What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Physics and astronomy thread (2 Viewers)

Nope. We are getting real close to finding truly inhabitable planets with the correct mix of temp and atmosphere. After that, everyone will find out what I already know and that is that the bible thumpers can toss their little book in the trash as it will become obsolete.
Haven't we found several already? 

ETA...check that...my brain read "uninhabitable" for some reason.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You need a link? There are plenty in this thread already showing that they making progress. Google it. Plenty of links there. It's only a matter of time.

From a year ago.
https://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasas-kepler-discovers-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone-of-another-star
:shrug:

habitable zone. that link says pretty much what little I've read on it... that they found something in a habitable zone. doesn't mean "really close" to me, or say anything about correct mix of temp and atmosphere. it does say that we're a step forward.... which is really cool.

I'm excited about this stuff too- and I read somebody in here say things like "we are really close to finding truly inhabitable planest"... I get more excited- thus the request for the link.

 
Am I the only one who gets way too excited when this thread gets bumped? I love hearing about new discoveries in astronomy specifically and science in general. 
Every time I see this thread on the 1st page it's the first thread I open.  I love learning about new developments in this area. 

 
:shrug:

habitable zone. that link says pretty much what little I've read on it... that they found something in a habitable zone. doesn't mean "really close" to me, or say anything about correct mix of temp and atmosphere. it does say that we're a step forward.... which is really cool.

I'm excited about this stuff too- and I read somebody in here say things like "we are really close to finding truly inhabitable planest"... I get more excited- thus the request for the link.
Basing that on the fact that in 1991 the 1st exoplanet was 'discovered'. It's only been 25 years and now we are able to determine the atmosphere of exoplanets.

 
Ok so that's crazy, as is the one picture in the article.  100 million pieces of space junk?  Always thought some random old satellites and whatnot were up there, not 100 million pieces!
Some of the pieces are very small, but fast and since the kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared they pack quite a punch.

White sky would be a very bad outcome for humanity

 
I am just going to leave this little gem here because I think the readers of this thread will likely have the most appreciation for it.   Several prominent scientists and thinkers were asked "What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?"  Each entry is linked to a short read (great bathroom reading material) where the contributor elaborates on his/her response.  Although it is not all physics and astronomy (several entries are), there is a lot of interesting stuff from interesting people.  Enjoy.

https://www.edge.org/contributors/what-scientific-term-or concept-ought-to-be-more-widely-known

 
I am just going to leave this little gem here because I think the readers of this thread will likely have the most appreciation for it.   Several prominent scientists and thinkers were asked "What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?"  Each entry is linked to a short read (great bathroom reading material) where the contributor elaborates on his/her response.  Although it is not all physics and astronomy (several entries are), there is a lot of interesting stuff from interesting people.  Enjoy.

https://www.edge.org/contributors/what-scientific-term-or concept-ought-to-be-more-widely-known
You lost me after The Scientific Method.

 
Dumb question, but why do we not send robotic exploration vehicles to the moon, like we do to Mars? Seems like a relatively inexpensive endeavor. Is it believed that there is nothing left to learn? Why are there designs to colonize Mars, but not the moon? I would expect a lot of technological kinks could be smoothed out with so much more ease if we tackled the moon first.

Dumb question #2: Is it believed that there are no minerals/materials to be mined on the moon?

TIA for not telling me to go google this.

 
Dumb question, but why do we not send robotic exploration vehicles to the moon, like we do to Mars? Seems like a relatively inexpensive endeavor. Is it believed that there is nothing left to learn? Why are there designs to colonize Mars, but not the moon? I would expect a lot of technological kinks could be smoothed out with so much more ease if we tackled the moon first.

Dumb question #2: Is it believed that there are no minerals/materials to be mined on the moon?

TIA for not telling me to go google this.
It seems we are planning to

 
Dumb question, but why do we not send robotic exploration vehicles to the moon, like we do to Mars? Seems like a relatively inexpensive endeavor. Is it believed that there is nothing left to learn? Why are there designs to colonize Mars, but not the moon? I would expect a lot of technological kinks could be smoothed out with so much more ease if we tackled the moon first.

Dumb question #2: Is it believed that there are no minerals/materials to be mined on the moon?

TIA for not telling me to go google this.
From what I understand:

It is very expensive to do any of these robotic explorations, including to the Moon.  Plus, we have already explored the moon so there isn't much more to learn.  Noting the study to mine water, then it might be worth it - if we can get something out of the trip there.

As far as colonization, it has to do with water and gravity.  The Moon's gravity is so much lower than Earth's, it wouldn't be good for us.  There are strict exercise requirements for astronauts in the space station to help curtail the loss of bone and muscle due to zero gravity.  The moon would have a similar effect over time.  Mars is also lower gravity than Earth, but it's much closer in gravity than the Moon is, and is a more realistic long term option for humans.  Plus, there is a lot more water (frozen in the polar caps) than there is on the Moon.  Additionally, it is thought that there used to be an atmosphere on Mars and if we can terraform the planet we can possibly bring back/create an atmosphere.  Maybe the terraforming and atmosphere is more science fiction and wishful thinking but as our technology improves, a lot of things that were thought to be science fiction becomes closer to being reality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dumb question, but why do we not send robotic exploration vehicles to the moon, like we do to Mars? Seems like a relatively inexpensive endeavor. Is it believed that there is nothing left to learn? Why are there designs to colonize Mars, but not the moon? I would expect a lot of technological kinks could be smoothed out with so much more ease if we tackled the moon first.

Dumb question #2: Is it believed that there are no minerals/materials to be mined on the moon?

TIA for not telling me to go google this.
There are groups advocating for the Moon over Mars and, in fact, are working on it in various ways...Each destination has pros and cons.  Mars is just a little more prominent in the public eye...its the "cool" destination.  Check out these initiatives... ShakletonLunar X, Open Luna

 
Four exoplanets orbiting their star, HR 8799

This three-second animation is the result of seven years of work by Jason Wang, an astronomy graduate student at the University of California, who compiled dozens of images taken by the W.M. Keck observatory in Hawaii to create the digital equivalent of a flip book.

The black circle at the middle is a result of the device used to block the light from the star so that scientists could detect the much fainter gleam of its nearby planets.

The four glowing globes that orbit it are HR 8799's planets. This animation does not show their full orbits — the planets are so far from their star that it would take more than four centuries to create that video.
ETA...this star is 129 light years away - that's about 760 trillion miles away!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wanted to post a link to one of my favorite YouTube Channels. Space Time by PBS Digital Studios. Warning this gets deep. Including some heavy math. But they do a nice job of building up to subjects for the most part. I highly recommend it. You will know some mind bending stuff before it's all over. They have been working up to exploring the Black Hole past the event horizon. Cause that's when things get fun.

 
Dumb question, but why do we not send robotic exploration vehicles to the moon, like we do to Mars? Seems like a relatively inexpensive endeavor. Is it believed that there is nothing left to learn? Why are there designs to colonize Mars, but not the moon? I would expect a lot of technological kinks could be smoothed out with so much more ease if we tackled the moon first.

Dumb question #2: Is it believed that there are no minerals/materials to be mined on the moon?

TIA for not telling me to go google this.
I will let BillsFan answer this one.

 
Rebar graphene

I kid you not, look it up
just did. :thumbup:  

I feel like the building industry (among many others) is going to be massively changed within my lifetime due to all of these nano-based constructs. I already haven't kept up with most of the stuff from last century :bag:  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top