Space

11112141617110

Replies

  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    The surface of Venus, taken in 1981 by the Soviet probes Venera 13 and 14.

    rlcznt83fb5o.jpg
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    The Space Shuttle Columbia passes into a brilliant sunrise scene during the STS-9\Spacelab 1 mission.

    13432hk4ehiq.jpg
  • RunHardBeStrong
    RunHardBeStrong Posts: 33,069 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    The Space Shuttle Columbia passes into a brilliant sunrise scene during the STS-9\Spacelab 1 mission.

    13432hk4ehiq.jpg

    That would be a most awesome experience!
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    The distance from the Earth to the Moon is approximately 109 Moons.
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    Photograph of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Kounotori H-II Transfer Vehicle as it approached the ISS on Dec. 12, 2016. The un-piloted cargo spacecraft is loaded with more than 4.5 tons of supplies, water, spare parts and experiment hardware for the six-person station crew.

    sv4lkw2ve2v1.jpg
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    Was reading an interesting piece on expanded SuperString Theory that talked about going beyond the base d=10 dimensions to an 11th dimension, and I came on some correlated work in black holes and why String Theory is working beyond Quantum Theory...anyway...this is an interesting modelling of how SuperString Theory fills in gaps. Heavy read but very well laid out.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5607v1.pdf
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    54119267eadf44ada3d94f536cfd8b75?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=a1584ae971bbf0e7b378d673ce56676a
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    Hurricane on Saturn's North Pole.

    2ulxarz53nhz.jpg
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    So which area of space for science do you think holds more value at this point - micro space or macro space?

    For years science look down to find the smallest particles of existence because, I believe, macro space is much more difficult to reach. But have when dug down small enough? Is there still more that is in the microcosms of life? Or is the cosmic frontier out there where the real science is?
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    Anywho....Phy Org was posting on the new fifth dimension stuff going around lately and I was thinking about how this year they created a small black hole in a lab for observation. Does that worry anyone else? What if with our limited understanding we create something we cannot readily contain? You see this concept in movie like Green Lantern, Thor, Capt'n 'Merica, etc, where a small anomaly causes havoc. If you think about what a black hole is, it is a ripple space that continually grabs energy from mass around it...feeding it. So you start with this small occurrence, it starts multiplying...maybe exponentially, and we envelop the world as we know it.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Timshel_ wrote: »
    Anywho....Phy Org was posting on the new fifth dimension stuff going around lately and I was thinking about how this year they created a small black hole in a lab for observation. Does that worry anyone else? What if with our limited understanding we create something we cannot readily contain? You see this concept in movie like Green Lantern, Thor, Capt'n 'Merica, etc, where a small anomaly causes havoc. If you think about what a black hole is, it is a ripple space that continually grabs energy from mass around it...feeding it. So you start with this small occurrence, it starts multiplying...maybe exponentially, and we envelop the world as we know it.

    Interesting, but that probably won't happen since they've put tin foil over it. It's fine.

    Say, what is micro and macro space?
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    Timshel_ wrote: »
    Anywho....Phy Org was posting on the new fifth dimension stuff going around lately and I was thinking about how this year they created a small black hole in a lab for observation. Does that worry anyone else? What if with our limited understanding we create something we cannot readily contain? You see this concept in movie like Green Lantern, Thor, Capt'n 'Merica, etc, where a small anomaly causes havoc. If you think about what a black hole is, it is a ripple space that continually grabs energy from mass around it...feeding it. So you start with this small occurrence, it starts multiplying...maybe exponentially, and we envelop the world as we know it.

    Interesting, but that probably won't happen since they've put tin foil over it. It's fine.

    Say, what is micro and macro space?

    It is general terms for the science of things that are smaller and bigger than our general view. So micro is seen with microscope and macro is with telescopes. Initially the science community look into small particles of life, but as we progressed what is outside of our world became open to investigation. We theorize (Standard Model) in particle physics that elementary particles are quarks, leptons, bosons, etc., and they are the building blocks of everything. But we still are limited by the technology to observe and quantify this. I say these is still a smaller universe left to discover, but the outer, visible universe is also there and we still have no definitive answer to what is out there as well.

    I just find it interesting to talk about which holds greater promise - the building blocks of the universe, or the resulting universe itself.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Timshel_ wrote: »
    So which area of space for science do you think holds more value at this point - micro space or macro space?

    For years science look down to find the smallest particles of existence because, I believe, macro space is much more difficult to reach. But have when dug down small enough? Is there still more that is in the microcosms of life? Or is the cosmic frontier out there where the real science is?

    I enjoy reading pop science. I know that a lot of writers and reporters are terrible and I try to be discerning but who knows how good a job I really do. Still, the more I learn about our universe, the more it fills me with wonder.

    When I read about the science of the very small, I keep wondering what the Greeks did. Can we keep subdividing things forever? Does it just go infinitely small? Or is there really a fundamental building block? I've heard a few times that there's a smallest thing and we're getting close to being able to detect it. Why should that be true?
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    The two galaxies M81 and M82, roughly 11.6 million light years away from earth and "close" to each other

    47rj43zzirm6.jpg
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    Timshel_ wrote: »
    Anywho....Phy Org was posting on the new fifth dimension stuff going around lately and I was thinking about how this year they created a small black hole in a lab for observation. Does that worry anyone else? What if with our limited understanding we create something we cannot readily contain? You see this concept in movie like Green Lantern, Thor, Capt'n 'Merica, etc, where a small anomaly causes havoc. If you think about what a black hole is, it is a ripple space that continually grabs energy from mass around it...feeding it. So you start with this small occurrence, it starts multiplying...maybe exponentially, and we envelop the world as we know it.

    Isn't this why some people were/are concerned about the Large Hadron Collider? I vaguely remember, before it was used for the first time, reading something about the fear that they might accidentally create a tiny black hole or something similar that would keep growing.
  • Jeannie3099
    Jeannie3099 Posts: 61 Member
    kca1kuh97xrh.jpg

    This is Ida from an astroid belt. Only about 16km across but has it's own orbiting moon (Dactyl) :smile:
    Oh God, I passed one of those last night!
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    First vs. One of the latest images taken on Mars surface.

    e9w4qekve2ln.jpg
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    The Cartwheel Galaxy.

    8rayjwdev0kh.jpg
  • RunHardBeStrong
    RunHardBeStrong Posts: 33,069 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    First vs. One of the latest images taken on Mars surface.

    e9w4qekve2ln.jpg

    Very cool. Makes me kinda want to go there....
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    SueSueDio wrote: »
    Isn't this why some people were/are concerned about the Large Hadron Collider? I vaguely remember, before it was used for the first time, reading something about the fear that they might accidentally create a tiny black hole or something similar that would keep growing.

    Very, very much. We theorize that the big bang that is said to have born the universe could have been from a concentrated release of energy no bigger than the instance of collided particles like the Hadron Collider. The scary part is, we really don't have all the variables, so using the collider is supposed to help to fill in some blanks, but some of the blanks are there because of the magnitude of energy explosion we need to observe to truly understand the potential.