Astronomy and Cosmology

at the centre of the galaxy there is a super massive black hole I think he called on the tv but anyway if that's so does that mean at some point in time there was a super massive sun at the centre of our galaxy driving it in an orbit similar to a solar system only with all the solar systems and all the stars orbiting the super massive sun whilst the planets orbited the smaller suns like our own sun? if so is it not possible that countless planets possible containing plenty of life or better yet intelligent life could have been lost to this deadly natural disaster?

Dateline January 10, 2013 From: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/01/-the-new-physics-model-of-dark-energy-nixed.html The title of this article promises an interesting discovery, but the body of the article fails to explain either what or why something may be nixed. Is this article just hot air?

Supposedly if black holes rotate, they will deform. However, this implies that each point on the even horizon is subject to inertia in the vector form, but if a black hole we see is merely the residing space within the event horizon, how is it that space itself would "bulge out"? How exactly do you transfer centripetal force to the fabric of space that would cause the event horizon to stretch out?

In what circumstances does an orbit become a hyperbolic trajectory and vice-versa? How do you actually change x^2+y^2=1 to x^2-y^2=1?

Hey what will happen to the universe if. If the universe density is less than critical density what will happen? If the universe density is equal to critical density what will happen? If the universe density is greater than critical density what will happen?

I am getting a conclusion/result in my theoretical work that the velocity of the light is increased by three(3) times from the beginning of this universe. Is there any such experimental trails showing the velocity of light is increasing or decreasing from the time of beginning to the present time? If any such trails are there then I can proceed with my theory to substantiate the theoretical proof or back ground.

1. Simple Model of Terrestrial-Planetary Structure Advanced Computer Simulations of Planetary Structures give the relationship, between Planet Radius vs. Planet Mass, for Terrestrial Planets*. For Terrestrial Planets, of sufficiently small Planetary Mass (M [math]\leq 10 \; M_{\oplus}[/math]), this result can be linearly approximated accurately. For such Rocky Worlds, of Earth-like Composition, the Average Bulk Density ([math]\rho[/math]) increases nearly linearly with Surface Gravity (g): [math]\rho = \rho_{0} + k \times g[/math] (eq. 1) where, using Earth-normalized units: [math]\rho_{0} \approx 0.536[/math] [ 2.96 g cm-3 ] [math]k \approx 0.464[/math]…

First and foremost, I am NOT a scientist or math person. I just watch science stuff on TV. The reason I even have these questions is because I was day dreaming and ended up on a logic path that singularities orbit each other at the speed of light or faster and thus travel back through time. DERP 1) I have the understanding that a black hole has a singularity at the center which is a massive object of infinite density. Does this mean that the singularity has no measurable size? I just assumed that it has no size I didn't see that on TV or anything. 2) IF a singularity has no size, then when we talk about a black hole being supermassive or large, we're only talking…

How does the curvature of space cause a photon to permanently change its path? All of the diagrams of space curving around a mass seem tp start with a rectangular grid then pull the grid down around a mass. The line that dips comes back up to realign with the original line. So why does the light lensing work?

New era for astronomic observation... IceCube has made its first observations, with 28 neutrinos of known direction and energy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22540352 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube two of the first papers are on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2253 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2460

But isn't that idea only valid, in a "Steady State" Universe. In which there's no central "universal" point of origin. And therefore, no central reference point, from which to make "universal" temporal and spatial measurements. That makes good sense in a Steady State Universe, which has always existed, spread out evenly and uniformly, through Time and Space. With no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end. However the currently fashionable Big Bang theory is different. It claims that the Universe started suddenly at a specific point in time, and from a specific central point. Shouldn't this point provide a base, from which to make measurements?

So i'm wondering, if the earth had formed without the presence of the sun. Would it have already cooled down by now or would it still be mostly molten rock like it is now? Found this - http://phys.org/news62952904.html So the sun has little role to play in the earths temperature, is this mostly because of the radioactivity heat or just the time it will take for the amount of molten material to cool down? or something else?

http://www.astronomy.com/News-Observing/News/2013/03/Hubble%20pins%20down%20age%20of%20oldest%20known%20star.aspx?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ASY_News_Sub_130315_Final&utm_content= interseting article in Astronamy magazine.

Hi My name is Kamakshi and I'm a journalism student in New York. As part of a class project I've written a story on the things I tried to learn about Space from down here. I learnt why astronauts love wasabi, what Jupiter sounds like on a radio and why the position of the Sun was important during the moon landing. I'd really appreciate it if you'd check out the story here link removed by mod per rule 7 please share it and let me know what you think. Thanks!

I read somewhere that a tesseract is to a cube what a cube is to a square. What exactly does that mean? Does this thing include a 4th dimension in some way?

Hi This is a simple question but one which I personally can't find an answer to, despite exhaustive trawls through the internet. It is this: can gravity waves physically endanger organisms - in the same way, for instance, that an intense gravitational tidal field is said to 'spaghettify' all matter, including living matter? Could similarly powerful gravity waves have the same effect? Geekay

So I was doing a little research on dark energy and was somewhat startled at what I found, while I new the universe was expanding, it was surprising to know what from. Also I have a big question as I can't figure out what's after that, so what I'm trying to say is that if the universe is expanding doesn't that mean it has to have an end in the first place to even expand? So if their is an end to the universe than whats after that end? And if their isn't, well maybe someone could explain to me why? Hey thanks for your help, and I know I'm new here and also a little young, but I love science!

And exactly why is it you can't change the laws of physics? Is it because someone told you it can't be done? Or perhaps because no one has ever done it? Or at least no one has ever known it to be done? There are Celestial Bodies existing in our Universe that are changing the laws of Physiics right now. Black Holes do it. Quasars snd Pulsars do it. After the Big Bang the movement of particles faster than Light Speed shows it to have been done. Some may say my statements are akin to Magic. Magic is just the use of a High Level of Technology that we have not yet obtained yet. So he said...just about. Arthur C. Clark Split Infinity

This has always puzzled me. I keep hearing that with increasingly powerful telescopes we can see further into the past. I completely get the concept of light years and the fact that we are seeing objects as they were when light started its journey but to see light that started shortly after the big bang wouldn't I have had to travel faster than it to be able to observe it?

I know there will be a good answer but since I don't know it does anyone here? On a Christian website the orbital distance of the moon has been compaired to it's rate of drift away from the earth. They have come up with the result that it must have been at mimum distance some 1.5 billion years ago. How are they wrong? Here's the link; http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night

I'm starting to think that balck holes are really just strong force stars. That during the hyper nova explosion the walls of the atoms beome so dense that they push out any electro magnetic behaviour. Even vacuum energy is blasted away. and that black hole mass is made up of only the strong force and gravity. are there any real theorys like this one ?

Assuming the universe looks the same in every direction it would support uniformity throughout the shape. If explosions are never uniformed and the big bang was an explosion, Why would the universe look uniformed? Should it not end sooner in some parts than others?

The media is filled with news of the discoveries of extra solar planets and especially the rocky planets in habitable zones. The mass of these planets are quoted at multiple masses of the earth. My question is wouldn't moons orbiting these planets be included in the mass quote? I mean the wobble dection method would only view the planets and its moons as a single mass, right? Frank

If something 11 billion light years away blew up such as a supernova, and we are only seeing it now... doesn't that mean the universe was already as big then as it is now? If not, the only way it would make sense is if the universe is expanding twice the speed of light, or us and the "event" have been traveling in direct opposite directions.

What determines the direction of the gravitational field (the direction the "disk" around an object faces) of something other things orbit... such as a solar system or galaxy? For example, if I am in space and am looking forward, one galaxy might look like it's sitting horizontal according to my position, while the one next to it may be verticle. Does it have to do with only gravity? Or does magnetism come into play... like does it have to do with where the magnetic poles are of the center object.