03:21 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtQbdtJVIAA7HCC.jpg:orig)

What a wonderful tease for tomorrow!

Raptor is highly needed for SpaceX. Current second stage on Falcon 9 gets isp 348 in space while this one is 382 in space. Now I don't actually know what these numbers mean, but Kerbal Space Program tells me the second is a lot more efficient. A falcon 9 with a raptor second stage could significantly increase its load. Same with a Falcon Heavy.

Plus this is the engine that will send us to Mars.
isnt Isp a measure of how much momentum change can be done for a given fuel unit?   so the higher it is, the more efficient lol or thats atleast how i understand it lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2016, 03:26 PM
isnt Isp a measure of how much momentum change can be done for a given fuel unit?   so the higher it is, the more efficient lol or thats atleast how i understand it lol
Yeah I think so. I just know higher isp is all that matters once my rockets reach space. ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 26, 2016, 03:54 PM
Yeah I think so. I just know higher isp is all that matters once my rockets reach space. ::)
haha ya that was my working definition.  but ive been trying to understand the math behind it more lately.   when i saw him say 382 i was impressed. 

and i thought the merlin D had a isp lower than 350.  i heard around 312.   either way 382 is a much needed upgrade.   

edit:  nvm i think the 312 i heard was for the non vac varient
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2016, 04:14 PM
haha ya that was my working definition.  but ive been trying to understand the math behind it more lately.   when i saw him say 382 i was impressed.  

and i thought the merlin D had a isp lower than 350.  i heard around 312.   either way 382 is a much needed upgrade.  

edit:  nvm i think the 312 i heard was for the non vac varient
I just went off wikipedia.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 26, 2016, 06:07 PM
SO hubble captured more water plumes from europa.   we need a mission to try and sample some!!!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2016, 06:32 PM
SO hubble captured more water plumes from europa.   we need a mission to try and sample some!!!
I thought Cassini flew through one?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 26, 2016, 07:03 PM
I thought Cassini flew through one?
cassini went to saturn, so you must be thinking of enceladus?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2016, 07:05 PM
cassini went to saturn, so you must be thinking of enceladus?
Apparently ???  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Sep 26, 2016, 09:45 PM
Is Europa the moon they think could be the most plausible to have alien life(microscopic obviously)?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 27, 2016, 03:30 PM
Is Europa the moon they think could be the most plausible to have alien life(microscopic obviously)?
Yeah,
but to be fair,
alien life probably exists on most planets and moons,
or just Earth.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 27, 2016, 04:31 PM


New Armstrong details to come Q1 2017.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 27, 2016, 06:42 PM
$100-Million Plan Will Send Probes to the Nearest Star - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/100-million-plan-will-send-probes-to-the-nearest-star1/)
Not sure if this was posted, but my Physics teacher has been talking about this a little bit.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 30, 2016, 03:50 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/qubRoBV.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Sep 30, 2016, 04:23 PM
thatsa dope pic
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 30, 2016, 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Sep 30, 2016, 11:48 PM
Okay hang on. I thought Blue Origin was a European company. Turns out it's another American company. What company was I confusing them with, if any?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 01, 2016, 12:24 AM
Okay hang on. I thought Blue Origin was a European company. Turns out it's another American company. What company was I confusing them with, if any?
Europe has a few large rocket companies but I can't think of any startups.

Yeah Blue Origin is made by the Amazon founder.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 01, 2016, 02:46 AM
dang thatll be fun to watch!!!!!   i cant wait for the dragon 2 inflight abort test lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 01, 2016, 02:30 PM
dang thatll be fun to watch!!!!!   i cant wait for the dragon 2 inflight abort test lol
Basically the only times you want to see an explosion!


Also


Will be on the spacex subreddit.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 04, 2016, 05:14 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 04, 2016, 05:41 AM
booo i was looking forward to it. lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 05, 2016, 02:36 PM
20 minutes till launch.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 05, 2016, 03:03 PM
just turned it on, looks like there is a hold wit 1 minute on the counter lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 05, 2016, 03:08 PM
just turned it on, looks like there is a hold wit 1 minute on the counter lol
It was funny. At around 2 minutes they held a hold for like 30 seconds.

Way more chill than a SpaceX launch. IMO it'll probably still launch.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 05, 2016, 03:15 PM
It was funny. At around 2 minutes they held a hold for like 30 seconds.

Way more chill than a SpaceX launch. IMO it'll probably still launch.
any news on why the hold? lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 05, 2016, 03:26 PM
any news on why the hold? lol
Apparently it was because they called the first hold lol. Rocket time was offset so they just restarted the launch cycle to fix it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 05, 2016, 03:48 PM
Successfully escape and successful landing. Congrats.

These announcers just come across as so "scummy" though. Was I watching a rocket test or an infomercial?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 05, 2016, 04:09 PM
Successfully escape and successful landing. Congrats.

These announcers just come across as so "scummy" though. Was I watching a rocket test or an infomercial?
i had to drive kids to school so i missed it, but watched the reply.   i agree with the announcers, very little enthusiasm from them lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 25, 2016, 10:25 PM
Caltech Researchers Find Evidence of a Real Ninth Planet | Caltech (https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523)


The ninth planet idea comes back every year.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Oct 25, 2016, 11:09 PM
man i would love it if true.

i wonder if their model can be refined enough to show approx where it is to pinpoint finding
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 04, 2016, 08:49 PM
so SpaceX has given more word on what happened to AMOS-6 on the pad.  

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40868.0;attach=1386401;image)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 04, 2016, 08:54 PM
so SpaceX has given more word on what happened to AMOS-6 on the pad.  

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40868.0;attach=1386401;image)
Yup I'm glad it wasn't part of the rocket. Still a problem, but should be cheaper to fix.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 04, 2016, 09:03 PM
Yup I'm glad it wasn't part of the rocket. Still a problem, but should be cheaper to fix.
cheaper and faster.   RTF this year would be a nice christmas gift
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 06, 2016, 08:59 PM
so the james webb telescope is essentially built,  now theyve go testing.  i cant wait for that thing to be up there
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 06, 2016, 09:05 PM
so the james webb telescope is essentially built,  now theyve go testing.  i cant wait for that thing to be up there
I really can't wait for it to start looking at exoplanets. We'll be able to know their atmospheres, seasons, surface details, etc.

If a planet has advanced life and is in range, this should find it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 08, 2016, 04:55 AM
EmDrive: US and China already testing microwave thruster on Tiangong-2 and X-37B space plane (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289)


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 08, 2016, 06:35 AM
EmDrive: US and China already testing microwave thruster on Tiangong-2 and X-37B space plane (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289)



Mostly debunking that.
Eric1600 comments on Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane (https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/5bmz9e/space_race_revealed_us_and_china_test_futuristic/d9pyz3f/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 08, 2016, 08:20 AM
Mostly debunking that.
Eric1600 comments on Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane (https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/5bmz9e/space_race_revealed_us_and_china_test_futuristic/d9pyz3f/)
yea i figured as much but thought i would share it anyways lol

the emdrive dream will never die lol its just to good to be true
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Nov 15, 2016, 02:00 AM
Anyone  checking out the super moon? I tried to take a photo but my camera sucks for night shots . last one till 2033.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 15, 2016, 02:04 AM
Anyone  checking out the super moon? I tried to take a photo but my camera sucks for night shots . last one till 2033.
I guess I'll go outside just to say that I did it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 15, 2016, 02:25 AM
I guess I'll go outside just to say that I did it.
Is it as super as you expected?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Nov 15, 2016, 02:29 AM
Is it as super as you expected?
like 30 percent more super.

Doesn't look that big to me. I think it's bigger, but maybe not..
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 15, 2016, 02:33 AM
like 30 percent more super.

Doesn't look that big to me. I think it's bigger, but maybe not..
Looks really bright tonight though.

I tried to take a picture, but somewhere between the picture preview and actually taking the picture, the whole thing dimmed out.  
Picture preview looked like I was taking a picture of the sun, the actual picture looked like a moderately bright star.  Disappointment.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 15, 2016, 02:37 AM
like 30 percent more super.

Doesn't look that big to me. I think it's bigger, but maybe not..
Yeah that's why supermoons really aren't that interesting. The difference in size is negligible compared to other factors that make the moon feel big or small.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 15, 2016, 02:40 AM
Yeah that's why supermoons really aren't that interesting. The difference in size is negligible compared to other factors that make the moon feel big or small.
This is why supermoons are interesting.
(http://98five.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Supermoon-2.jpg)

How does it feel to be so wrong?  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 15, 2016, 03:13 AM
Spoiler for ifunnyspoiler:
(https://img.ifcdn.com/images/16a4a1c6b1a333bc41d6c7badec1919c21c7429b2d14bb24afa5a261938deeed_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 16, 2016, 08:35 PM


For comparison, there are currently only 1,400 operational satellites in space.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Raven on Nov 16, 2016, 09:20 PM


For comparison, there are currently only 1,400 operational satellites in space.
Jesus fudge. I'm half expecting to hear Elon Musk announce a couple years from now that we're building the fudgy Death Star.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 16, 2016, 09:30 PM


For comparison, there are currently only 1,400 operational satellites in space.
That's insane!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 16, 2016, 10:35 PM


For comparison, there are currently only 1,400 operational satellites in space.
good lord thats alot..  i cant wait to see the plan for this. i wonder how many sats they can put on falcon heavy lol

they also postd a pic of them sending the guant fuel tank for testing lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 23, 2016, 12:19 AM
NAsa announced that SpaceX gets the contract for the launch vehicle for the GLobal Surface water survey mission
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 23, 2016, 12:58 AM
NAsa announced that SpaceX gets the contract for the launch vehicle for the GLobal Surface water survey mission
That's good in 5 years.


Rtf in about a month hopefully.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Nov 23, 2016, 01:24 AM
That's good in 5 years.


Rtf in about a month hopefully.
yup its a long ways out,  but it still shows how nasa has confidence in spaceX and the falcon series.    

Yea looks like either iridium next, or echostar.  Hopefully we get the final report for the AMOS mishap soon.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 23, 2016, 06:35 AM
 Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ - NeoGAF (http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1319015)

Quote
"Politically correct environmental monitoring"  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)...Now I've heard everything.
Quote
Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

 
Quote
This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.
 Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.
 “We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
 “My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
 Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

 
Quote
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, said Nasa has a “critical and unique role” in observing Earth and climate change.
 “Without the support of Nasa, not only the US but the entire world would be taking a hard hit when it comes to understanding the behavior of our climate and the threats posed by human-caused climate change,” he said.
 “It would be a blatantly political move, and would indicate the president-elect’s willingness to pander to the very same lobbyists and corporate interest groups he derided throughout the campaign

 
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...medium=twitter (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 23, 2016, 07:19 AM
Oh gosh :'(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 23, 2016, 03:25 PM
Climate change research is on the way out.  Net neutrality looks to be on the way out....  Whats next?  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 23, 2016, 04:15 PM
Climate change research is on the way out.  Net neutrality looks to be on the way out....  Whats next?  
Mars is still on the books!

LAKE OF frozen WATER THE SIZE OF NEW MEXICO FOUND ON MARS - NASA • The Register     (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/22/nasa_finds_ice_under_martian_surface/)

Would be a good place to land.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Nov 23, 2016, 04:18 PM
Climate change research is on the way out.  Net neutrality looks to be on the way out....  Whats next?  
Creationism in public education? At least, Mike Pence would love for that to happen :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Nov 23, 2016, 04:21 PM
Climate change research is on the way out.  Net neutrality looks to be on the way out....  Whats next?  
I thought net neutrality was a bad thing.


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 23, 2016, 04:39 PM
Net neutrality is the net being neutral, not having preferences.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 30, 2016, 04:43 PM
It feels weird to imagine being in another universe with different laws of physics.
Like with different constants for gravity and such.  

Like literally could be like walking through a doorway and shrinking or growing or exploding.  

Feels weird to think of matter properties being dependent on the universe's properties.  You can't really separate the two.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 30, 2016, 05:33 PM
It feels weird to imagine being in another universe with different laws of physics.
Like with different constants for gravity and such.  

Like literally could be like walking through a doorway and shrinking or growing or exploding.  

Feels weird to think of matter properties being dependent on the universe's properties.  You can't really separate the two.  
Aw man I remember reading about some book/project where the author changed some fundamental concept to negative and then rebuilt everything around that. I'm trying to find a link.

EDT: Plus, Minus: A Gentle Introduction to the Physics of Orthogonal (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ORTHOGONAL/00/PM.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 03, 2016, 12:41 AM
Looks like dec 16, 2 weeks from now is the SpaceX RTF,  IRIDIUM Next out of Vandenberg
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 08, 2016, 08:51 PM
Looks like dec 16, 2 weeks from now is the SpaceX RTF,  IRIDIUM Next out of Vandenberg
January now.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 08, 2016, 09:35 PM
January now.
dang nabbit all
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 15, 2016, 11:52 PM
Guess this is a science thread thing


         Elon Musk to Donald Trump: 'We build rockets, cars, and solar stuff - really excited about expanding our manufacturing footprint in the US.' | Electrek       (https://electrek.co/2016/12/15/elon-musk-donald-trump-tesla-us-manufacturing/)

Elon Musk is also part of Trump's Strategic and Policy team. Same with Blue Origin's Jeff Bezos. Hopefully this is a good sign for space funding.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 15, 2016, 11:59 PM
Guess this is a science thread thing


 Elon Musk to Donald Trump: 'We build rockets, cars, and solar stuff - really excited about expanding our manufacturing footprint in the US.' | Electrek  (https://electrek.co/2016/12/15/elon-musk-donald-trump-tesla-us-manufacturing/)

Elon Musk is also part of Trump's Strategic and Policy team. Same with Blue Origin's Jeff Bezos. Hopefully this is a good sign for space funding.
That chart...  3.074 trillion dollars are represented in those 11 companies.  :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 16, 2016, 12:04 AM
thats encouraging.  still scared about trump gutting climate science tho..  

he has shown interest in expandig space xploration tho,  although i question his ability to get funding for those idea's.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 02, 2017, 08:17 PM
January now.
looks like RTF is set for sunday,  static fire as early as tomorrow!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 02, 2017, 09:51 PM
looks like RTF is set for sunday,  static fire as early as tomorrow!
Don't fail us SpaceX!

I hope Heavy is not far behind.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 03, 2017, 12:35 AM
HiRISE | Caught in Action: Avalanches on North Polar Scarps (PSP_007338_2640) (https://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_007338_2640)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 03, 2017, 12:57 AM
Don't fail us SpaceX!

I hope Heavy is not far behind.
they probably have a backlog of launches to take care of first.   well  be waiting till summer i bet
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 05, 2017, 10:30 PM
static fire complete! its a go for launch next week!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 05, 2017, 11:14 PM
static fire complete! its a go for launch next week!
No boom!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2017, 07:51 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 14, 2017, 06:48 AM
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01577/mcam/1577MR0080320000800289E01_DXXX.jpg)

So alien looking.

Another probable meteorite found by Curiosity Rover - image taken Thursday morning : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5ntfyg/another_probable_meteorite_found_by_curiosity/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 14, 2017, 06:14 PM
dang thats pretty cool,   the color is just so different.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Jan 14, 2017, 08:54 PM
What are some of your guy's favorite websites to read up on this stuff?  Or at least the best and most reputable sites.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 14, 2017, 08:56 PM
What are some of your guy's favorite websites to read up on this stuff?  Or at least the best and most reputable sites.
Reddit  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Jan 15, 2017, 12:42 AM
that pspupdates site actually had a good science section.  They shut it down years ago.  They don't even have it in their forums anymore.  Plus the site's gone to hell.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jan 25, 2017, 07:56 PM
Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 brachistochrone test : gaming (https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/5px0jh/rollercoaster_tycoon_2_brachistochrone_test/)

Pretty cool. And legends favorite game.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 25, 2017, 08:21 PM
Trump orders EPA to remove web page on climate change, says report - CNET (https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-orders-epa-to-remove-web-page-on-climate-change-says-report/)

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/315876-trump-bans-epa-employees-from-giving-social-media-updates)


      Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website: sources
| Reuters

 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 26, 2017, 09:57 PM
I found this incredible
(http://i.imgur.com/BVXrHQM.gif)
Direct imaging of four planets orbiting the star HR 8799 129 light years away from Earth : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5qb4c5/direct_imaging_of_four_planets_orbiting_the_star/)

Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 brachistochrone test : gaming (https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/5px0jh/rollercoaster_tycoon_2_brachistochrone_test/)

Pretty cool. And legends favorite game.
I liked 3 more than 2, and now I think I like Planet Coaster more.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Jan 26, 2017, 11:58 PM
I found this incredible
(http://i.imgur.com/BVXrHQM.gif)
Direct imaging of four planets orbiting the star HR 8799 129 light years away from Earth : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5qb4c5/direct_imaging_of_four_planets_orbiting_the_star/)
Yeah that's amazing!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 27, 2017, 12:44 AM
so cool,  i wonder how good the shots from the james webb will be
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Jan 27, 2017, 12:50 AM
so cool,  i wonder how good the shots from the james webb will be
Seriously can't wait till this is ready and taking pictures.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jan 27, 2017, 08:37 AM
I found this incredible
(http://i.imgur.com/BVXrHQM.gif)
Direct imaging of four planets orbiting the star HR 8799 129 light years away from Earth : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5qb4c5/direct_imaging_of_four_planets_orbiting_the_star/)
I liked 3 more than 2, and now I think I like Planet Coaster more.
Woah that's amazing. I wonder how long that observation lasted
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Jan 27, 2017, 12:20 PM
Trump orders EPA to remove web page on climate change, says report - CNET (https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-orders-epa-to-remove-web-page-on-climate-change-says-report/)

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/315876-trump-bans-epa-employees-from-giving-social-media-updates)


 Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website: sources
| Reuters

 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G)
This sounds like what our PM was doing before people came around...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 27, 2017, 04:30 PM
Woah that's amazing. I wonder how long that observation lasted
5 to 6 years.  (dates in bottom corner) lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jan 27, 2017, 08:34 PM
5 to 6 years.  (dates in bottom corner) lol
:o  it's incredible
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: kitler53 on Jan 27, 2017, 08:38 PM
(http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/evidence-based-change-after-peer-review-protestor.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Jan 29, 2017, 02:24 AM
Hold onto your butts. Just when I was wondering how much farther we could advance technology something crazy happens. Meet the time crystal.

Scientists have confirmed a brand new form of matter: time crystals - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 29, 2017, 06:15 AM
Hold onto your butts. Just when I was wondering how much farther we could advance technology something crazy happens. Meet the time crystal.

Scientists have confirmed a brand new form of matter: time crystals - ScienceAlert (http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals)
That doesn't really feel like a new form of matter to me, at least based off the article's description.

Super peculiar and interesting, but more like a phase of the standard stuff.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 12, 2017, 05:47 PM
New details on the mission

Missions | Europa Mission (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-mission/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 16, 2017, 08:47 AM
I post almost twice as much as bwest in this thread, yet he has almost as many likes as me.  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 16, 2017, 05:39 PM
I post almost twice as much as bwest in this thread, yet he has almost as many likes as me.  ::)
i think its cause you and i post a heck ton in here,  but i usually forget like buttons lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 16, 2017, 05:40 PM
i think its cause you and i post a heck ton in here,  but i usually forget like buttons lol
Or I just spam a lot  ;)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 16, 2017, 05:55 PM
I think its because in the past Legend liked the most posts by far... but I decided to challenge him on that one now :D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 16, 2017, 06:02 PM
I think its because in the past Legend liked the most posts by far... but I decided to challenge him on that one now :D
I see a good post, I like it.

I'm a simple man.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 16, 2017, 06:03 PM
I see a good post, I like it.

I'm a simple man.
Same here. Although I used to just like posts that I thought were great or made me laugh, along those lines. Now I've been liking posts that I read but haven't replied to, as a sort of acknowledgment that I read it and they're not talking to no one ;D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 20, 2017, 07:10 PM
NASA to Host News Conference on Discovery Beyond Our Solar System | NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-host-news-conference-on-discovery-beyond-our-solar-system)

exoplanets
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 20, 2017, 07:44 PM
NASA to Host News Conference on Discovery Beyond Our Solar System | NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-host-news-conference-on-discovery-beyond-our-solar-system)

exoplanets
Ooh awesome
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 22, 2017, 03:13 AM
Longest-serving rocket in history bids farewell with Progress MS-05 launch | NASASpaceFlight.com (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/soyuz-u-progress-ms-05-launch/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Aura7541 on Feb 24, 2017, 02:44 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 27, 2017, 06:10 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 27, 2017, 06:42 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Feb 27, 2017, 07:19 PM
you know with the publicity of the starliner, i have a feeling todays spacex conference is partly meant to steal back some attention lol

also that gripper looks aswome as fudge,  it should be named advanced grabbing unit lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 27, 2017, 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 27, 2017, 10:43 PM

What is this thing? Remote controlled?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 27, 2017, 10:55 PM
What is this thing? Remote controlled?
No it's a robot.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Feb 28, 2017, 01:02 AM
No it's a robot.

Wow that's pretty awesome. My initial thought was its a robot but it seemed to advanced :o
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2017, 01:28 AM
Wow that's pretty awesome. My initial thought was its a robot but it seemed to advanced :o
Robots have gotten crazy good in the past few years.

You should check out the rest of that channel's videos if you haven't already.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 15, 2017, 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 16, 2017, 06:26 PM
Trump released plans for NASA's budget.

Asteroid Redirect Mission is cut. If you don't remember, that was the plan to break a rock off an asteroid and put it into lunar orbit. Then astronauts on SLS would go study it. The original plan was to send astronauts to an actual asteroid but it had been repeatedly watered down over the years.


Now without ARM, SLS will realistically only be used for the Europa Clipper in 2022 and a test launch next year. Will be cool to see the rocket fly but my gosh is it an expensive waste of time.

(congress might ignore Trump and keep ARM. They regularly did that with Obama and gave NASA more money)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 16, 2017, 06:34 PM
hes so dumb,  god i hate trump
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 16, 2017, 07:01 PM
hes so dumb,  god i hate trump
Cutting ARM is actually good imo. People have wanted it and SLS cut for a long time.

Each SLS launch will cost half a billion yet only the later versions will be significantly stronger than Falcon Heavy. The 3-stage New Glenn from Blue Origin will be comparable to the SLS block 1 as well.


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 16, 2017, 07:13 PM
Cutting ARM is actually good imo. People have wanted it and SLS cut for a long time.

Each SLS launch will cost half a billion yet only the later versions will be significantly stronger than Falcon Heavy. The 3-stage New Glenn from Blue Origin will be comparable to the SLS block 1 as well.



i liked the idea of ARM, it would have been really cool.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 16, 2017, 07:23 PM
i liked the idea of ARM, it would have been really cool.
I think the original thing would have been really cool.

The watered down one would only have brought a small chunk of the asteroid. At that point they could just bring the rock back to Earth and studied it here.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 16, 2017, 07:24 PM
Trump released plans for NASA's budget.

Asteroid Redirect Mission is cut. If you don't remember, that was the plan to break a rock off an asteroid and put it into lunar orbit. Then astronauts on SLS would go study it. The original plan was to send astronauts to an actual asteroid but it had been repeatedly watered down over the years.


Now without ARM, SLS will realistically only be used for the Europa Clipper in 2022 and a test launch next year. Will be cool to see the rocket fly but my gosh is it an expensive waste of time.

(congress might ignore Trump and keep ARM. They regularly did that with Obama and gave NASA more money)
The really shame news is that 4 of NASA's climate change projects will be cancelled. I think that might be all of their climate change work.

RIP Earth
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 16, 2017, 07:29 PM
The really shame news is that 4 of NASA's climate change projects will be cancelled. I think that might be all of their climate change work.

RIP Earth
Yeah planetary science is a big big loss with this proposed budget. Hopefully congress ignores that part but I'm not sure that's likely. Most NASA funding increases from congress have been for crewed and deep space exploration.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 21, 2017, 10:37 PM
Trump signed a NASA authorization act.



I'm linking the video since I'm having a hard time finding a source that really explains what it does or doesn't have some horrible bias. The space subreddit is overrun with climate change deniers at the moment.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 24, 2017, 05:33 PM


There's someone in the GAF thread, talking about how the Earth is flat....
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on Mar 24, 2017, 05:56 PM


There's someone in the GAF thread, talking about how the Earth is flat....
I hope hes getting the train run on him.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 24, 2017, 06:27 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 24, 2017, 10:30 PM

THat's a long burn!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Mar 24, 2017, 11:07 PM
THat's a long burn!
yyup,  full flight duration test.

Air Force reveals plan for up to 48 launches per year from Cape Canaveral | NASASpaceFlight.com (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/air-force-reveals-48-launches-year-cape/)

that would be a busy schedule
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 30, 2017, 06:11 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 03, 2017, 07:56 PM
We tied a record today - 2098 days since the last manned space launch from US Soil. : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/638127/we_tied_a_record_today_2098_days_since_the_last/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 03, 2017, 10:21 PM
 :( not a good record to break lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 05, 2017, 07:14 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 06, 2017, 01:29 AM
Gosh darnit.

I saw this image a couple days ago
(http://i.imgur.com/2ARxRVL.jpg)
And it looked so much like Colorado but I googled it and the event was in California.

Then this morning I enjoyed reading all the news out of the event both from SpaceX and Blue Origin. Then I noticed the name of the event was different than the one I was told earlier.

...yup it was Colorado Springs. I could have gone and saw rocket stuff in person  :P . Same thing happened last year lol.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 07, 2017, 04:15 AM
Pretty interesting

NASA finally sets goals, missions for SLS - eyes multi-step plan to Mars | NASASpaceFlight.com (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 12, 2017, 03:04 AM
 the star that keeps making the news lol

NeoGAF - View Single Post -  Star exhibits strange light patterns which could be a sign of alien activity (http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=233770128)

Quote
So... it just got weirder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlQc7XYxmkhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02535
 A group of astronomers looked for signs of intelligent life on over 5600 stars close to our planet. More precisely, they looked for sources of laser light that couldn't be produced naturally.
 While there was no actual positive sign for any of the targets, they got some potentially 'false positives', and guess which star showed up... yup.
 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 12, 2017, 01:18 PM
"swamp lasers".
Lol.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 13, 2017, 04:38 AM
Incredible view. Seems super dangerous at this view.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 13, 2017, 04:46 AM
dang thats pretty close for someone to stand..
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 13, 2017, 05:56 PM


A few minutes till the water talk.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 05, 2017, 01:04 AM



foudn randomly while on youtube,  live deep sea rover in the pacific with sciency people explaining everything(marine biologist? lol)

alot of sea urchins, some octopus eggs,  lol they are like 1.6km deep
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 08, 2017, 12:34 AM


Returned to Earth today.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 09, 2017, 02:25 AM
I Can't wait for self driving cars. It'll be so fun to have all that extra time.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2017, 12:06 AM
https://yesweareactuallysendingachickensandwichto.space/ (https://yesweareactuallysendingachickensandwichto.space/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on May 15, 2017, 01:12 PM
I Can't wait for self driving cars. It'll be so fun to have all that extra time.
Same! I don't see the point in learning to drive with how close they are now.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 15, 2017, 01:25 PM
Same! I don't see the point in learning to drive with how close they are now.
If self driving cars turn evil, we will have to learn how to drive once more.  
The war hasn't begun yet, but we must be ready.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on May 15, 2017, 01:44 PM
If self driving cars turn evil, we will have to learn how to drive once more.  
The war hasn't begun yet, but we must be ready.  
I'd trust evil self driving cars more than humans
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2017, 03:02 PM
Same! I don't see the point in learning to drive with how close they are now.
It'll be a long time before you can be in the driver's seat without a license. If something goes wrong, you're considered responsible.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on May 15, 2017, 04:44 PM
It'll be a long time before you can be in the driver's seat without a license. If something goes wrong, you're considered responsible.
I thought they were already pushing for the cars to be recognised as drivers on their own
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2017, 04:58 PM
I thought they were already pushing for the cars to be recognised as drivers on their own
That requires changes to laws and those are always slow, at least on our side of the pond.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on May 15, 2017, 05:02 PM
That requires changes to laws and those are always slow, at least on our side of the pond.
Yeah I know that but I thought that they're working on those laws right now. I know the UK government has just invested a large amount of money into driverless cars, I'd wager they'll want to push the laws through sooner rather than later if they can.

Also I'm not actually planning on not learning to drive because I'm waiting for driverless cars, I just have no reason to learn with being at Uni for the next 3 years and not being able to afford a car or insurance anyway. I think I'm gonna consider it in a couple of years and see if I think its worth it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 15, 2017, 05:15 PM
Yeah I know that but I thought that they're working on those laws right now. I know the UK government has just invested a large amount of money into driverless cars, I'd wager they'll want to push the laws through sooner rather than later if they can.

Also I'm not actually planning on not learning to drive because I'm waiting for driverless cars, I just have no reason to learn with being at Uni for the next 3 years and not being able to afford a car or insurance anyway. I think I'm gonna consider it in a couple of years and see if I think its worth it.
In America practically everyone who can afford a self driving car will already have a driver's license. Even if our government was investing in the cars, it wouldn't be a large priority to remove the license restriction.

I think seniors will be the driving push for making self driving cars not need a licensed driver at the seat. That'll take a decade though.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Mmm_fish_tacos on May 16, 2017, 02:35 AM
Same! I don't see the point in learning to drive with how close they are now.
Not that close even further away if you wanted Envision it like the movies.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on May 18, 2017, 01:12 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 31, 2017, 05:28 PM
There are languages that have absolute direction.  Instead of left/right, they need to know exactly what direction they are looking at all times.  Their brain takes care of this for them.  

It'd be cool if there were languages that knew exact colors.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 31, 2017, 05:53 PM
There are languages that have absolute direction.  Instead of left/right, they need to know exactly what direction they are looking at all times.  Their brain takes care of this for them.  

It'd be cool if there were languages that knew exact colors.  

Yeah that's a fun thing to learn about. Languages are crazy.



No such thing as exact colors in natural language though. Often it's the opposite. Languages "start" with just three colors: lightish, darkish, and redish. Everything fits as a variant of one of the three and they don't think any others would make sense.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 31, 2017, 06:26 PM
Yeah that's a fun thing to learn about. Languages are crazy.



No such thing as exact colors in natural language though. Often it's the opposite. Languages "start" with just three colors: lightish, darkish, and redish. Everything fits as a variant of one of the three and they don't think any others would make sense.

I believe there have been studies about how language affects how we view the world, at least this specific example:
 Spanish speakers pick up what an object is before it's color, and English speakers are the opposite.  I don't know how true it is.  

Languages obviously teach people to discriminate between colors.  
English - red/pink
Russian - light blue/dark blue

It'd be kind of cool if there was some sort of like maximum point of discrimination where someone could back track any color to a wavelength or something crazy like that.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 31, 2017, 06:41 PM
I believe there have been studies about how language affects how we view the world, at least this specific example:
 Spanish speakers pick up what an object is before it's color, and English speakers are the opposite.  I don't know how true it is.  

Languages obviously teach people to discriminate between colors.  
English - red/pink
Russian - light blue/dark blue

It'd be kind of cool if there was some sort of like maximum point of discrimination where someone could back track any color to a wavelength or something crazy like that.  
Yeah it also changes how we classify things.

In English size tends to be the primary one while in pacific languages they tend to go by material.

A maximum point would be fun for a modern constructed language. Would also be helpful for optimizing which colors need higher precision in images and which could be lower without being noticed.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 31, 2017, 07:29 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 01, 2017, 05:38 AM
When this post is 1 hour old NASA will do a press conference to inform the public about a new mission to fly through the sun's atmosphere for the first time : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6ef500/when_this_post_is_1_hour_old_nasa_will_do_a_press/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 05, 2017, 01:02 AM
Spoiler for Large GIF:
(http://i.imgur.com/pIOD7CJ.gif)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 05, 2017, 04:03 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 05, 2017, 05:49 PM
Mystery of the "Wow!" signal solved - it was just a comet and/or hydrogen cloud. : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6fd31s/mystery_of_the_wow_signal_solved_it_was_just_a/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 10, 2017, 12:23 AM
(http://cdn.hiconsumption.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Mars-Rover-0.jpg)
 

mars rover concept lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 10, 2017, 12:31 AM
Yeah it's a stupid fake designed to inspire people.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jun 10, 2017, 02:18 AM
Yeah it's a stupid fake designed to inspire people.
:o  I felt inspired before you said that!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 21, 2017, 03:43 AM
Jeff Bezos dons sunglasses, says look at my big rocket factory | Ars Technica (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/blue-origins-new-rocket-factory-in-florida-is-pretty-big/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 10, 2017, 05:11 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/D49OLoQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 14, 2017, 02:12 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 20, 2017, 05:12 AM
So sci fi looking

(http://i.imgur.com/ycVab1X.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 29, 2017, 07:48 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 12, 2017, 10:20 PM


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 19, 2017, 12:53 AM


Lots of software problems.  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 19, 2017, 11:05 AM
(I didn't watch the video)
In my software engineering course, there was a rocket failure because one team was using SI units and the other team wasn't. So they had some unit mis-conversions.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 28, 2017, 09:56 PM
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope Launch Delayed to 2019 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/telescopes/news/a28431/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-launch-delayed-2019/)

lame
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 06, 2017, 03:04 PM
Blue Origin has pushed back their space tourism plans to 2019. Was 2018. Also seems like they're taking longer on their BE 4 engine than expected. That's not a significant problem for Blue Origin since they can take as long as they want, but it's really troubling for ULA.

ULA's next gen rocket Vulcan is wanting to use BE 4 engines but they have a different engine design as backup. Vulcan is supposed to fly in 2019 and replace the company's current rocket so there's a lot of pressure to get it launched as quick as possible. If Blue Origin can't get the engine working in time, then ULA will have to go with the backup engine which has worse performance.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 14, 2017, 04:31 PM
ULA could dominate the launch market if they re-design the vulcan first stage to land like the Falcon 9.

The ACES second stage on vulcan is designed as a space tug with in orbit refilling. ULA already plans to launch heavy payloads to LEO and use a second vulcan to launch and refill the first ACES, almost exactly like the spacex BFR.

Unlike BFR though, ACES has a low dry mass and can send much heavier payloads to direct GEO. Outside of cost, Vulcan with ACES is a stronger launch system outside LEO.

But costs could be greatly improved if the vulcan first stage was fully reusable. The current plan is to only reuse the engines, but I hope that changes.

A vulcan could launch ACES+payload to space and then land. ACES could do its thing and then come back to a LEO parking orbit. After a few launches, a group of these could be picked up by a BFR and returned to Earth.

Would be super cool and work well. Even if vulcan doesn't land, picking up older ACES by BFR would be smart. It's crazy to think that cislunar 1000 and such might be happening in 10 years.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 18, 2017, 05:23 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 19, 2017, 07:29 PM

About time!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 20, 2017, 03:01 AM
BE-4 test was at 50% power for 3 seconds. That is somewhat comparable to the raptor test SpaceX did a year ago, so it'll be interesting to see how fast they progress since their engine is already full sized.

Also for a much much longer engine test:

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 27, 2017, 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 29, 2017, 06:55 PM
(https://i.redd.it/av648drvnduz.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 30, 2017, 07:56 PM
Finally a book that understands my need to teach babies advanced physics!

General Relativity for Babies (Baby University): Chris Ferrie: 9781492656265: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Babies-Baby-University/dp/1492656267/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3KNVBCV4GPZPDGW8R690)

In fact there are many of them:
Optical Physics for Babies (Baby University): Chris Ferrie: 0760789267581: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Optical-Physics-Babies-Baby-University/dp/1492656216/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=RQ15S715BXFPGYG7MA6W)
Newtonian Physics for Babies (Baby University): Chris Ferrie: 9781492656203: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Newtonian-Physics-Babies-Baby-University/dp/1492656208/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0GXGZMZ64HRQNY31RA3Z)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 07, 2017, 12:16 AM
I saw my first iridium flare. That was cool.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 12, 2017, 03:35 AM


edt: aborted
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 13, 2017, 05:41 AM


Not the best video, but nice to see them have another launch.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 13, 2017, 10:07 PM


Not the best video, but nice to see them have another launch.
lol just posted this in the spacex thread.. maybe we should just have a space flight general ot lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 13, 2017, 10:12 PM
lol just posted this in the spacex thread.. maybe we should just have a space flight general ot lol
I consider this the space flight general lol. Have you seen my past dozen posts here?  ::)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Dec 13, 2017, 10:38 PM
I consider this the space flight general lol. Have you seen my past dozen posts here?  ::)
nah i dont look in here very often lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 15, 2017, 01:16 AM
nah i dont look in here very often lol


Another space video!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 26, 2017, 11:33 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/PIA20041-Asteroid-2015TB145-Animation-20151030.gif)


Yahoo finance wrote an article about this coming near Earth.  Looks vaguely skullish.  

Also this was a pain to post here. My phone autocorrected the tags to I'm going.  :p
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Dec 26, 2017, 03:48 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/PIA20041-Asteroid-2015TB145-Animation-20151030.gif)


Yahoo finance wrote an article about this coming near Earth.  Looks vaguely skullish.  

Also this was a pain to post here. My phone autocorrected the tags to I'm going.  :p
Yeah that was two years ago on halloween. Really fun timing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Dec 26, 2017, 04:01 PM
Yeah that was two years ago on halloween. Really fun timing.
November 2018 is the next approach.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jan 19, 2018, 11:00 PM
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=35220.0;attach=1470595;image)
nasa engine test causes rocket rain lol
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 20, 2018, 08:08 PM
ToryBruno comments on This subreddit rn (https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/7rjhhv/this_subreddit_rn/dsz01ln/)

He's the ceo of ula  8)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 21, 2018, 04:24 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 07, 2018, 10:13 PM
"Did you know: The Sun is the brightest star by apparent visual magnitude (V = −26.74). wikipedia.org"

Who'd a thunk it?  Thanks Google.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 07, 2018, 10:28 PM
"Did you know: The Sun is the brightest star by apparent visual magnitude (V = −26.74). wikipedia.org"

Who'd a thunk it?  Thanks Google.
Well most people don't even know the sun is star so...
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 07, 2018, 10:55 PM
Well most people don't even know the sun is star so...
Good point....  
People, I tell ya'.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 28, 2018, 03:56 AM
https://www.space.com/39815-hubble-suggests-universe-expanding-faster-study.html?utm_source=notification#undefined.sfju

(https://i.imgur.com/Kt83RdE.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 06, 2018, 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 09:14 PM
Doing math in math class:
"huh?  You can't just assume 2+2=4.  You have to show that it's true, first!"
 
Doing math in Physics class:
"You should have assumed that f(x) has the following form, to show that [f(x),Af(x)] is equal to [Af(x),f(x)]"
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 22, 2018, 09:27 PM
Doing math in math class:
"huh?  You can't just assume 2+2=4.  You have to show that it's true, first!"
 
Doing math in Physics class:
"You should have assumed that f(x) has the following form, to show that [f(x),Af(x)] is equal to [Af(x),f(x)]"
Which is why pure maths is dumb.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 09:29 PM
Which is why pure maths is dumb.
I like pure math.   :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 22, 2018, 09:39 PM
I like pure math.   :(
We can't be friends anymore
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 09:44 PM
We can't be friends anymore
That's because we're best friends.  :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2018, 09:52 PM
I like pure math.   :(

I love the puzzle of it. It's really fun developing your own solutions and methods (even if they were already discovered hundreds of years ago)

Which is why pure maths is dumb.
Lots of people make it dumb but the concept is awesome!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 22, 2018, 09:54 PM
I love the puzzle of it. It's really fun developing your own solutions and methods (even if they were already discovered hundreds of years ago)
Lots of people make it dumb but the concept is awesome!
Nope. Why try and prove something which everyone knows is true already, and has been proven by other people before in the same/ different ways. Its a complete waste of time. Its only useful if its proving/ discovering something new, but I doubt that's ever going to happen again with pure maths, for anything really significant anyway.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 10:11 PM
I love the puzzle of it. It's really fun developing your own solutions and methods (even if they were already discovered hundreds of years ago)
There's all kinds of puzzles, and weird patterns. And you have to solve the puzzle of why those patterns exist.
Plus, you can build stuff!  

Nope. Why try and prove something which everyone knows is true already, and has been proven by other people before in the same/ different ways. Its a complete waste of time. Its only useful if its proving/ discovering something new, but I doubt that's ever going to happen again with pure maths, for anything really significant anyway.
(https://www.socialtalent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Craziest-Things-Ever-Said-To-Bosses-6.gif)

For realsies, there's a lot of big new math discoveries!  Fermat's last theorem was only discovered in 1994.  The poincare' conjecture was also proven in 2006.

There are lots of big math problems like Riemann's hypothesis, P vs NP, etc; that still need solving.  

Math is all about puzzles.  Some of those puzzles have huge implications for things like physics, computer science.  Some of them are just interesting in their own right.  

Some of them are interesting in their own right, then 50 years later we find out they have applications in other fields.  

Making connections is fun, regardless of who did it before you.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 22, 2018, 10:15 PM
There's all kinds of puzzles, and weird patterns. And you have to solve the puzzle of why those patterns exist.
Plus, you can build stuff!  
(https://www.socialtalent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Craziest-Things-Ever-Said-To-Bosses-6.gif)

For realsies, there's a lot of big new math discoveries!  Fermat's last theorem was only discovered in 1994.  The poincare' conjecture was also proven in 2006.

There are lots of big math problems like Riemann's hypothesis, P vs NP, etc; that still need solving.  

Math is all about puzzles.  Some of those puzzles have huge implications for things like physics, computer science.  Some of them are just interesting in their own right.  

Some of them are interesting in their own right, then 50 years later we find out they have applications in other fields.  

Making connections is fun, regardless of who did it before you.  
Yeah I know that a lot of it is useful, but I'm talking more about university / college level stuff than cutting edge research.

I just don't like it at all, and its extremely far from being fun.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 10:19 PM
Yeah I know that a lot of it is useful, but I'm talking more about university / college level stuff than cutting edge research.
Well, at that level, the fun is more about the beauty of math.  And seeing how stuff fits together.  

I just don't like it at all, and its extremely far from being fun.
Well, I don't think you've even really done any math I'd consider fun anyways.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 22, 2018, 10:22 PM
Well, at that level, the fun is more about the beauty of math.  And seeing how stuff fits together.  
Well, I don't think you've even really done any math I'd consider fun anyways.  

My maths analysis course last year is the most pure math course I did. It was on set theory, epsilon proofs and stuff like that. I absolutely despised it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 10:27 PM
My maths analysis course last year is the most pure math course I did. It was on set theory, epsilon proofs and stuff like that. I absolutely despised it.
That's because analysis is a terrible class.  For the most part.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 22, 2018, 10:55 PM
My two favorite math classes have been Number theory and abstract algebra.  

Abstract was about all kinds of random math problems.  That class was more about figuring stuff out than applying anything.  One math problem we did was figure out how many configurations were possible in a 2x2x1 (not sure what the official name for it is, but it was Rubik's cuby)

Number Theory feels like a legitimate math class.  It is all about proofs, but the proofs actually mean something.  And the coolest part of the class is that our proofs build on earlier proofs.  So it feels like we are making progressions into math.  
It's also neat because it is all about familiar objects like 1,2,3, etc.  

Some of my other classes that should have been cool, felt like they got bogged down into abstract details or they were all about applying the same things over and over.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2018, 11:30 PM
(not sure what the official name for it is, but it was Rubik's cuby)
2x2 floppy cube. Solves itself as you scramble.

Outside of calculus, all my higher math has been self taught so I pretty much only know about stuff that I find interesting or is from Numberphile (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoxcjq-8xIDTYp3uz647V5A) :P


This channel is also great
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 23, 2018, 12:10 AM
I've seen that channel.
Learning that way is the best way to learn fun math.  Most teachers don't do anything fun.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 23, 2018, 12:21 AM
Numberphile is pretty cool. I've seen a few videos of their's and enjoyed them.

I do love calculus quite a lot, but outside of that I don't particularly like maths. I guess some algebra and geometry is fun too.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 23, 2018, 12:29 AM
Numberphile is pretty cool. I've seen a few videos of their's and enjoyed them.

I do love calculus quite a lot, but outside of that I don't particularly like maths. I guess some algebra and geometry is fun too.
See you do enjoy math.  You liar.   >:(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 23, 2018, 12:49 AM
See you do enjoy math.  You liar.   >:(
I do! Just not pure math :P
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 23, 2018, 01:02 AM
I do! Just not pure math :P
Eh, I'd argue that pure math doesn't really exist the way some people think of it.  
It's just some people think their math is more important because it has practical applications.  

But "pure" math also has a lot of applications itself.  

Mathematicians in "pure maths" and "applied maths" use plenty of the other.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Mar 23, 2018, 01:09 AM
Eh, I'd argue that pure math doesn't really exist the way some people think of it.  
It's just some people think their math is more important because it has practical applications.  

But "pure" math also has a lot of applications itself.  

Mathematicians in "pure maths" and "applied maths" use plenty of the other.  
I'm not arguing about importance or anything. Its just the maths that you'd generally call 'pure maths' I usually don't like/hate, and the maths you'd generally call 'applied maths' I usually love. Plus applied maths has a lot more interesting applications in physics.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 23, 2018, 01:15 AM
I'm not arguing about importance or anything. Its just the maths that you'd generally call 'pure maths' I usually don't like/hate, and the maths you'd generally call 'applied maths' I usually love. Plus applied maths has a lot more interesting applications in physics.
I think it's cool that lots of applied math started out as pure math.

It's like half the puzzle is finding new math, and the other half is finding that math in nature.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 23, 2018, 01:20 AM
I think it's cool that lots of applied math started out as pure math.

It's like half the puzzle is finding new math, and the other half is finding that math in nature.
Yeah, pure math is just applied math that hasn't found its purpose yet!

But even a lot of pure math is used in some CS fields.  Mostly security....  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 28, 2018, 02:17 AM
4x4 determinants make me hate math.  

The two bottom rows were all functions.  One row looked like e^(ika-ib) for every function.  The other looked like (ika-ib)e^(ika-ib) for every function.  

There were also no 0's anywhere.  

I filled up like 2 pieces of paper, front and back of both.  Made a mistake, and had no time to fix it.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 28, 2018, 02:32 AM
4x4 determinants make me hate math.  

The two bottom rows were all functions.  One row looked like e^(ika-ib) for every function.  The other looked like (ika-ib)e^(ika-ib) for every function.  

There were also no 0's anywhere.  

I filled up like 2 pieces of paper, front and back of both.  Made a mistake, and had no time to fix it.  
Yeah haha they suck. I was programing my own 4x4 class the other day and ended up saving time by creating a little loop that'd output the formula with my variables. Would have sucked to have had to type it out, and yet that'd be trivial compared to doing calculations on paper like you did.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 28, 2018, 11:30 PM
I really like my number theory class though.  

The big thing in a lot of the class is modulus.  

So like 7=2(mod 5)
Basically it looks at the remainder of what's left after dividing.  It's this: %
But it has a ton of really useful properties and connections with prime numbers.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 29, 2018, 12:15 AM
I really like my number theory class though.  

The big thing in a lot of the class is modulus.  

So like 7=2(mod 5)
Basically it looks at the remainder of what's left after dividing.  It's this: %
But it has a ton of really useful properties and connections with prime numbers.  
So useful in programing too.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 11, 2018, 05:26 PM
I am doing an assignment for QM and have to give 3 reasons why electron classically spinning doesn't make sense. 

I've looked through like 20 books, as it's supposed to be cited.  Like 10 of them don't give a reason, 8 of them give the reason and it's an awesome reason, and the other 2 give another reason and it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. 

No third reason anywhere. 

It's also kind of annoying to see the same few lines in every book. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 11, 2018, 05:49 PM
I am doing an assignment for QM and have to give 3 reasons why electron classically spinning doesn't make sense.  

I've looked through like 20 books, as it's supposed to be cited.  Like 10 of them don't give a reason, 8 of them give the reason and it's an awesome reason, and the other 2 give another reason and it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.  

No third reason anywhere.  

It's also kind of annoying to see the same few lines in every book.  
Is it because electrons are fundamental particles and as such can't have a forward defined? Or can fundamental particles have a non uniform shape/property?

That's weird that the books would use the same lines but I guess it makes sense. Probably all just rephrasing the same original source.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 11, 2018, 06:11 PM
Is it because electrons are fundamental particles and as such can't have a forward defined? Or can fundamental particles have a non uniform shape/property?
Some books will simply say it is a point particle and therefore spinning doesn't make much sense; which I think in a sense fits your explanation.  

But if we were to imagine the electron were able to spin classically, what would the velocity have to be on the equator?  

The answer is that even with the biggest radius the electron could have, the electron has to be spinning much much faster than the speed of light.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 25, 2018, 12:04 AM
http://qr.ae/TU1dqj
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 24, 2018, 07:36 PM
The US military released a study on time travel and warp drives — here’s what a theoretical physicist thinks of it: there's "zero chance that anyone within our lifetimes or the next 1,000 years" will see it happen. : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/8lseut/the_us_military_released_a_study_on_time_travel/)

People love the concept of ftl and time travel just too dang much. Almost shocking how in denial people are that it's probably impossible.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 26, 2018, 06:27 PM
Alan Bean, Apollo Moonwalker and Artist, Dies at 86 (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=52625)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jun 07, 2018, 07:31 PM
NASA's Curiosity rover finds organic matter on Mars - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/us/nasa-mars-curiosity-rover-findings/index.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 07, 2018, 07:39 PM
NASA's Curiosity rover finds organic matter on Mars - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/us/nasa-mars-curiosity-rover-findings/index.html)
That's pretty awesome. More and more it's looking like Mars could have had life.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jun 07, 2018, 07:56 PM
NASA's Curiosity rover finds organic matter on Mars - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/us/nasa-mars-curiosity-rover-findings/index.html)
Ooh nice.

It'd be crazy if we found out that Mars was just like Earth millions of years ago but all life died out for some reason.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: NeverDies on Jun 08, 2018, 02:23 AM
 I wonder how sensationalized this article is. Would a NASA scientist view this as pretty routine, or is it extremely unusual?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 09, 2018, 02:37 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 10, 2018, 01:22 AM
Scientists find new solar systems with planets the same size as ours using Nasa telescope | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/new-earth-nasa-exoplanet-solar-system-discovery-announcement-latest-a8390421.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 16, 2018, 02:24 PM
NASA may have accidentally burned evidence of Martian life in 1970s (https://amp.businessinsider.com/nasa-accidentally-burned-evidence-of-life-on-mars-almost-50-years-ago-2018-7)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Jul 25, 2018, 02:33 PM
just saw cnn on facebook reporting liquid water lake unde mars polar ice cap

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/world/mars-subsurface-water-lake-evidence/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-07-25T14%3A08%3A14&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_term=link
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Jul 25, 2018, 04:09 PM
just saw cnn on facebook reporting liquid water lake unde mars polar ice cap

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/world/mars-subsurface-water-lake-evidence/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-07-25T14%3A08%3A14&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_term=link
Just was looking at this on ERA. fudgy rad!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 25, 2018, 04:41 PM
Just was looking at this on ERA. fudgy rad!
Eh it's not that crazy  ::) Mars has been known to have water ice for years and in general any liquid water is too salty to be a super likely home for alien life. Also it might not even be true. The last time liquid water was announced it ended up being a false discovery.

But it's still super awesome since it gets people excited.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Jul 25, 2018, 09:00 PM
Eh it's not that crazy  ::) Mars has been known to have water ice for years and in general any liquid water is too salty to be a super likely home for alien life. Also it might not even be true. The last time liquid water was announced it ended up being a false discovery.

But it's still super awesome since it gets people excited.
You're super salty!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Kerotan on Jul 25, 2018, 11:34 PM
I wonder if earth will also look like Mars in a billion years.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 26, 2018, 12:01 AM
I wonder if earth will also look like Mars in a billion years.
Depends if we destroy ourselves with nukes like the Martians did ;)

Eh it's not that crazy  ::) Mars has been known to have water ice for years and in general any liquid water is too salty to be a super likely home for alien life. Also it might not even be true. The last time liquid water was announced it ended up being a false discovery.

But it's still super awesome since it gets people excited.
Water appearing in more places is still great, even if there's no life potential in those places. It just shows more and more how impossibly unlikely it is that we are alone.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 26, 2018, 01:12 AM
Depends if we destroy ourselves with nukes like the Martians did ;)
Water appearing in more places is still great, even if there's no life potential in those places. It just shows more and more how impossibly unlikely it is that we are alone.
Water is everywhere. Europa has more liquid water than Earth even.

If anything it shows that water isn't what we should think about when looking for aliens.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 01, 2018, 03:36 AM
I just saw Saturn through a telescope for the first time. Looked about like this:
(http://www.deepskywatch.com/images/articles/see-in-telescope/saturn-in-small-scope-n.jpg)

Crazy awesome to see the rings!!! It just feels so "real" and alien.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 03, 2018, 02:45 AM
(https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37969480_10155510973656700_2223768752577576960_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=cd86d0ee9fbe51b7a48099108c6daace&oe=5BC98425)

Showed my gf the ISS the other day.  even with the extreme light polution my phone managed to grab it no problem
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 03, 2018, 03:02 AM
(https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37969480_10155510973656700_2223768752577576960_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=cd86d0ee9fbe51b7a48099108c6daace&oe=5BC98425)

Showed my gf the ISS the other day.  even with the extreme light polution my phone managed to grab it no problem
ISS can be so freaking bright at times. I get a text from NASA when it'll be passing over with good visibility and it's always fun.

Have you seen an Iridium flare yet?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Aug 03, 2018, 03:10 AM
ISS can be so freaking bright at times. I get a text from NASA when it'll be passing over with good visibility and it's always fun.

Have you seen an Iridium flare yet?
Nope, Thats one phenomenon i would love to see.  but dont get out enough to really look.  i wanna move close to my work, and closer to a "night park"  our city has thats tucked between mountains and reserved for star gazing etc.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 03, 2018, 05:54 AM
Nope, Thats one phenomenon i would love to see.  but dont get out enough to really look.  i wanna move close to my work, and closer to a "night park"  our city has thats tucked between mountains and reserved for star gazing etc.
You need to use an app for Iridium flares since they're so rare yet highly predictable. There's a big piece of reflective metal on the old Iridium satellites and the "flare" is when they reflect the sun directly towards your location on the ground. I've only seen one and tbh it wasn't that amazing but it was still pretty cool and brighter than the ISS.

It's so crazy awesome being in really dark places. I really want to start taking my telescope when I go camping.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 08, 2018, 07:27 PM
(https://i.redd.it/rk91l0qu4we11.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 10, 2018, 06:28 PM
The opportunity rover on Mars might be dead. Thought y'all might be interested in that.

Hopefully it has survived though. Only time will tell.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 22, 2018, 11:06 PM
Bones of ancient teenage girl reveal a Neanderthal mother and Denisovan father, providing genetic proof ancient hominins mated across species. : science (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/99f4ia/bones_of_ancient_teenage_girl_reveal_a/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 31, 2018, 01:40 AM
I was thinking about planck length and how since it's the smallest unit possible, it'd have to define a universal reference point. Then I went to Wikipedia and found out it's a common misconception and planck length isn't the smallest unit.

TIL
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 31, 2018, 01:54 AM
I was thinking about planck length and how since it's the smallest unit possible, it'd have to define a universal reference point.
Why would that follow?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 31, 2018, 02:04 AM
Why would that follow?
Because then the world would have to be "voxel" like and objects would have to bounce from spot to spot. This fundamental grid would be defined with its own default velocity.



Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 31, 2018, 02:57 AM
Because then the world would have to be "voxel" like and objects would have to bounce from spot to spot. This fundamental grid would be defined with its own default velocity.




I see what you mean .
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 31, 2018, 03:14 AM
I see what you mean .
I watched this a while ago



The stuff beyond the first person seemed so crackpotty but that led me to thinking about the world as a voxel engine and thus my original thought.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Kerotan on Aug 31, 2018, 04:45 AM
I went to the space exhibition in Moscow this summer. Very interesting to see the space race from the other side of the coin. Fascinating trip.

They had these young female workers walking around watching you as if you were some sort of cia or mi5 spy lol. Thought that was funny.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 09, 2018, 11:03 PM

Bill gates showing how much data fits on a CD - 1994 .
(https://i.redditmedia.com/W-gTh_qIhhbohaTnr3LTtvn1PvbJ95GcDO5T0XUo94c.jpg?s=145cad8f8911effdae76812d280072de)

Reddit - pics - Bill Gates illustrating the storage capacity of a CD, 1994 (https://amp.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5wad65/bill_gates_illustrating_the_storage_capacity_of_a/)

Quote
Each piece of paper is about 2000 bytes. 1 tb contains 1e+12 bites bytes of data. 1 trillion divided by 2000 is about 500 million, so 1tb would be about 500 million piece of paper.

Your average piece of paper is about .1mm thick. That means your stack of paper is about 500,000 meters tall. (1640419.95 feet for us freedom lovers). Thats 310 miles tall.

In comparison the ISS is only about 249 miles tall high. But since he's got two stacks of paper, he's only going up about 160 miles. He couldn't breathe and would need a space suit.

His tower would cost a lot. A sheet of paper is about 6 cents. That means for his 500 million sheets its gonna cost about 30 million dollars, however, that pales in comparison to his 85.7 billion net worth. (In fact, its only 0.035 percent of his net worth.)

The tower would also weigh a lot. Each sheet of paper weighs about .16 ounces, making the tower weigh 80 million ounces. Thats 5 million pounds, or about 108 fully loaded 747s. Even more surprising, that surpasses how much OPs mom weighs by about 1 million pounds

edit:

Some disagree on the price. This was the first thing that popped up on google when I searched for price of a piece of paper. On second glance, it appears that it might be including the cost of the ink. (Going off of price of wasted page.) Given that the point of the drive is to store the text, when that text would have to be printed, I think the number is still right; but it includes ink.

Byte was spelled as bite a few times, this has been fixed.

Yes, the ISS is 249 miles high, not tall. (Just like r/trees)

edit #2:

I fat fingered the weight of a 747 when typing into calculator. We are looking at closer to 5 fully loaded 747s.

As some have pointed out there may have been another fat fingering in the 10s place for the weight. working on that right now

edit #3:

There was fat fingering on the weight/height. I am off by a factor of 10. Stack is only 50,000 meters (31 miles) tall, and only weighs 500,000 pounds. The stack only weighs half of a 747, but is still taller than mount everest, the heights your airliner flys at, and pretty much everything that isn't the ISS or a satellite. You would still need a space suit

edit #4:

More fat fingering being done here than OPs mom in an orgy
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 09, 2018, 11:46 PM
I always love thinking about how mundane things today would be impossible even for kings a few generations ago.


Thinking about this, could every single word ever written on paper in history fit on a smartphone? It'd need to be compressed heavily.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 10, 2018, 12:03 AM
Thinking about this, could every single word ever written on paper in history fit on a smartphone? It'd need to be compressed heavily.
I feel like this is really difficult to quantify.  

Would that include different copies of the same book?
Even if no, would that include different versions of the same book?

Would that include notebooks?
If yes, would that include what would essentially be different versions of the same notebook?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 10, 2018, 01:42 AM
I feel like this is really difficult to quantify.  

Would that include different copies of the same book?
Even if no, would that include different versions of the same book?

Would that include notebooks?
If yes, would that include what would essentially be different versions of the same notebook?
Did some math.


For each text or group of texts, do regular text compression but per word instead of per letter. That could get it down to 1 or 2 bytes per word on average. Then say an average book is 100,000 words and google says 130,000,000 books have been written. It'd take terabytes at least to store everything.

So for modern smart phones it's a no, but in a generation or two it might be possible.


Copies don't really matter as long as you can compress them off the original.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 10, 2018, 04:39 AM
How many Planets are there in the Solar System :: The Planets Today (https://www.theplanetstoday.com/how_many_planets_are_in_the_solar_system.html)

(https://www.theplanetstoday.com/images/number_of_solar_system_planets_history_graph.jpg)

I knew about Ceres but I had no idea that so many other bodies were thought of as planets. Wonder if it'll bump back up in the near future with the potential planet past Pluto.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 26, 2018, 07:18 AM
Silent Opportunity Mars Rover Spotted from Space (Photo) (https://www.space.com/41932-mars-rover-opportunity-mro-photo.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: nnodley on Sep 26, 2018, 03:40 PM
How many Planets are there in the Solar System :: The Planets Today (https://www.theplanetstoday.com/how_many_planets_are_in_the_solar_system.html)

(https://www.theplanetstoday.com/images/number_of_solar_system_planets_history_graph.jpg)

I knew about Ceres but I had no idea that so many other bodies were thought of as planets. Wonder if it'll bump back up in the near future with the potential planet past Pluto.
dang that's a pretty cool simulation of the movements of the planets.  Funny seeing how slow the outer planets are compared to the inner one.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 04, 2018, 05:28 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 24, 2018, 02:36 PM


I should make a math thread.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Oct 24, 2018, 04:48 PM
I was thinking about planck length and how since it's the smallest unit possible, it'd have to define a universal reference point. Then I went to Wikipedia and found out it's a common misconception and planck length isn't the smallest unit.

TIL
I should really click this thread more! As a physics student I cried a little reading this. "smallest unit" really doesn't make any sense. You can always go smaller if you had a way to measure that small.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 24, 2018, 04:54 PM
I should really click this thread more! As a physics student I cried a little reading this. "smallest unit" really doesn't make any sense. You can always go smaller if you had a way to measure that small.
Yeah, but to be fair a lot of small stuff doesn't make any sense. 

Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 24, 2018, 04:56 PM
I should really click this thread more! As a physics student I cried a little reading this. "smallest unit" really doesn't make any sense. You can always go smaller if you had a way to measure that small.
Well it depends on how the universe works. String theory is all about having a fundamental element with nothing smaller than it.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Oct 24, 2018, 05:38 PM
Yeah, but to be fair a lot of small stuff doesn't make any sense.  

Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  
Well it kinda makes sense, in that you can understand the explanation of it... but thinking about the universe actually acting that was is super weird. Small stuff is super odd to be sure.

Well it depends on how the universe works. String theory is all about having a fundamental element with nothing smaller than it.
I really don't know much about string theory. There's a lot of odd theories out there.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 24, 2018, 06:05 PM
Well it depends on how the universe works. String theory is all about having a fundamental element with nothing smaller than it.
*Finds out this is also a common misconception*
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 24, 2018, 06:07 PM
Well it kinda makes sense, in that you can understand the explanation of it... but thinking about the universe actually acting that was is super weird. Small stuff is super odd to be sure.
I really don't know much about string theory. There's a lot of odd theories out there.
String theory is in a weird spot. Mathematically it's an awesome theory but so far it hasn't made any predictions that we could test. If it was really how the universe worked, you'd think after all this time it'd at least have some supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 17, 2018, 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 06, 2019, 05:24 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/67P_Churyumov-Gerasimenko_surface.gif)

I love videos like this.

This is from the surface of a comet.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 06, 2019, 06:13 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/67P_Churyumov-Gerasimenko_surface.gif)

I love videos like this.

This is from the surface of a comet.
Surface of a government conspiracy more like.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 12, 2019, 06:05 PM
Quote
It seems more likely to me that the issue is simply that society building organisms are rare, perhaps extremely. We see this on our planet, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of species, trillions of organisms, that we share this planet with and none, but us, carry a lasting multi-generational record of knowledge of any obvious consequence. Human beings have gone beyond being biological organisms and become the cells of an informational organism. A human being left in the woods from birth to death, kept separate and alive would be nothing more than an ape, but when that same animal meets the memetic, infectious organism that is language... that is history, that is society, that's when a human being is born. We envision hive minds in our science fiction as something very alien to us, but isn't it that very nature that makes us alien to other living things? This whole interaction, this very thing you're experiencing right now where a completely seperate member of your species who you have no physical contact with and no knowledge of is creating abstract ideas in your own mind through the clicking of fingers to make symbols, phonemes and words, is immensely weird on the scale of a context that doesn't simply declare anything human normal by default. We can do this because we are connected, not by blood or skin, but by the shared infection of a common language, the grand web of information that is the most immortal part of each of us.

That's not something that has to happen to life, that's not somehow the endpoint of evolution in any meaningful way, and humanity was nearly wiped off the face of the earth several times over before we got to that point. I wouldn't be surprised if billions of planets have developed life that is exactly like the life on earth, sans humanity, creatures that live and die without language and leave no records, no benefit of experience, no trace.

What if advanced aliens haven’t contacted us because we’re one of the last primitive planets in the universe and they’re preserving us like we do the indigenous people? : space (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/af6xvj/comment/edw3y3d)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2019, 06:29 PM
I don't think that's right. Civilizations might be incredibly rare but it's wrong to act like evolution doesn't converge in this direction. Almost every animal on Earth has complicated social interactions with others of the same species. From that point you just need enough intelligence for oral history to occur. It seems like humans are the first to reach this point, but that others have the capacity to reach it too with enough time.


Also if it is right, it's just a long and poetic way to say that society is a great filter.



The fermi paradox is really interesting to me because it just doesn't seem to have a solution given our current understanding of the world.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Pezus on Jan 12, 2019, 08:33 PM
I don't think that's right. Civilizations might be incredibly rare but it's wrong to act like evolution doesn't converge in this direction. Almost every animal on Earth has complicated social interactions with others of the same species. From that point you just need enough intelligence for oral history to occur. It seems like humans are the first to reach this point, but that others have the capacity to reach it too with enough time.


Also if it is right, it's just a long and poetic way to say that society is a great filter.



The fermi paradox is really interesting to me because it just doesn't seem to have a solution given our current understanding of the world.
I've got a present for you from your friend SWORDF1SH:

This is the year,
This is the year,
This is the year,
This is the year you will release a game in Europe for the first time.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 12, 2019, 08:52 PM
I've got a present for you from your friend SWORDF1SH:

This is the year,
This is the year,
This is the year,
This is the year you will release a game in Europe for the first time.
Well I sure hope so.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jan 13, 2019, 03:12 PM
I don't think that's right. Civilizations might be incredibly rare but it's wrong to act like evolution doesn't converge in this direction. Almost every animal on Earth has complicated social interactions with others of the same species. From that point you just need enough intelligence for oral history to occur. It seems like humans are the first to reach this point, but that others have the capacity to reach it too with enough time.


Also if it is right, it's just a long and poetic way to say that society is a great filter.



The fermi paradox is really interesting to me because it just doesn't seem to have a solution given our current understanding of the world.
Finding some fairly intelligent alien life is the one thing I really want to happen in my lifetime. Its gonna be so awesome.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jan 13, 2019, 04:36 PM
I don't think that's right. Civilizations might be incredibly rare but it's wrong to act like evolution doesn't converge in this direction. Almost every animal on Earth has complicated social interactions with others of the same species. From that point you just need enough intelligence for oral history to occur. It seems like humans are the first to reach this point, but that others have the capacity to reach it too with enough time.


Also if it is right, it's just a long and poetic way to say that society is a great filter.



The fermi paradox is really interesting to me because it just doesn't seem to have a solution given our current understanding of the world.
Right.  That's my issue with it.  

We have already had several humanoid species (Neanderthal and some a bit less related).  If the right conditions came along I don't see why we couldn't have had a few at the same time.  

Besides, doesn't really make sense to try applying Earth to the Universe when so far it seems to be a rare exception.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 12, 2019, 02:05 AM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 18, 2019, 11:21 AM
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/opportunity_rover_2x.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 22, 2019, 07:45 PM
Virgin Galactic spaceplane reaches space with first passenger on board - The Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18232354/virgin-galactic-vss-unity-spaceplane-test-spaceflight-passenger-beth-moses)

It's awesome that they are finally ready for paying passengers. Virgin galactic is dorky when they act like they are a rocket company but it is great that space tourism is here.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 23, 2019, 04:39 PM
Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe (https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reveal-dominates-universe.amp?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 23, 2019, 05:08 PM
Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe (https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reveal-dominates-universe.amp?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral)
That's awesome.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 30, 2019, 02:13 AM

   Ghostly galaxy without dark matter confirmed | Astronomy.com
 (http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/03/ghostly-galaxy-without-dark-matter-confirmed)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: DD_Bwest on Apr 10, 2019, 01:58 PM
(https://i-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w1200/s/i.cbc.ca/1.5091836.1554902470!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/1st-image-of-black-hole.jpg)


Surprised this hasnt been posted lol 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-photographed-1.5081243
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Cute Pikachu on Apr 10, 2019, 02:52 PM
dang that is beautiful and terrifying
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 10, 2019, 03:30 PM
(https://i-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w1200/s/i.cbc.ca/1.5091836.1554902470!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/1st-image-of-black-hole.jpg)


Surprised this hasnt been posted lol  
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-photographed-1.5081243
Well I was asleep!

That's pretty cool. Doesn't seem to have all of the visual effects I'd expect. Guess I need to read the article.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Apr 10, 2019, 08:32 PM
So the eye of sauron was a black hole all along.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: darkknightkryta on Apr 11, 2019, 07:46 PM
Funny thing is, we've had pictures of a black hole for a long time:

(https://cdn.eso.org/images/thumb700x/eso1638a.jpg)
Look at them all!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 12, 2019, 02:31 PM
Black Hole picture: Tech bros scour Katie Bouman's Github check-ins to prove she wrote less code than the men on the project | ResetEra (https://www.resetera.com/threads/black-hole-picture-tech-bros-scour-katie-boumans-github-check-ins-to-prove-she-wrote-less-code-than-the-men-on-the-project.111107/)

Quote
I just saw this:


https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularo..._bouman_should_not_be_getting_credit_for_the/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bbykvf/katie_bouman_should_not_be_getting_credit_for_the/)

 This is why we can't have nice things...  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 13, 2019, 01:10 AM
White male scientist slams sexist trolls using his work on black hole project for 'sexist vendetta' against Katie Bouman | TheHill (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/438617-white-male-scientist-slams-sexist-trolls-using-his-work-on-black)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 19, 2019, 05:36 PM
Flat Earthers are pretty nutty:

"If you are coming here and this video triggers you and you feel the urge to defend your belief in gravity and your paradigm, be warned you will be banned, we have heard all the arguments before, parroting mainstream science to us to justify gravity is just going to get you banned."

A flat Earth subreddit basically has a rule that you get banned if you disagree.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 19, 2019, 07:54 PM
We need to hurry up with human space expansion. Earth will be at war with Mars and yet people will still think it's a lie.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 19, 2019, 09:24 PM
We need to hurry up with human space expansion. Earth will be at war with Mars and yet people will still think it's a lie.
Yeah.  :(
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 05, 2019, 02:06 AM
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-mystery-galaxy-dark

Well that was interesting for a while.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 05, 2019, 03:54 PM
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/coordinate_precision_2x.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 15, 2019, 04:19 PM
Someone on Reddit asked why astrology was ridiculous.  Why's it ridiculous that the gravity from a star could have an impact on development?


The gravity being tiny is the obvious answer.  

The force of gravity between Earth and the closest star was bigger than I expected, but even still.  It comes out to a tiny acceleration.  Like less than a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth gives objects on the surface.  

Basically even  if astrology wasn't bunk, it'd still be stupidly useless that it'd basically be bunk again.  

If the gravity from even the closest stars had an effect on development, so would the gravity of some large ships and buildings.  

Haven't done any calculations, but I'd guess that the effect of most stars in astrology would be even less than the effect of small buildings.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Xevross on Jul 15, 2019, 04:42 PM
Someone on Reddit asked why astrology was ridiculous.  Why's it ridiculous that the gravity from a star could have an impact on development?


The gravity being tiny is the obvious answer.  

The force of gravity between Earth and the closest star was bigger than I expected, but even still.  It comes out to a tiny acceleration.  Like less than a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth gives objects on the surface.  

Basically even  if astrology wasn't bunk, it'd still be stupidly useless that it'd basically be bunk again.  

If the gravity from even the closest stars had an effect on development, so would the gravity of some large ships and buildings.  

Haven't done any calculations, but I'd guess that the effect of most stars in astrology would be even less than the effect of small buildings.  
Wait is the supposed 'science' of astrology claimed to be about gravity of the stars? How does that make any sense? I thought it was just spiritual shame.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jul 15, 2019, 05:15 PM
Wait is the supposed 'science' of astrology claimed to be about gravity of the stars?
It's the psuedoscience I've heard of it in the past. The redditor made a similar "why couldn't gravity do such and such".  

Quote
How does that make any sense?
I mean it doesn't make any sense so...

But I always assume they'd say something like gravity in different directions would affect how the brain develops.  

But that'd be just as nonsensical. Maybe even more.  

Quote
I thought it was just spiritual shame.
I'm not sure how common the spiritual vs gravity explanations are.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 15, 2019, 05:15 PM
Someone on Reddit asked why astrology was ridiculous.  Why's it ridiculous that the gravity from a star could have an impact on development?


The gravity being tiny is the obvious answer.  

The force of gravity between Earth and the closest star was bigger than I expected, but even still.  It comes out to a tiny acceleration.  Like less than a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth gives objects on the surface.  

Basically even  if astrology wasn't bunk, it'd still be stupidly useless that it'd basically be bunk again.  

If the gravity from even the closest stars had an effect on development, so would the gravity of some large ships and buildings.  

Haven't done any calculations, but I'd guess that the effect of most stars in astrology would be even less than the effect of small buildings.  
Gravity is super weak compared to other forces but stars and space objects can be just so massive.

I never knew that astrology had a belief that gravity from stars caused it, but another flaw with that view is that the gravity on Earth would not change in a yearly cycle. Earth's orbit is so small that the relative velocities of those stars and our sun would make the year over year pull more varied than the month over month pull.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jul 28, 2019, 11:53 PM
the Comet on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/347565673)

I always like videos like this
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 17, 2019, 02:57 AM
Something that most people don't get is when people are doing research on obvious questions.  

Like questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to, just based off common sense or experiences.

One challenge is that common sense is often super wrong.  The obvious, seemingly clearly correct view can actually be wrong.  


Also just had a weird bug.  Was deleting some new lines and it was deleting characters from a word.  Added a new space and all the characters came back.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 17, 2019, 05:29 AM
Something that most people don't get is when people are doing research on obvious questions.  

Like questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to, just based off common sense or experiences.

One challenge is that common sense is often super wrong.  The obvious, seemingly clearly correct view can actually be wrong.  


Also just had a weird bug.  Was deleting some new lines and it was deleting characters from a word.  Added a new space and all the characters came back.
The worst is that no one wants to fund those uninteresting studies/experiments, especially ones that just set out to replicate old studies. Science only works if everything is checked.

Weird.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 10, 2019, 07:16 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 17, 2019, 01:44 AM
https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-realistic-very-large-spaceship-look-like/answer/Dave-Consiglio (https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-realistic-very-large-spaceship-look-like/answer/Dave-Consiglio)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 17, 2019, 02:37 AM
https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-realistic-very-large-spaceship-look-like/answer/Dave-Consiglio (https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-realistic-very-large-spaceship-look-like/answer/Dave-Consiglio)
Quora tends to have weird answers. That wouldn't work at all.

It takes a lot of energy to launch stuff into space, the person is right that in situ resource utilization is important, but no one argues the resources should be used as is lol. Mine, refine, and manufacture all in space.

A hollowed out asteroid would make a horrible ship. Way too heavy to move and way too fragile. A purpose built ship with heat shields would handle aerobraking so so so much better. The massive asteroid would have no way to control itself in the air and would need to plunge into the thicker lower atmosphere to really slow down. It'd be nearly impossible to end up in a desired orbit. Every real world spaceship needs to fly like a "plane" to control where they go. This video from the sixties shows how it worked with Apollo:



Interestingly enough, SpaceX's BFR was actually designed to enter the Martian atmosphere upside down.

This would allow the rocket to stay in the upper atmosphere longer and bleed off more speed before entering the thick lower atmosphere. Without having this control, the rocket would have too much velocity and would "bounce" off.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Sep 17, 2019, 03:41 AM
Quora tends to have weird answers. That wouldn't work at all.
Quora has a mix of answers from terrible to great.

Quote
It takes a lot of energy to launch stuff into space, the person is right that in situ resource utilization is important, but no one argues the resources should be used as is lol. Mine, refine, and manufacture all in space.

A hollowed out asteroid would make a horrible ship. Way too heavy to move and way too fragile. A purpose built ship with heat shields would handle aerobraking so so so much better. The massive asteroid would have no way to control itself in the air and would need to plunge into the thicker lower atmosphere to really slow down. It'd be nearly impossible to end up in a desired orbit. Every real world spaceship needs to fly like a "plane" to control where they go. This video from the sixties shows how it worked with Apollo:


Interestingly enough, SpaceX's BFR was actually designed to enter the Martian atmosphere upside down.
This would allow the rocket to stay in the upper atmosphere longer and bleed off more speed before entering the thick lower atmosphere. Without having this control, the rocket would have too much velocity and would "bounce" off.


But what if a space ship didn't have to go through an atmosphere?

Spoiler for Hidden:
<br>I don&#39;t think it&#39;d work for other reasons.&nbsp; <br>Wouldn&#39;t be very practical to move for one thing.<br>
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Sep 17, 2019, 05:53 AM
Quora has a mix of answers from terrible to great.
But what if a space ship didn't have to go through an atmosphere?

Spoiler for Hidden:

I don't think it'd work for other reasons.  
Wouldn't be very practical to move for one thing.

Learning about spaceships and atmospheres has been a funny experience for me. First you think all the wings on spaceships in movies are cool cause sci fi, then you think all the wings are dumb cause physics, but then you think they're cool again cause rocket equation. In a super far future universe where rocket fuel works like car fuel alla epstein drive, dumb blocky spaceships make sense. They also make sense for generation ships or crafts with weak but highly efficient engines. For example a ship like this is freaking awesome.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/jamescameronsavatar/images/1/1f/Isv.jpg)
A high powered laser is shot from Earth to propel the ship for the initial journey, making it circumvent the rocket equation. It would make no sense for it to ever enter an atmosphere.

A smaller ship for just our own solar system however all but needs aerobraking.

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/nkeWa.png)

This delta v map (not sure if you've played kerbal space program) shows how much change in velocity is needed to move about the Earth, Moon, and mars. Without aerobraking, it'd take 19.5 km/s of delta v while with aerobraking it only takes 13.1 km/s of delta v. Because the fuel needed to accelerate that extra 6.4 km/s has mass, it takes even more fuel just to bring that extra fuel.

Say we have a rocket that weighs 100 tons when empty that has 100 tons of cargo and engines with a 350 ISP (this is kinda similar to SpaceX's Starship). To have 13.1 km/s of delta v, it needs 8,900 tons of fuel. However to have 19.5 km/s of delta v, it needs a whopping 58,500 tons of fuel. It's goes from insane but maybe possible in the future to ludicrous. Aerobraking can save so much fuel that I can't imagine any rocket with strong enough engines would ignore it. NASA's Mars transfer vehicle can't aerobrake for example because it would get stuck in the planet's gravity well.


Spoiler for Hidden:
<br>I think I like rockets too much.<br><br><div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px"><div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px"><b>Spoiler</b> for <i>Hidden</i>: <input type="button" value="Show" style="width:60px;font-size:10px;margin:0px;padding:0px;" onClick="if (this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display != '') { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = ''; this.value = 'Hide'; } else { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = 'none'; this.value = 'Show'; }"></div><div class="alt2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 6px; border: 1px inset;"><div style="display: none;"><br>Nuclear rocket engines are about as good as we could hope for in any foreseeable future. With an ISP of 1,000, our theoretical single stage rocket would need only 600 tons of fuel with aerobraking to land on Mars. Without it would need 1,300 tons of fuel. Much nicer but still shows how aerobraking is still very important for near term sci fi ships.<br><br>Of course a light weight antimatter drive could do it with just .027 tons of fuel or .04 tons without aerobraking, but if you have a ship with those capabilities then all our notions about space travel are out the winder.<br><br><div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px"><div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px"><b>Spoiler</b> for <i>Hidden</i>: <input type="button" value="Show" style="width:60px;font-size:10px;margin:0px;padding:0px;" onClick="if (this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display != '') { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = ''; this.value = 'Hide'; } else { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = 'none'; this.value = 'Show'; }"></div><div class="alt2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 6px; border: 1px inset;"><div style="display: none;"><br>All this is metric tons.<br></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br>
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 05, 2019, 03:07 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/drggcs/why_do_cosmologists_hypothesize_the_existence_of/f6izyaa/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/drggcs/why_do_cosmologists_hypothesize_the_existence_of/f6izyaa/)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 05, 2019, 06:03 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/drggcs/why_do_cosmologists_hypothesize_the_existence_of/f6izyaa/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/drggcs/why_do_cosmologists_hypothesize_the_existence_of/f6izyaa/)
Their one point about colliding galaxies made me skeptical since planets and stars survive stuff like that but I didn't realize 90% of the galaxy's mass was from hot gass.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Feb 13, 2020, 01:20 AM
Your Phone Charger Is Probably Smarter Than the Apollo Guidance Computer - ExtremeTech (https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/306119-your-phone-charger-is-probably-smarter-than-the-apollo-guidance-computer)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 13, 2020, 03:25 AM
I didn't know newer chargers had brains at all. That's pretty cool.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 05, 2020, 07:41 AM
(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/5/53/sequence-four.png)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 12, 2020, 08:18 PM
Quote
Of course the SI units of length is really not much better except that all the units of length are related by powers of 10. I don't mean to downplay the tremendous advantage of working in consistently in a given base, like base 10. I'm not knocking metric: it's great. But is it really so scientific and sensible to define a meter as:

Quote
the distance that light emitted by a cesium 133 atom transitioning between the two hyperfine levels of its ground state will travel as it vibrates exactly 9,192,631,770 / 299,792,458 times?
A careful study of where these numbers came from would lead us down some very tangled paths, just like the question why there are 63360 inches in a mile.
inches  (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/inches.html)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 01, 2020, 03:02 AM

*Bump*

Would be nice to get back into sciencing.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 01, 2020, 03:42 AM

*Bump*

Would be nice to get back into sciencing.
Before he said what he was going for, I was wondering if he never heard of kinect.

Also wouldn't this fall apart with universe expansion and cmb, unless they all were super funky too?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 04, 2021, 02:31 AM
(https://i.redd.it/7pti96dxb0r61.jpg)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 04, 2021, 05:14 AM
(https://i.redd.it/7pti96dxb0r61.jpg)
Haha you have to have a high IQ to understand this one.

Windows are so crazy.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 04, 2021, 05:28 AM
I've been laughing at my own dumb joke for 15 minutes. Maybe my sense of humor is broken, but I haven't felt this alive in a while.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 14, 2021, 02:25 AM
The universe is so strange.  
What came before?  Is there anything outside of it?  Is there a multiverse?

The universe is so opposite of everything we experience.  Turtles all the way down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down), almost starts to seem like it makes more sense.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 14, 2021, 02:45 AM
The universe is so strange.  
What came before?  Is there anything outside of it?  Is there a multiverse?

The universe is so opposite of everything we experience.  Turtles all the way down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down), almost starts to seem like it makes more sense.  
I've been thinking about that a lot as of late.

The universe is so incredibly young. 14 billion years is peanuts compared to the cosmic scale. It's terrifies me far more than the universe ending.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 14, 2021, 03:01 AM
I've been thinking about that a lot as of late.

The universe is so incredibly young. 14 billion years is peanuts compared to the cosmic scale. It's terrifies me far more than the universe ending.
The past 4 months have been weird.  
For a while I was terrified about the universe ending.  It's terrifying that not only will I be gone, but everything I'm made of, and everything that is made up and the entire universe will eventually decay.  

But the past month or two I've been thinking more about the beginning of the universe.  It doesn't terrify that much.  But when you really stop and think about it, it doesn't make any sense that we are here.  

I know I've said this before.
The existence of the universe is so incompatible with how the universe itself works.  Everything that we know has a beginning, is contained in something.  Unless there are universes all the way down, there must be a universe that isn't contained in anything.  Maybe there are other options like two universes are inside of each other or something, but either way no option makes sense.  
None of it is compatible with our understanding of how our universe works.

It's terrifying, because it almost feels like the universe is a contradiction and we shouldn't exist.  

At the same time, somehow we are here.  It feels like we are some kind of miracle that had a 0% chance of happening.  Makes it feel just a little less terrifying to me.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 10, 2021, 07:04 PM



He's so young. Wow.  :O
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 10, 2021, 07:49 PM



He's so young. Wow.  :O
Like a baby.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 17, 2021, 05:48 PM


Science meme.  8)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 17, 2021, 06:11 PM


Science meme.  8)
Movie science is great. They almost always take something the public has heard about and then apply it in a completely random way. Like how almost everything uses mega space shuttles in the future.

(https://www.iamag.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Prey-Fred-Augis-33-565x1024.jpg)

(Prey is a smart game yet how the heck is this rocket supposed to physically fit together. Why does it have both a payload fairing and a shuttle?)

I love when movies actually do the science though. Like you know the water planet in Interstellar? They really did the math to make 1 hour=7 years, but the movie explains it wrong.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 17, 2021, 06:51 PM
I love when movies actually do the science though. Like you know the water planet in Interstellar? They really did the math to make 1 hour=7 years, but the movie explains it wrong.
Yep, very familiar.

Probably my favorite TV fact ever, is that for an episode of Futurama, the writer actually made a math proof for the plotlines behind one of the episodes.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 17, 2021, 09:20 PM
Yep, very familiar.

Probably my favorite TV fact ever, is that for an episode of Futurama, the writer actually a math proof for the plotlines behind one of the episodes.
I only learned about the interstellar fact recently. I knew about Kip Thorne, but I didn't realize he made the black hole spin as the primary way to induce time dilation.

The futurama one is fun. Could have easily just added an extra machine to swap the bodies back, but instead they did the math.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jan 01, 2022, 03:22 AM
I've been laughing at my own dumb joke for 15 minutes. Maybe my sense of humor is broken, but I haven't felt this alive in a while.
Still find it funny rofl
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 10, 2022, 06:48 PM


Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a bad error about the JWST.  
He claims here that JWST is orbiting at L2 in Earth's shadow and that it protects the instruments from the sun.

JWST is not orbiting at L2, it's orbiting around L2, and is in fact never in Earth's shadow.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 10, 2022, 07:41 PM


Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a bad error about the JWST.  
He claims here that JWST is orbiting at L2 in Earth's shadow and that it protects the instruments from the sun.

JWST is not orbiting at L2, it's orbiting around L2, and is in fact never in Earth's shadow.  
That's a funny mistake to make. The sun shield is probably the most well known element of the telescope at the moment.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 20, 2022, 12:04 AM
I feel like I've been seeing a lot more Neil deGrasse Tyson making more bad takes lately.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Apr 20, 2022, 03:26 AM
I feel like I've been seeing a lot more Neil deGrasse Tyson making more bad takes lately.  
He's run out of things to say, so now his only options are repeats or things not worth saying.

Also if you missed my post on his game:


At least he's not as bad as Noam Chomsky yet.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 10, 2022, 02:29 AM
I always find it a little interesting when people think they understand light.

There are plenty of lighting conditions in real life that don't look the way most people would expect.  

I think people really underestimate how much light bounces around and how much the color can be affected by these things.  

If you look in an angle towards a mirror, you can see things that are not being shown to the mirror. If you hold your hand up to the mirror, you are able to see the back of your hand in the mirror.

I remember someone was using that as evidence for something because they were certain that it was impossible.

And some of these people, I think are reasonably knowledgeable.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 10, 2022, 02:57 AM
I always find it a little interesting when people think they understand light.

There are plenty of lighting conditions in real life that don't look the way most people would expect. 

I think people really underestimate how much light bounces around and how much the color can be affected by these things. 

If you look in an angle towards a mirror, you can see things that are not being shown to the mirror. If you hold your hand up to the mirror, you are able to see the back of your hand in the mirror.

I remember someone was using that as evidence for something because they were certain that it was impossible.

And some of these people, I think are reasonably knowledgeable. 
I don't understand what you mean with the mirror one. Like I think I actually do, but there can't be people that don't understand that right?

On a similar note I think the same thing every time a movie has a character look at themselves in the mirror. Movies often cheat and in real life the person isn't looking at their reflection.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Jun 10, 2022, 04:08 AM
I don't understand what you mean with the mirror one. Like I think I actually do, but there can't be people that don't understand that right?

On a similar note I think the same thing every time a movie has a character look at themselves in the mirror. Movies often cheat and in real life the person isn't looking at their reflection.
Maybe a better way to explain it.  

If you try to hide something from a mirror, it's usually not that hard to find an angle where you can see that thing.

Like if you're holding your phone in your hand, there are still quite a few angles of your phone where there isn't a direct line from your phone to the mirror.

And yes, there are people that don't seem to get that.  
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Jun 12, 2022, 09:30 PM
Maybe a better way to explain it.  

If you try to hide something from a mirror, it's usually not that hard to find an angle where you can see that thing.

Like if you're holding your phone in your hand, there are still quite a few angles of your phone where there isn't a direct line from your phone to the mirror.

And yes, there are people that don't seem to get that.  

Here's another one I was just reminded of.

You can see the Moon during the day.


I understand why people associate the Moon with night, but it's pretty funny how common it is to think you can only see it at night.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 16, 2022, 03:34 PM







I love these.  ;D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 16, 2022, 04:31 PM







I love these.  ;D
Science communication is always really interesting. Trying to dumb things down while simultaneously intriguing the viewer.

I wouldn't say "time is not linear" and "the big bang kinda started from a particle," but obviously I'm not a science communicator haha.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Nov 16, 2022, 04:57 PM
Science communication is always really interesting. Trying to dumb things down while simultaneously intriguing the viewer.

I wouldn't say "time is not linear" and "the big bang kinda started from a particle," but obviously I'm not a science communicator haha.
Not with that attitude!   :D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Nov 16, 2022, 07:41 PM
Not with that attitude!   :D
I prefer teaching through videogames. Way more fun to spend a decade cramming as much real science as possible into a game, just for practically no one to notice  ;D
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 02, 2023, 07:08 AM
I should have gone to the mountains. The comet just looks like a faint glow from my house. Thought it was a galaxy till I triple checked the location.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Mar 09, 2023, 09:15 PM
I don't really follow Physics Girl, I've seen a few videos and thought they were fine.

But this was pretty heartbreaking.  

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: kitler53 on Mar 09, 2023, 09:27 PM
my son's best friend's dad got covid a few weeks ago.   he just got out of a week's stay in the ER and will need to get a heart valve replacement in the coming weeks.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 09, 2023, 10:38 PM
I don't really follow Physics Girl, I've seen a few videos and thought they were fine.

But this was pretty heartbreaking.  


I saw a few twitter posts from her a while ago explaining how hard it was hitting her. Really sad to see her condition has worsened.

my son's best friend's dad got covid a few weeks ago.   he just got out of a week's stay in the ER and will need to get a heart valve replacement in the coming weeks.
It's scary how bad it still gets for random people.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: kitler53 on Mar 10, 2023, 01:38 PM
It's scary how bad it still gets for random people.
we formed a "pod" with this family so my son could still have a friend during the heart of isolation. I was like extra super careful not to get covid because I was worried I'd be (feel) responsible for killing them if I got sick.   

they have a lot of the high risk factors.  black. obese.  chrones. 

now that the dad got sick and looks to be at risk of dying part of me is relieved I wasn't the reason he got sick.  ..which makes me feel like shame. 
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Mar 22, 2023, 05:44 AM
I really wish people would take even 1% of their weird anger towards satellites and push to decrease light pollution. It's so easy and cheap to prevent yet so few care.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Apr 11, 2023, 11:00 AM
How Can A Mirror See An Object That Is Hidden By A Piece Of Paper? | IFLScience (https://www.iflscience.com/how-can-a-mirror-see-an-object-that-is-hidden-by-a-piece-of-paper-68363)


(https://assets.iflscience.com/assets/articleNo/68363/aImg/67037/mario-mirror-m.webp)

Was reminded of that Spiderman isn't using ray tracing post. "Because real light doesn't allow you to see behind things."

Apparently there is a tik tok trend of people finding out otherwise.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: kitler53 on Apr 11, 2023, 01:41 PM
lol, people are dumb.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 05, 2023, 06:40 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on May 05, 2023, 06:58 PM

Space is kinda big, not gonna lie.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on May 08, 2023, 08:07 PM
When r/sciencememes meets r/amphibia

(https://preview.redd.it/tj2984cg5nya1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=3550c0bdcab9c1e3fe939b19af085af7069c3a47)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: kitler53 on May 08, 2023, 08:25 PM
what if it has more than 103 protons?!?!  ever think about that?!?!?
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 06, 2023, 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 09, 2023, 05:09 PM
Breakdown of the Newton–Einstein Standard Gravity at Low Acceleration in Internal Dynamics of Wide Binary Stars - IOPscience (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ace101)

Great study. I was initially thrown off since the article talking about it was so bad, but the paper itself is very reasonable.


The theory called MOND is that gravity does not work like Newton and Einstein predicted. It's been around for decades as an alternative way to explain galaxy rotation.

This paper looks at 26 thousand wide binary stars near Earth and finds that their motions likely match MOND predictions. His statistical modelling proves it with an incredibly high degree of certainty, but it's always possible that there's a systemic error with his approach. The dataset he used is by far the best available but it's still lacking. I've personally used it here and there and star motions can change significantly with each update. Would be interesting to see if his analysis still holds up using new data in 2026.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Aug 18, 2023, 12:06 AM


They're promoting quackery, what the fudge!?

Some traditional medicine is legit but they're defending their inclusion of easily debunked snake oil.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Aug 18, 2023, 12:15 AM
What?!
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 09, 2023, 11:40 PM


Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 12, 2023, 04:58 PM
(https://i.redd.it/7k3sohzg3qtb1.jpg)

In 10 years this might be the mission that gets NASA in a huge amount of trouble.

Returning samples from Mars will be super awesome but they're using it as a jobs/politics program instead of just an engineering goal. For example they are spending billions extra so that the European Space Program can be included.

Other programs will be cancelled to free up money and there's a good chance this mission won't even be used as designed. Starship will potentially have made Mars landings "mundane" before its even ready to go.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: the-pi-guy on Oct 13, 2023, 10:05 PM
I want to rant about something silly.  


I saw a video where Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about how it doesn't make sense to go to Mars to terraform Mars, because if you have that technology, then you can just terraform Earth back into Earth.

1.) This largely conflates terraforming as if it would be a single thing, and there's no room for certain kinds of terraforming to be easier than others. Removing a pollutant from an atmosphere could be harder than adding something else to another atmosphere.

2.) There may be non-technological reasons why it would be harder to terraform on Earth such as political factors. Convincing a large enough chunk of countries to fight climate change for example might be harder than a focused effort for NASA to go somewhere else. (not saying that it is. I am just saying it could be the case.)
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 13, 2023, 11:15 PM
You could nuke Mars a whole bunch of times to terraform it, at least partially. Don't think we'd want to do the same here haha.

You're second point is also true but man that'd be depressing. Only realistic one I can imagine is a political movement that wants Earth to stay destroyed, maybe as punishment for our hubris or something stupid.


Thing that gets me with Mars and space in general is that people have a romanticized perspective of living there thanks to movies. Absolutely no one involved thinks escaping to space is a thing since life on Earth will almost always be better.

Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Oct 14, 2023, 09:56 PM
I watched a partial solar eclipse today. Was cold outside so it wasn't as fun as the last one.

Always fun to see all shadows turn into crescents though.
Title: Re: Science General Discussion
Post by: Legend on Feb 10, 2024, 08:01 PM
CERN proposes $17 billion particle smasher that would be 3 times bigger than the Large Hadron Collider | Live Science (https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/cern-proposes-dollar17-billion-particle-smasher-that-would-be-3-times-bigger-than-the-large-hadron-collider)

Wow, this might be the first time my own mortality has ever hit me like this. Project would take 50 years (or 100 years with delays) to get fully set up and generational projects like that are so incredibly rare nowadays. It feels like the common sci fi story of scientists trying to finish a project before doomsday. Sci fi puts thousands of years between the death of the scientists and the fruit of their labor, but its all the same thing: no rewards during your lifetime but hopefully future strangers benefit from it.