Astronomy and Cosmology

I found that and tought that you might be interested Astronomers' Doubts About the Dark Side: No more dark energy ??? What do you think of that ?

So, it seems these reactions on Saturn's moon cannot be accounted for by chemical interactions induced by the sun, so a few parallel studies have concluded life exists on Titan based on evidence available. What do you think? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7805069/Titan-Nasa-scientists-discover-evidence-that-alien-life-exists-on-Saturns-moon.html

Why would it take an infinite amount of mass or energy to push an object a finite speed? That finite speed being 186,000 miles a second.

If the universe is 14 billion years old, how do we see a galaxy that is 10 billion years old? From the time of the big bang, if travelling at the speed of light, it would have taken that galaxy (or its components) 10 billion years to get that far away from us. Then for the light to get from there to us would take another 10 billion years. That is a total of 20 billion years elapsed, yet the galaxy is only 14 billion years old. Can someone explain to me the flaw in my logic? Thanks.

:doh:Nuetron stars, I believe, are like stars like our sun in which the sub-atoimic particle in which it is comprized of are not in a lump but flying around in all directions. Does that then imply that there is lots of empty space in the heart of star or nuetron star?

Is there a "GOD" out there? Maybe I should drag this to a different forum, but I just can't get it done without fudging. With a lot of people wondering, in all honesty what do you think? Is there, or isn't there?

It has been said that for a star to turn into a black hole must have 4 or 5 the size of our sun. Is that due to observations or calculations?? Sorry if my question sound naive to the experts in the field. Thanks

If the void between the filamentary clusters is a "vacuum" as we know it. No particles no energy i.e "absolutely nothing". Except mabey for CBR. And I choose one cubic meter , smack bang in the middle of such a void . What is expandinfg inside of that cubic meter. The concept of an expanding vacuum is puzzeling me, where am i going wrong?

Why go back to the parallell line way of thinking you ask? I don't know? But as we look around the universe, line of sight is likely the optimum way of viewing this miracle. Using parallel lines to convey the starting point of my earlier thought was probably the worst choice of words. So, let me try again, "Lineal Vectoring", which will probably be frowned on as well, since the Big Bang was supposidly anisotropic. In a word, if you don't know where the center is, it simply doesn't exist. And if there's no center, there can be no radii? No radius?, No Vectors?. But, since this vectoring thing will likely get me in hot water also, I may as well have some fun with it. When …

Hi I would like know what is the quasar? Thanks!!!

As a Physics newbie, I am puzzled at how textbooks tend to come up with masses (and, I suppose) chemical composition of stars, comets and asteroids. Also, If a star is converting mass into energy, isn't it losing mass (and therefore gravitational attraction)? Any elucidation welcomed.

If Neutrinos have a non-zero rest-mass, perhaps of roughly 1.5 eV, then couldn't Neutrinos exist... at rest ?? And, if so, couldn't they "clump", into "Neutrino planets" and "Neutrino stars" (as it were) ?? Could that explain Dark Matter ? At only ~1 eV per particle, the self-gravity of Neutrinos might be so weak, they their distribution would be continuously "stirred up", by the motions of planets & stars in galaxies. Could Earth, or our Solar System, be passing through a "thick fog" of cold, and nearly uniformly distributed, Neutrinos ??

http://www.streaming-madness.net/ That's the link. It has over 50 quality documentaries. Just wanted to share the link with you all... I just spent nearly my entire Sunday watching the latest progress in astronomy Personally, I especially enjoyed this one. Some criticism on the current theories (especially on the requirement of dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe). p.s. I am not connected to that website - this is no advertisement

Is there any real proof that black holes exist other than as axial points of galaxies?

I'm sure this question (or something similar) has been addressed in a previous thread before, but since I don't really feel like searching for it (and I know you all will LOVE answering it) I'm going to ask anyway. Given that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe with a force proportional to the same gravitational constant, why do so many independent collections of mass (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) exist at all? Shouldn't we have a completely isotropic universe instead? I realize that mass and distance between objects plays an important role, but...I don't even know what I'm asking anymore...help me out.

The blowing baloon is a very bad analogy (first page of Princeton article). In the blowing baloon, everything grows, not only space between elements, but elements themselves. Totally confusing. That cancels the explanation of the "Do objects inside the universe expand, too?". Not saying it provoques the question in the first place. A much better analogy is that of the raisin cake, in which the raisin do not change size. But even there, the distance between all the raisins increase, not only between the far away raisins. Damned analogies.

Quick and simple: Is the hubble constant the rate at which galaxies are moving away from us or the rate of "cosmic expansion" and the speed at which the distance of space increases between us?

If our universe was the result of the BB, is it spherical with everything moving away in lines of radii from a center, or is everything on the shell?

A black hole is often compared to a whirlpool. Does that mean that in the end, the supermassive BH in the milkyway will suck in all the matter in our galaxy like a vacuum cleaner? The way I see it the black hole is sucking in the closest material at first. New "food" to feed the hole, gets further and further away. Won't it then at some point be to far away for the BH to have any effect on matter, since gravity is weakening 1/4th for each time you double the distance? I don't know if I manage to explain what I mean. My head is not made to think about such big things, but I still find them interesting.

Feel free to slap some sense into the noob since I don't know what I'm talking about. Is it possible that a singularity isn't a singularity at all, but rather the breaking point of the fabric of Space? Since black holes are, as I understand them, considered to be infinitely dense, and heat is a byproduct of compression, could a black hole, being the most dense object known to man also be the hottest object known to man? Maybe it is this kind of heat confined to such a small spot that could "burn a hole" and create a sort of drain in the fabric of space. Dave

What I wonder is that if we were near say "The Large Magellanic Cloud", what would it look like to the naked eye? Would we see the bright blues, oranges, pinks, and greens that we see in the pictures from magazines or Hubble website, or would it be nothing more than the blackness of space, but with a thicker area where a bunch of gases have built up. Would we even know we were flying into the nebula? or would our experience be similar to what we see during sunrise/sunset, where we can see the scattering of light through the atmosphere... I've been lurking for a while, but this question finally got me to register... This is a great site! Bryan Brake

Do you think we are the remnants of a galaxy sucked into a black hole?

Can someone tell me how are cosmology theories usually tested ?

Kepler began operating on 5-12-09. As of the last data download they have 200 interesting planet candidates. "The Science Team continues to analyze data collected by Kepler. Kepler’s list of interesting candidates has grown to well over 200. Meanwhile, the constellation Cygnus has returned to the night sky of the northern hemisphere, so the Science Team is actively involved in ground-based follow-up observations of Kepler’s candidate targets." http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/mmu/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=39 Like the scientist on "The Universe" said, what Kepler is doing is so simple and yet so profound, that "it brings tears to his eyes." Me too.

Hello, I'm doing a project on the Hopkin's Ultraviolet Telescope and I've been trying to find sites or books where they describe in which way the image is magnified but I've come up short. I've found a few pictures and descriptions and I was wondering if anyone would be able to tell me what would be the most likely form of magnification. If it helps, it was sent out in two packages in 1990 and 1995. Here are the links: http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/instruments/hut_info2.html http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/instruments/techpg2.html Please help out, ~Muki