Nicholas Kang

Sorry for talking irrelevant topics. By the way what is the difference between wave and waving?

Am I wrong?

It is electron. When electron accelerates (in physics, acceleration can either be change in direction or change in magnitude since it is a vector quantity), its magnetic field will collapse and creates an electric field. This cycle continues. The quantum particles involved is known as photon, which carries no charge and no mass. According to quantum mecanics, force is formed when 2 particles exchange quanta-a descrete and tiny but incontinuous packet. Electrons exchange photons and they oscillate in the EM field. This is light wave. You must remember that light does not mean visible light, it also means gamma rays, X-rays, Infared rays, Ultraviolet rays and Radio wave. They aren`t visible but are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. For your extra knowledge, quantum mechanics emerge in 1900s after Max Planck. It was based on Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle which states that you cannot know the position and the momentum of a particle exactly. If you know the position 100%, you won`t know the momentum, but this is practically impossible, since a drawing of an atom of the size of the universe would only be possible to determine the postition of the electron in an atom 100% precisely. Normally, the probability is 95% in most chemistry and physics. Enjoy quantum mechanics. You will love it. The common advice is "shut up and calculate". Here is why. Quantum mechanics is a bizarre theory. An electron placed in a box will disappear and exist outside the box because its probability wave may travel through the obstruction, known as quantum diode. This is quantum leap/jump. Quantum entanglement tells you a particle would "remember" its co-exist partner or an antiparticle or just ordinary particle and won`t forget it no matter how far they are and even independent of their speed,thus violating Einstein`s Theory of Relativity, which states that the speed limit of universe is light speed c=299792458 m/s. Enjoy. Regards Nicholas Kang

Do you mean I must go for programming? Isn`t it participating in analyzing data from Arecibo is enough?

To answer your question, it would change geophysics- the physics of geology. It is scientifically impossible because many modern geological theory would fail, for example how would you find evidences to proof that the Earth core is made up of iron metal, then the current theory about the origin of the moon would be redifined. Here is why. Our curent best theory of lunar origin is the Giant Impact Theory, which state that the moon was formed after a Mars-size space rock hits the young Earth full of larva and volcanoes. The debris upon hiting formed the moon. Yet, other previous alternative include co-creation theory and fission theory. Co-creation theory argue that the moon was formed exactly with the Earth. But lunar rocks dating disprove the theory. If the Earth was hollow, the fission theory would be accepted. One key is the amount of materials in the core. If the fission theory is true, then theoretically the amount of materials of core that make up the moon should be very close to Earth`s but sadly lunar geology survey disprove it. The metal core make up the moon is much more smaller than Earth`s. So, the speculation(not really since lack of scientific basis) would inevitably kick start a revolutionary scientific world. I don`t like that.

No, you must understand the history of Voyager mission. Now, I would like to share some. In the 1970s, an astronomical phenomena every 100 years approximately take place in our solar system- the planets allignment. All planets allign together, from inner rocky planets to outer gas and ice giants. NASA proposed a mission to take advantage of gravity assist of planets to explore the outer planets by sending 4 probes to discover each of the giants-Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune(excluding Pluto). However, due to financial crisis, finally 2 probes are sent, that gave birth to the Ultimate Voyager mission. So, less fuel is needed to propel to craft. Voyager 2 will follow a special trajectory to explore Uranus and Neptune, because actually not all planets are alligned exactly at that moment. So, it will follow a longer path to keep it align/parallel with the Ecliptic orbit. Voyager 2 was launched first. Then its twin Voyager 1 was launched later. Actually, Voyager 1 only tavels to orbit somewhere near Jupiter or Saturn(I couldn`t remember) then it flies off heading to interstellar space. Voyager 2 continues its mission exploring Uranus and Neptune-which remains the only craft that have visited both planets, at least before New Horizons reach Pluto before 2015. In the year 2004, Voyager 1 passes trough the Termination Shock. Even until today, both space probes continue to provide us with precious information. Now, to launch space probes again to conquer interstellar space is amost impossible. You can do gravity assists but not enough for you to leave the solar system, at least without stronger propulsion source.

Higgs Boson does not give mass to matter, it is Higgs Boson field, which is not located in the rest energy field. Don`t forget about George Lemaitre. He actually published his articles earlier than Edwin Powell Hubble. The articles were sent to Arthur Eddington but was not realized by the public or the scientific community. When Hubble published his Hubble`s Law, Lemaitre reminded Eddington about his articles. Athough Hubble succeed first but soon Lemaitre go beyond him by relating the Hubble`s Law with the expansion of universe. Both of them should have been mentioned at the same time. This is an article from BBC Knowledge magazine published in Singapore but for sale only in Asia(Asia edition), maybe the contents are the same throughout the world. Remember the Hubble`s Constant is somewhere near 100km/s/Mpc, according to Knowledge, differs from the initially thought 575km/s/Mpc by Hubble and 500km/s/Mpc by Lemaitre. I think string theory should be included in this discussion. String should form first, shouldn`t it?

This is the most useful link I have ever visited. arvix.org It contains a lot of useful university level materials for fuether reference, even famous writers like Stephen Hawking or olden days` articles like Albert Einstein ones are published there too. But this is not very suitable for TheExplorer. Some science magazines offer online webpages too. for example Scientific American, Nature and so on. NASA offers news too. Simulations form NASA is a good way of learning how space technology really works but it had been removed from its official webpage from the 3D Resources section. Stellarium is a famous software too. I used to download them but soon uninstall them after suspecting they are affected by my computer viruses. Other software can be found at http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/astronomy-software-public-domain-freeware-and-shareware/ Enjoy astronomy. And don`t forget SETI@home, a project in effort of searching for ETs.

It has something to do with quantum entanglement and for even complex idea, it involes Ads/CFT corespondence, which talks about DeSitter Space. Ads is short for Anti Desitter Space while CFT is short for Conformal Field Theory. Here is the article from arxiv.org, written by Stephen Hawking, himself. I acknowledge Mr. Mordred for his kind sharing of this article http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 I have answered this question long ago in this post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84660-quantum-entanglement-need-explanation/ See post number 11 Hope you enjoy astronomy. Good luck Nicholas Kang

You are welcome. Check out official and authoritative facts from NASA official webpage. It would be more reliable. I think there should be a officially recognised name for this celestial body to facilitate communication between scientists.

I know that mission to asteroid, it is Hayabusa from JAXA Japan, isn`t it? It is clear that an economical way of launching probes is a must now.

I have heard of that website before. My friend told me the words ifls representing foul words-i fxxxing love science. I am completely being driven up the wall. I hate foul words and negative words entering scientific community. So, I don`t thought of it. But later when I click on every website without a detailed examination on the URL, I found out that it is a good website, except the advertisements and the web`s URL, which is not nice to me. i hate foul words, it just seemed to be spoken by not well/highly educated people.

Ah?! Now I don`t understand. What problems?

We can`t see multiverse. it exist theoretically, but we can`t see them. Instead of saying that it is due to the event horizon that prevents light from entering-reaching us. I would like to post a speculation. Is it possible that it is due to the fact that our companion universe is full and compact with superclusters, clusters and galaxies, thus lights from galaxies in our companion universe cannot pass through them and creates a shadow, which make us unable to "see" them. I think the multiverse is just invisible due to the fact that we lie in their shadows.

http://www.universetoday.com/90854/new-nasa-mission-hunts-down-zombie-stars/ This article`s content seemed to contradict with my real zombie stars definition. I mean dwarf star and nothing to do with neutron star. The others are ok. I actually posted this topic after reading articles regarding zombie stars found in supernova SN2012Z in the galaxy NGC1309. So, what is the scientific name for the companion star, we shouldn`t just call it zombie stars, should we?

What does OP means? What does OP stands for?

Your words are dissapointing me. I +1 to express my gratitution to you. Usually, I point out the small mistakes but leave out the obvious one. It isn`t a graph, but I mean using your concept to analyze daily graph encountered in Science and Maths. I apologise to you if my message above isn`t clear.

Ok. Good and fast searching.

Ok, I know why now. I have forgotten the Earth. Thanks. I got it, fully 100% Good drawing too.

I have found the page, but their requirements seemed to be very high, especially English requirement which is CPE level of CEFR, I am only taking FCE exam this year(in 1 week time). http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/international/qualifications/malaysia.html I have also found the requirements in Oxford page, but it looks simple and no strict rules and regulations, just STPM with AAA, that`s all. Also Oxford provides 2 options for both CAE(at least A) and CPE(at least B), which is much looser than Cambridge.

Ok, I understand 50%. i can roughly get the idea. But to imagine I am a Sun and seeing the moon moving in a wavy string-like orbit is hardly possible to me. Can you explain how can the Sun "sees" the moon orbiting in a string-like motion, I would have thought it is a straight line. Imagine I am the Sun, the moon passes by in front of me, it moves harmonically with steady motion.

Maybe you can provide me some websites like Cambridge or Oxford`s one. Then I can check my own school.

Only a begineer. Now credit exceeds 1000, still a far cry to reach the experts` level. Astropulse is a good app. You can earn more points in a short time than SETI@home original app. But both are always giving the wrong remaining time. The remaining time isn`t very accurate(it should be close to reality) but the percentage is more reliable.

Why wiggly line?

Ok, I am worrying to much, sorry. No more worries. Thanks.