Mercury's not that exciting unless it happens to be in conjunction with something else. It is too small and low on the horizon to observe more than just its phase through a telescope. It's just a bright dot, but it is a good thing to capture as part of "twilight landscape" photos.
PureZC's Science and Astronomy Class
Started by
Rocksfan13
, Mar 06 2008 09:32 AM
149 replies to this topic
#32
Russ
-
- Administrators
-
Caelan, the Encouraging
- Location:Washington
Posted 21 April 2008 - 09:58 PM
I'll definitely be looking for it!
#33
trucky5
-
- Members
-
"WHAT KIND ARE THEY?" THEY'RE GUATIBALIAN!
- Real Name:Bryson
- Location:Boulder, Colorado
Posted 23 April 2008 - 12:01 AM
You know, I just really started to study astronomy in school, and I must say, I am very interested. We just learned up classifications, such as galaxies and such, what kinds of galaxies there are, about the stars, how black holes are made, etc. I have learned ALOT! It's really cool stuff to know.
#34
Siguy
-
- Members
-
�
- Location:The inactive user list.
Posted 24 April 2008 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE(trucky5 @ Apr 23 2008, 01:01 AM) 
You know, I just really started to study astronomy in school, and I must say, I am very interested. We just learned up classifications, such as galaxies and such, what kinds of galaxies there are, about the stars, how black holes are made, etc. I have learned ALOT! It's really cool stuff to know.
WTH?? You actually learn something about astronomy in school?! Amazing!
#35
Rocksfan13
-
- Members
-
Looks best in Blue
- Real Name:Doug
- Location:Earth
Posted 25 April 2008 - 08:57 AM
Remember the discussion we had about colliding galaxies?
Well, here's proof.
Hubble celebrates it's 18th anniversary of its launch, by displaying 59 wonderful pictures of our universe.
If you take a look at the pictures, it shows the slow collision of 2 galaxies and gives us a good look at what transends a collision.
So, yes. Our galaxy is on a course for collision in a few billion years with Andromeda. Personally, I like the new name of our forthcoming merger, Milkomeda. Catchy.
Well, here's proof.
Hubble celebrates it's 18th anniversary of its launch, by displaying 59 wonderful pictures of our universe.
If you take a look at the pictures, it shows the slow collision of 2 galaxies and gives us a good look at what transends a collision.
So, yes. Our galaxy is on a course for collision in a few billion years with Andromeda. Personally, I like the new name of our forthcoming merger, Milkomeda. Catchy.
#36
Siguy
-
- Members
-
�
- Location:The inactive user list.
Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:07 PM
What discussion?
Anyway, I already heard about this, but didn't dig deeply into it. I did a quick search and brought up a JPEG of all 59 images.
http://imgsrc.hubble...rmats/print.jpg
I think some of these are among the best images Hubble has produced. My personal favorites, however, are the images of the Whirpool Galaxy (M51) and the Eta Carinae Nebula. Actually, I happened to be looking at the Whirpool through my telescope last night. M51 is a much more nearby example of colliding galaxies.
Also, I don't think it has yet been officially named "Milkomeda."
Anyway, I already heard about this, but didn't dig deeply into it. I did a quick search and brought up a JPEG of all 59 images.
http://imgsrc.hubble...rmats/print.jpg
I think some of these are among the best images Hubble has produced. My personal favorites, however, are the images of the Whirpool Galaxy (M51) and the Eta Carinae Nebula. Actually, I happened to be looking at the Whirpool through my telescope last night. M51 is a much more nearby example of colliding galaxies.
Also, I don't think it has yet been officially named "Milkomeda."
#37
Russ
-
- Administrators
-
Caelan, the Encouraging
- Location:Washington
Posted 26 April 2008 - 01:55 PM
QUOTE(Siguy @ Apr 25 2008, 11:07 AM)
Also, I don't think it has yet been officially named "Milkomeda."
Well, that does sound like a neat name.
Question: If the Milky Way and Andromeda do merge, what will happen to Earth?
#38
trucky5
-
- Members
-
"WHAT KIND ARE THEY?" THEY'RE GUATIBALIAN!
- Real Name:Bryson
- Location:Boulder, Colorado
Posted 26 April 2008 - 09:48 PM
Well it's orbit with the Sun could get distorted, causing abnormal temperatures and causing all of us to die, but I'm not exactly sure. At school we sorta kinda touched up on the subject, but didn't really study it that hard.
#39
Siguy
-
- Members
-
�
- Location:The inactive user list.
Posted 27 April 2008 - 08:56 AM
Earth will almost certainly not be affected. Keep in mind that stars are very, very, very, very, very, very (I have to use lots of "very"s to get the message straight) far away. On top of that, in the large scale of things, they are very, very, very, very, very small.
To put it in a less general perspective, which I am not sure whether it is correct as I do not know figures like this very well, the average star is like a marble in New York as seen from San Francisco. Or maybe it was a walnut... Anyway, you get the message. They're tiny.
So thus the expected amount of star collisions will be five or so. Chances are those will be when dense globular star clusters interact.
Galaxies are extremely diffuse, a fact which many do not seem to get.
To put it in a less general perspective, which I am not sure whether it is correct as I do not know figures like this very well, the average star is like a marble in New York as seen from San Francisco. Or maybe it was a walnut... Anyway, you get the message. They're tiny.
So thus the expected amount of star collisions will be five or so. Chances are those will be when dense globular star clusters interact.
Galaxies are extremely diffuse, a fact which many do not seem to get.
#40
Guest_Sir_Johnamus (Guest)
Guest_Sir_Johnamus (Guest)
-
- Guests
Posted 27 April 2008 - 11:40 AM
I have learned a lot from this thread and I have proof for this theory now.
Do any of you know of Zeno? He was a Greek scientist who proved wrong the scientific method.
He said that you cannot phisically move from point A to point B, and he proved it. To move from A to B, you have to go half that distance, and half that distance, and indefinately onward. Since you cannot do an infinate amount of things in a finate amount of time, you cannot move from A to B. Since we all do this everyday, this is obviously false. But he proved it with science. So it's true. Thus proves that Zeno single handedly proved the scientific method wrong.
What do you think on this topic?
Do any of you know of Zeno? He was a Greek scientist who proved wrong the scientific method.
He said that you cannot phisically move from point A to point B, and he proved it. To move from A to B, you have to go half that distance, and half that distance, and indefinately onward. Since you cannot do an infinate amount of things in a finate amount of time, you cannot move from A to B. Since we all do this everyday, this is obviously false. But he proved it with science. So it's true. Thus proves that Zeno single handedly proved the scientific method wrong.
What do you think on this topic?
#41
Eurysilas
-
- Members
-
Paladin
Posted 27 April 2008 - 03:19 PM
Hmmmm...It seems that you've done some "original research" (as Wikipedia would call it) on this subject...The original intent of Zeno's paradoxes was in response to paradoxes arguing against Parminides Doctrine, and had nothing to do with the proof or disproof of the scientific method. Still, this bears further scrutiny.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that nothing about the scientific method has been disproven, because Zeno did not use it to arrive at his conclusion (which, for this paradox and many others, is that motion is an illusion). Rather, had he used the scientific method, he would have seen his supposition to be false.
Interesting side note, though...How do we know there is any such thing as "half", once we get down to the sub-atomic level? Surely, if one believes in particles that are ultimately indivisible, one MUST believe that there is a level at which "half" has no meaning...
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method
http://en.wikipedia....eno's_paradoxes
Off the top of my head, I'd say that nothing about the scientific method has been disproven, because Zeno did not use it to arrive at his conclusion (which, for this paradox and many others, is that motion is an illusion). Rather, had he used the scientific method, he would have seen his supposition to be false.
Interesting side note, though...How do we know there is any such thing as "half", once we get down to the sub-atomic level? Surely, if one believes in particles that are ultimately indivisible, one MUST believe that there is a level at which "half" has no meaning...
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method
http://en.wikipedia....eno's_paradoxes
#42
Red Phazon
-
- Members
-
Adept
Posted 27 April 2008 - 04:16 PM
To help express Siguy's post, here are a few videos.
Star Scale
How big is the Universe?
The Universe - How Big Are You?
Interesting side note, though...How do we know there is any such thing as "half", once we get down to the sub-atomic level? Surely, if one believes in particles that are ultimately indivisible, one MUST believe that there is a level at which "half" has no meaning...
I'm not far enough in my physics learning to answer this question, but are atoms really indivisible in that way? What about in terms of energy?
Star Scale
How big is the Universe?
The Universe - How Big Are You?
QUOTE(Ireclan @ Apr 27 2008, 01:19 PM)
Interesting side note, though...How do we know there is any such thing as "half", once we get down to the sub-atomic level? Surely, if one believes in particles that are ultimately indivisible, one MUST believe that there is a level at which "half" has no meaning...
I'm not far enough in my physics learning to answer this question, but are atoms really indivisible in that way? What about in terms of energy?
#43
Siguy
-
- Members
-
�
- Location:The inactive user list.
Posted 27 April 2008 - 04:24 PM
QUOTE(Link75 @ Apr 27 2008, 05:16 PM)
To help express Siguy's post, here are a few videos.
Star Scale
How big is the Universe?
The Universe - How Big Are You?
I'm not far enough in my physics learning to answer this question, but are atoms really indivisible in that way? What about in terms of energy?
Those videos do demonstrate size well enough, but not distance, as I was trying to explain. The third one, being just a bunch of clips put together, is rather inaccurate. For example, I do not think Earth is inside the Eagle Nebula...
#44
Red Phazon
-
- Members
-
Adept
Posted 27 April 2008 - 07:18 PM
I think the second one at least forms an idea of large distances. It doesn't actually show a diagram or anything to help visualize. The third one is a bunch of clips put together like you said, but it wasn't meant to be interpreted as zooming out from Earth. I guess others might get confused by that though? I'll leave it there anyway.
#45
Russ
-
- Administrators
-
Caelan, the Encouraging
- Location:Washington
Posted 27 April 2008 - 07:22 PM
QUOTE(Sir_Johnamus @ Apr 27 2008, 09:40 AM)
I have learned a lot from this thread and I have proof for this theory now.
Do any of you know of Zeno? He was a Greek scientist who proved wrong the scientific method.
He said that you cannot phisically move from point A to point B, and he proved it. To move from A to B, you have to go half that distance, and half that distance, and indefinately onward. Since you cannot do an infinate amount of things in a finate amount of time, you cannot move from A to B. Since we all do this everyday, this is obviously false. But he proved it with science. So it's true. Thus proves that Zeno single handedly proved the scientific method wrong.
What do you think on this topic?
But once you get to the sub atomic level, wouldn't half loose it's meaning, and you would be there?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
