Astronomy & Space Exploration

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,601
Looked at the sky, looked like nothing out of the ordinary. Took a photo and the sky was transformed into some rainbow effect? Is this how the northern lights always is? Only viewable through a lens? Abit of a let down whilst also kinda cool.
No, further north in the arctic circle you can see it with the naked eye. But for me when I saw it in Iceland it mostly looked greenish/grey
 

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
18,269
Typical. Strongest aurora in years and I'm South England. feck off.
 

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,618
Looked at the sky, looked like nothing out of the ordinary. Took a photo and the sky was transformed into some rainbow effect? Is this how the northern lights always is? Only viewable through a lens? Abit of a let down whilst also kinda cool.
Yeah it's a bit of a let down as you see pictures online yet what you see with your eyes isn't the same. Apparently it can look spectacular but I've not seen them look overly impressive with the naked eye. I saw them last night and also in Iceland and both times, it's cool but to the visible eye, not all that special a sight.

The most interesting thing I've seen was in Bali, on their day of silence. Long story short, it's a day whereby you have to stay indoors all day and at night, no one on the island is allowed to put their lights on. No cars or bikes on the streets and no flights either.

It's the opposite whereby pictures sell it short, the most amazing view of the stars I've ever had.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,601
Yeah it's a bit of a let down as you see pictures online yet what you see with your eyes isn't the same. Apparently it can look spectacular but I've not seen them look overly impressive with the naked eye. I saw them last night and also in Iceland and both times, it's cool but to the visible eye, not all that special a sight.

The most interesting thing I've seen was in Bali, on their day of silence. Long story short, it's a day whereby you have to stay indoors all day and at night, no one on the island is allowed to put their lights on. No cars or bikes on the streets and no flights either.

It's the opposite whereby pictures sell it short, the most amazing view of the stars I've ever had.
The night sky was my takeaway when I saw the aurora in Iceland. It was amazing seeing a properly dark sky with all the starts and being able to see the Milky Way. The lights were a bit of a bonus compared to that, glad I ticked it off the bucket list but the night sky is what stuck with me more
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
32,313
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum 9️⃣
Yeah it's a bit of a let down as you see pictures online yet what you see with your eyes isn't the same. Apparently it can look spectacular but I've not seen them look overly impressive with the naked eye. I saw them last night and also in Iceland and both times, it's cool but to the visible eye, not all that special a sight.

The most interesting thing I've seen was in Bali, on their day of silence. Long story short, it's a day whereby you have to stay indoors all day and at night, no one on the island is allowed to put their lights on. No cars or bikes on the streets and no flights either.

It's the opposite whereby pictures sell it short, the most amazing view of the stars I've ever had.
They are spectacular, but you have to be in a place where you can really see them. They can absolutely be as vivid as what you see in photos and videos. Sometimes they move around a lot as well (probably much more than you're imagining I mean when I say a lot), which is amazing.
 

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,618
They are spectacular, but you have to be in a place where you can really see them. They can absolutely be as vivid as what you see in photos and videos. Sometimes they move around a lot as well (probably much more than you're imagining I mean when I say a lot), which is amazing.
I don't doubt that, I hope to one day see them in it's full glory!
 

giggs-beckham

Clueless
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,043
The night sky was my takeaway when I saw the aurora in Iceland. It was amazing seeing a properly dark sky with all the starts and being able to see the Milky Way. The lights were a bit of a bonus compared to that, glad I ticked it off the bucket list but the night sky is what stuck with me more
Jealous, congrats
 

Bert_

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Messages
1,636
Location
Manchester
It's so unfair we'll never be able to see up close let alone visit these celestial bodies and spaces.
It's all relative. Previous generations probably thought not being able to see closeup images of the planets or galaxies beyond our own was unfair too.

Hopefully one day we will be close up visiting one of those celestial bodies on our way past it.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,975
Location
Hollywood CA
It's so unfair we'll never be able to see up close let alone visit these celestial bodies and spaces.
The distances are just too great. Even with faster than light travel it would take too long to get anywhere other than maybe the next solar system.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,759
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
The distances are just too great. Even with faster than light travel it would take too long to get anywhere other than maybe the next solar system.
Faster than light travel.
How does that work?
 

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
18,269
The distances are just too great. Even with faster than light travel it would take too long to get anywhere other than maybe the next solar system.
What do you mean?
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
7,066
Supports
Hannover 96
Faster than light travel.
How does that work?
Nobody knows. It's even not clear if it's possible. But in theory you can construct stuff like a warp drive - just that nobody knows if the kind of material needed for it actually exists. And because of that it makes no sense to speculate how fast faster than light travel could actually be and what would be in reach.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,975
Location
Hollywood CA
Faster than light travel.
How does that work?
What do you mean?
The Alcubierre Warp Drive would be the leading contender at this point. It is apparently compatible with general relativity and would theoretically allow humans to travel vast distances by bending space and time. The spaceship/caspule itself wouldn't be traveling faster than light, but rather exist in a separate spacetime inside which the warp drive was contracting and expanding space. ie.,, the speed of light would remain the cosmic speed limit, but that wouldn't apply to the expansion of space itself.
 

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
18,269
The Alcubierre Warp Drive would be the leading contender at this point. It is apparently compatible with general relativity and would theoretically allow humans to travel vast distances by bending space and time. The spaceship/caspule itself wouldn't be traveling faster than light, but rather exist in a separate spacetime inside which the warp drive was contracting and expanding space. ie.,, the speed of light would remain the cosmic speed limit, but that wouldn't apply to the expansion of space itself.
No I understand, I know of it, but what do you mean by it would still take to long?
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,975
Location
Hollywood CA
No I understand, I know of it, but what do you mean by it would still take to long?
Even if we could travel nearly as fast as the speed of light now, it would still take years to get anywhere. The nearest exoplanet is 4.2 light years away, which would make it highly improbable humans would reach it given that we can't even put people on our nearest planet, or even our own moon, these days.
 

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
18,269
Even if we could travel nearly as fast as the speed of light now, it would still take years to get anywhere. The nearest exoplanet is 4.2 light years away, which would make it highly improbable humans would reach it given that we can't even put people on our nearest planet, or even our own moon, these days.
Ah I see, humans as a failed species etc. Yeah ok that makes more sense.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
32,313
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum 9️⃣
Even if we could travel nearly as fast as the speed of light now, it would still take years to get anywhere. The nearest exoplanet is 4.2 light years away, which would make it highly improbable humans would reach it given that we can't even put people on our nearest planet, or even our own moon, these days.
In the sense of building some kind of galactic empire, yes. That is never happening. If we're ever colonizing the galaxy, it'll be in the sense of individual societies.

But if we really could get close to the speed if light, length contraction/time dilation could still theoretically let any individual travel across the galaxy. It's just that for any stationary (relatively speaking) observer that trip would take a long, long time.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,759
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
The Alcubierre Warp Drive would be the leading contender at this point. It is apparently compatible with general relativity and would theoretically allow humans to travel vast distances by bending space and time. The spaceship/caspule itself wouldn't be traveling faster than light, but rather exist in a separate spacetime inside which the warp drive was contracting and expanding space. ie.,, the speed of light would remain the cosmic speed limit, but that wouldn't apply to the expansion of space itself.
Thank you for explaining this.
 

giggs-beckham

Clueless
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,043
Even if we could travel nearly as fast as the speed of light now, it would still take years to get anywhere. The nearest exoplanet is 4.2 light years away, which would make it highly improbable humans would reach it given that we can't even put people on our nearest planet, or even our own moon, these days.
It would take 4.2 years for us on earth. But no time would pass for the guys on the spaceship.

(Nimic already explained)
 
Last edited:

GuyfromAustria

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
577
Concorde was also a great achievement, can't disagree there. But didn't it emit an incredible amount of climate gases? It was also very expensive (to fly on). I'm not sure it would be around even without the high profile crash.
I was sat in a Concorde less than 2 weeks ago! The guide was sure that they wouldn't have been able to continue even without the crash because of the enormous costs and other issues. Transatlantic flights inflation-adjusted would be around 22k nowadays according to him. And they couldn't lease them to other carriers, eg for domestic flights in the US, because of the noise.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,975
Location
Hollywood CA
I was sat in a Concorde less than 2 weeks ago! The guide was sure that they wouldn't have been able to continue even without the crash because of the enormous costs and other issues. Transatlantic flights inflation-adjusted would be around 22k nowadays according to him. And they couldn't lease them to other carriers, eg for domestic flights in the US, because of the noise.
It would actually be just as economical to fly on a private chartered jet these days than on a Concorde. They're obviously slower but have a much more personalized experience for roughly the same price.
 

Salt Bailly

Auburn, not Ginger.
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
10,012
Location
Valinor
Another successful launch for Starship, this time with a "soft" landing in the Indian Ocean.
 

MarylandMUFan

Full Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
5,257
Location
About 5,600 kilometers from Old Trafford

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
17,133
"... the collection of stars was spied as it was a mere 290 million years after the Big Bang. "

It's remarkable we are seeing things now as they were at, basically, the beginning of time. I just can't wrap my head around that.
I find it hard enough to wrap my head around 290 millions years later being "basically the beginning of time", even if I know what you mean relatively speaking!
 

MarylandMUFan

Full Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
5,257
Location
About 5,600 kilometers from Old Trafford
I find it hard enough to wrap my head around 290 millions years later being "basically the beginning of time", even if I know what you mean relatively speaking!
I agree. This line in the article put it into perspective:
" Put another way - if the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, it means we're observing the galaxy when the cosmos was only 2% of its current age. "
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
17,133
I agree. This line in the article put it into perspective:
" Put another way - if the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, it means we're observing the galaxy when the cosmos was only 2% of its current age. "
Mind boggling.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,759
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Mind boggling.
It really is.
I am fascinated with Cosmology in general.
It is those minute fractions of a second after our universe burst into life (out of seemingly nothing) that is really mind boggling.

Like where did all that energy come from. Although I am aware of the Perpetual Cosmological Inflation theory, whereby minute Bubble Universes come into being.
Some fail to become 'viable' and give back their energy, while others like ours do develop.

Who knows eh?
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
17,133
It really is.
I am fascinated with Cosmology in general.
It is those minute fractions of a second after our universe burst into life (out of seemingly nothing) that is really mind boggling.

Like where did all that energy come from. Although I am aware of the Perpetual Cosmological Inflation theory, whereby minute Bubble Universes come into being.
Some fail to become 'viable' and give back their energy, while others like ours do develop.

Who knows eh?
With next to zero technical knowledge to back it up, my working theory is that the Simulation Hypothesis is correct and that moment of the Big Bang is akin to an old monitor flashing on and the light expanding from a point in the centre of the screen. Then to wrap my head around this idea that the universe is always expanding, I chalk it down to the ever expanding memory needed to run such an ever program over time.

It's bollocks obviously, but it helps me stay sane to rationalise things with "The Universe According to Diarm".
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
32,313
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum 9️⃣
Here's a fun fact, if we're talking about the age of the Universe. Assuming we're living in a flat Universe where dark energy will increase but never outmuscle gravity at the level of galaxies (or clusters), we're currently living in the very, very early days of the Universe. There will be star formation for trillions of years, and even after that it's theoretically possible for civilizations to survive around white dwarfs (maybe) or even black holes (super maybe). On the other hand, the Milky Way is largely done with star formation already, though Andromeda is probably going to shake things up a bit.

In conclusion: I dunno
 

giggs-beckham

Clueless
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,043
Here's a fun fact, if we're talking about the age of the Universe. Assuming we're living in a flat Universe where dark energy will increase but never outmuscle gravity at the level of galaxies (or clusters), we're currently living in the very, very early days of the Universe. There will be star formation for trillions of years, and even after that it's theoretically possible for civilizations to survive around white dwarfs (maybe) or even black holes (super maybe). On the other hand, the Milky Way is largely done with star formation already, though Andromeda is probably going to shake things up a bit.

In conclusion: I dunno
Apparently star formation is slowing down. Dark energy outmuscled dark matter 7b years ago and in a googol years all that will be left will be a sea of photons tending towards absolute zero.
 

giggs-beckham

Clueless
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,043
"... the collection of stars was spied as it was a mere 290 million years after the Big Bang. "

It's remarkable we are seeing things now as they were at, basically, the beginning of time. I just can't wrap my head around that.
If we look at that galaxy in that point in space as we now observe it, currently in our time right now it will be 13 billion years older, willve matured, merged with other galaxies perhaps and moved to a different location in space due to the general movement of galaxies and the expansion of the universe.
And as we speak now people from that galaxy, now a big mature galaxy could be detecting our galaxy as it was 13b years ago, but currently observing it in a different point in space to where we reside as of right now.
 

McGrathsipan

Dawn’s less famous husband
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
24,844
Location
Dublin
If we look at that galaxy in that point in space as we now observe it, currently in our time right now it will be 13 billion years older, willve matured, merged with other galaxies perhaps and moved to a different location in space due to the general movement of galaxies and the expansion of the universe.
And as we speak now people from that galaxy, now a big mature galaxy could be detecting our galaxy as it was 13b years ago, but currently observing it in a different point in space to where we reside as of right now.
:nervous: