- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 229947
Firstly, could I politely ask that this thread NOT be hijacked by the religeous groups. Thank you.
I recently did some internet searching on galaxy's (not the chocolate bar) and the unverse. In laymens terms it seems that the universe is made up of a lot of nothing with the odd galaxy here and there. In some places there are clusters of galaxy's. Galaxy's like our very own milky way (again not the chocolate bar) have a defined shape, circular with tentacles spreading outwards. As though someone had stired a cup of coffee. We are on one of the tentacles. The tentacles also seem to be expanding at a rapid rate and are in orbit of the centre.
However, a star has recently been discovered which is heading out of our galaxy at a rapid rate. It's heading straight into deep space and it's trajectory shows that it comes from the centre of our galaxy. What propelled this unfortunate star in such a way and at such speed?
The bods seem to think that at the centre of each galaxy is a black hole that regularly, every few 100,000 billion years, sucks all matter into it, compressing it and then spits it all out again as stars in a great big bang.
Even if this were so no-one would be around to say 'told you so' anyway.
Just as we are, at present, travelling away from the centre of our galaxy stars on the opposite tentacle are also travelling away from us and the centre, thus proving that our galaxy is expanding.
Other galaxy's are also travelling away from us at vast speeds and one theory that I have is that black holes are simply galaxy's that are travelling away from us at a combined speed which is faster than the speed of light, thus the light from stars in that galaxy never reaches us and the whole galaxy would appear to us a black hole.
We have yet to launch a manned exploration of the planets in our own solar system let alone to the nearest star. Which is 4.2 light years away.
At our present rate of technological advancement how long will it be before we develope faster space travel and land a man on Mars?
And then how long after that before we travel further a field?
I'm hoping to see both in my lifetime but would be happy to live to see us conquer mars. (Providng it's not actually a part of texas made to look like mars!!).
As you can tell......I'm bored!
Has anyone else got any startling facts about the universe they have discovered?😴
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterwe got to the moon; that was a huge effort - forget going anywhere else in your lifetime - the fuel technologies we have don't allow it yet - probably never. Enjoy this existance on earth- it's amazing and highly unlikely........ think and love it.....
Firstly, could I politely ask that this thread NOT be hijacked by the religeous groups. Thank you.
I recently did some internet searching on galaxy's (not the chocolate bar) and the unverse. In laymens terms it seems that the universe is made up of a lot of nothing with the odd galaxy here and there. In some places there are clusters of gala ...[text shortened]... 'm bored!
Has anyone else got any startling facts about the universe they have discovered?😴
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 229947
Originally posted by sasquatch672Hi sas, Thanks for your reply. Good stuff. Will look up a link re. the fast star ASAP.
Other galaxy's are also travelling away from us at vast speeds and one theory that I have is that black holes are simply galaxy's that are travelling away from us at a combined speed which is faster than the speed of light, thus the light from stars in that galaxy never reaches us and the whole galaxy would appear to us a black hole.
No. The s ...[text shortened]... d as it becomes infintely heavy, it requires an infinite amount of energy to go faster.
[/b]
Interms of my black hole theory you miss read my comments. I said combined speed. I read during my internet space party that an astronomer had discovered a cluster of stars that were diminishing in intensity. Part of the text said that our galaxy is increasing in speed and that the stars he saw were increasing in speed away from us thus if the combined speed was greater than the speed of light then they would effectively disappear. I don't pretend to know much about all this stuff. Just wanted to toss a few balls in the air.😀
There's a lot of nonsense written in this thread.
The bods seem to think that at the centre of each galaxy is a black hole that regularly, every few 100,000 billion years, sucks all matter into it, compressing it and then spits it all out again as stars in a great big bang.
If they do then they're wrong. And do you realize just how much "time" 100,000 billion years is...?
Other galaxy's are also travelling away from us at vast speeds and one theory that I have is that black holes are simply galaxy's that are travelling away from us at a combined speed which is faster than the speed of light, thus the light from stars in that galaxy never reaches us and the whole galaxy would appear to us a black hole.
Shash! And your 'galaxy's' should be 'galaxies'.
No. The speed of light is the absolute speed limit of the universe.
Incorrect.
Part of the text said that our galaxy is increasing in speed and that the stars he saw were increasing in speed away from us thus if the combined speed was greater than the speed of light then they would effectively disappear.
You need to read up on Special Relativity.
As you can tell......I'm bored!
I can indeed.
Originally posted by BowmannAlright, both of you need to read up on special relativity. Bowmanns right that the combined speed thing wouldn't work. In special relativity, it all depends on your viewpoint. I'm not learned enough in this area to explain any further, but I do know it doesn't work. I think that the time would have to be dialated on the earth (compared to elsewhere. That's the strange thing about special relativity, there is no referece point where everything is the way it should be) so that when looking from it, the other galaxies wouldn't be exceeding the speed of light.
There's a lot of nonsense written in this thread.
[b]The bods seem to think that at the centre of each galaxy is a black hole that regularly, every few 100,000 billion years, sucks all matter into it, compressing it and then spits it all out again as stars in a great big bang.
If they do then they're wrong. And do you realize just how much "time ...[text shortened]... ed to read up on Special Relativity.
As you can tell......I'm bored!
I can indeed.[/b]
But Bowmann, your statement that the speed of light is not the absolute speed limit is false. Let's look at the equation for time dialation based on speed. sqrt(1-s^2) where s is the percentage of the speed of light an object is moving. Now, if s>1 then the quantity under the radical is less than one. That would make then object's time dialation an imaginary number. I could guess that it means the object would be going back in time, but no one really knows.
Originally posted by ark13"The Speed of Light" and c are NOT the same thing.
But Bowmann, your statement that the speed of light is not the absolute speed limit is false. Let's look at the equation for time dialation based on speed. sqrt(1-s^2) where s is the percentage of the speed of light an object is moving. ...[text shortened]... s the object would be going back in time, but no one really knows.
But if that's splitting hairs, what about the implication of Hubble's Law?
Originally posted by ark13The former is "the speed at which light travels", and that speed varies depending on the medium: fastest in a vacuum, a little slower in air, two thirds as fast in glass etc.
How so? *preparing self for some rediculous theory*
The latter is generally used to mean "the universe's speed limit". This is "the speed of light in a vacuum".
Example: In water, light travels at about 0.75 c. Other particles can therefore go "faster than light".
Ridiculous? I don't think so.
Originally posted by BowmannAlright. I get it, but you have to admit, you really pulled that out of your @ss.
The former is "the speed at which light travels", and that speed varies depending on the medium: fastest in a vacuum, a little slower in air, two thirds as fast in glass etc.
The latter is generally used to mean "the universe's speed limit". This is "the speed of light in a vacuum".
Example: In water, light travels at about 0.75 c. Other particles can therefore go "faster than light".
Ridiculous? I don't think so.
Originally posted by sasquatch672A new species takes millions of years of evolution by infintestimally small steps of genetic mutations. You cannot take a homo sapien and put him on another planet and then expect him to reproduce another species simply because the value of gravity is different. Also, whether or not a new species arrives is not a philosophical arguement. There is a clear definition of a species being able to reproduce fertile offspring between members of that species. A donkey is a species and a horse is a species; however a mule - which is a cross between a donkey and a horse is not a species because the mules cannot produce fertile young themselves.... their offspring are infertile. 🙄
You're getting into territory where we send whole colonies of people out, to explore, reproduce out there, and generate the next generation of explorers. And because they won't be born on earth, they'll have human DNA but won't sophical argument on whether those people will be a new species.