Jump to content

et pet

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About et pet

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1228 profile views
  1. Yes, your order, (32, 1; 2, 31)..., would be correct if the print job were to be set up for a Front to Back/Left to Right pamphlet or book. However, I continued using the order that studiot had provide in his first 3 Posts, {1, 32; 2, 31}, {3, ?; 4, ?}, {?, ?; ?, ?} , ... The order might also be (1,32;31, 2)...,for a Back to Front/Right to Left pamphlet or book. For example, a Japanese Manga : https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-read-manga/
  2. {1, 32; 2, 31}...{3, 30; 4, 29}...{5, 28; 6, 27} on to {15, 18; 16, 17} 8 sheets of paper to be printed on both front and back, then to be folded in the middle of the sheet 16 print jobs 1st sheet : 1st print job are pages 1 and 32, 2nd print job are pages 2 and 31 so..."{1, 32; 2, 31}" 2nd sheet :3rd print job are pages 3 and 30, 4th print job are pages 4 and 29 so..."{3, 30; 4, 29}" 3rd sheet : 5th print job are pages 5 and 28, 6th print job are pages 6 and 27 so..."{5, 28; 6, 27}" ... 8th sheet : 15th print job are pages 15 and 18, 16th print job are pages 16 and 17 so..."{15, 18; 16, 17}"
  3. The above does not seem to relate to the 3 Possibilities Listed in the Link : https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/ , (I posted the wrong Link in my previous Post!) Once again, may I inquire, What are your thoughts on : "Clearly, something here is amiss. WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW By definition, the process of science can never reveal objective truths about the universe. Every new discovery really only tells us how things appear to be to us, not how things really are. This means that every observation is subject to interpretation. So here are a few possible interpretations of our observation of HD 140283: Possibility #1 - One or more of our observations could be wrong. Possibility #2 - Our models of cosmic evolution could be wrong. Possibility #3 - The laws of physics may have changed over time. " - https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/
  4. Yes, like it says in the article : https://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html , clearly something is amiss. What are your thoughts on Possibility #1, #2 or #3?
  5. Have you ever heard of or researched the star that is Officially named HD 140283, that many of us astronomers have nicknamed the "Methuselah" star? It has been known as one of "oldest" stars discovered for some time now(pun intended!) and has been studied quite heavily in the last few decades. It is easily researched on the internet if you like. The following is from a few years back written by Dan Levesque and published on Death by Cosmos : https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/ " WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HD 140283 Mainstream cosmological models theorize that the first Population II stars didn't form until several hundred million years after the big bang. But HD 140283 presents us with a unique challenge—it appears to pre-date the big bang by about half a billion years. Initial observations had estimated Methuselah to be around 16 billion years old, plus or minus two billion years. In order to resolve this apparent discrepancy with the age of the universe, astrophysicists employed the Hubble Space Telescope to look at HD 140283 with far greater accuracy than any Earth-based telescopes were able to do. With the data gathered from Hubble, astrophysicists published, astrophysicists published a more accurate estimate of Methuselah's age: 14.46 billion years, plus or minus 800 million years. At the lower range of this uncertainty value, HD 140283 could be as young as 13.66 billion years old—which means that it would have formed just 160 million years after the big bang. Unfortunately, that timeline doesn't fit our cosmological models. In a recent study, astronomers using ESA's Planck Satellite determined that the first light from the earliest star formation likely happened 560 million years after the big bang. This means that, while our observations of HD 140283 suggest that it could have formed as early as 13.66 billion years ago, our observations of the cosmic microwave background of the universe suggest that the earliest stars didn't form until 13.26 billion years ago. The numbers simply don't add up. In a follow-up study, astrophysicists analyzed dating methodology by cross-referencing data from Methuselah with other observations of Population II stars that are 10+ billion years old (though none of these conflict with the apparent age of the universe). Upon refinement, astrophysicists published a new paper with an even more precise age for HD 140283: 14.27 billion years, plus or minus 380 million years. Here, the uncertainty was attributed primarily to distance-related precision alone. Having failed to 'solve' the problem, the researchers stated that: The most likely explanations for these difficulties, which would impact our results for the other subgiants as well, are (i) the absolute oxygen abundance that we have determined is too low, (ii) the adopted temperature is too low, (iii) the isochrone Teff scale is too high, or some combination of these possibilities. Alternatively, it remains a remote possibility that HD 140283 truly is older than 14 [billion years], and that current estimates of the age of the universe are too low. Clearly, something here is amiss. WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW By definition, the process of science can never reveal objective truths about the universe. Every new discovery really only tells us how things appear to be to us, not how things really are. This means that every observation is subject to interpretation. So here are a few possible interpretations of our observation of HD 140283: POSSIBILITY #1: One or more of our observations could be wrong. The laws of physics are being refined and expanded upon all the time, and this gradual evolution of theory does tend to make past theories seem silly. For example, less than a century ago, most astronomers though that the Milky Way galaxy was the only galaxy in the whole universe—now, recent estimates show there could be as many as 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. Because of this tendency towards increased knowledge and more accurate theories, scientists are generally really careful. Astronomy is a slow and methodical science by necessity; in many cases, astronomers must literally wait for stars to align in order to collect the data they're after. It's unlikely that any of these observations are wrong, but there remains the possibility that the very act of observation and analysis may be missing some important information. POSSIBILITY #2: Our models of cosmic evolution could be wrong. This is perhaps the most likely culprit, though it would also come as a shock to the scientific community—as has every such paradigm shift that's ever happened. The problem with this possibility is that we don't even know what we don't yet know. There's the implication that something is missing from our physics models (though something is always missing), but we can't grasp what that might be—if we could, then it probably wouldn't be missing. The solution to this one is just a function of time. In due time, it may turn out that our observations were correct, but that our assumptions about the age of the universe or the way in which the first stars formed were incorrect. Or, it may turn out to be a mixture of both. Either way, all we can do is wait and, in the meantime, admit that we just don't know. POSSIBILITY #3: The laws of physics may have changed over time. Shortly after the big bang, the universe looked unrecognizable compared to the cosmos of today—could its physical laws also have been different? Evidence has gone both ways: some observations seem to confirm that the same physical laws existed 10+ billion years ago as exist today, while others show quite the opposite. But would it be so naive to think that we should spend more time thinking about how the physical laws got the way they are in the first place? Acclaimed physicist Richard Feynman takes up this line of thought in the following video, beginning at 7:53 When considering the current state of physics, Feynman states: "It's as though we're doing a Chess game again, and we're working on the rules but we're not worrying about how the pieces are supposed to be setup on the board in the first place." He then goes on to pose a very profound question: could the laws of physics also evolve over time? "It's interesting that in many other sciences, there's a historical question. Like in Geology, they question 'how did the Earth evolve to the present condition?' In Biology, 'how did the various species evolve to get to be the way they are?' But the one field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is Physics. 'Here are the laws,' we say. 'Here are the laws, today'. How did they get that way in time? We don't even think of it that way. We think of, well, that was that way forever." " There is more at : https://deathbycosmos.com/methuselah-star/
  6. Psyche 16 Some members might be interested in researching the asteroid named "Psyche 16" "The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire" : https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Golden-Asteroid-Worth-700-Quintillion.html# " Who Will Get There First? China has vowed to dominate this race, and that’s an easier game for a country that controls all the major natural resource companies and maintains a tight leash on tech developers. That’s not to say that the U.S. doesn’t have ambitions here. The difference, though, is stark. While NASA is focused on space exploration and scientific missions, China is focused on a space-based economy that is zeroing in on long-term wealth generation. Even Europe, where EuroSun is developing a major goldmine in Romania, has its hand in the game. In January, the European Space Agency (ESA) announced a deal with ArianeGroup, the parent company of Arianespace, to study a prep mission to the moon in 2025. It’s got natural resources on its mind. Even tiny Luxembourg has 10 space-mining companies registered since 2016, with some targeting space ventures to the Moon, and others eyeing near-Earth asteroids for mining. Tokyo-based iSpace, for instance, is a private space exploration company that plans to complete a lunar orbit in 2020, and a soft landing in 2021. For Moore, the prospect is daunting, even if it is the clear future reality, because mining in EuroSun’s Rovina Valley project in west-central Romania has been a cakewalk, both in terms of geology and infrastructure. Everything lines up for a large, low-cost project (the biggest in-development gold mine in Europe.) That won’t be the case in space, but it’s a big bill that governments will want to help foot or risk losing their place in space. Whoever gets there first will become the new god of gold, and the competition is heating up." : https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Golden-Asteroid-Worth-700-Quintillion.html# A couple of similar Links - "NASA headed towards giant golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire" : https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-headed-towards-giant-golden-asteroid-that-could-make-everyone-on-earth-a-billionaire "Space miners race to an asteroid worth quintillions" : https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/space-miners-race-to-an-asteroid-worth-quintillions
  7. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/07/10/princeton-scientists-spot-two-supermassive-black-holes-collision-course-each-other Princeton scientists spot two supermassive black holes on collision course with each other by the Office of Communications July 10, 2019 11:13 a.m. "Astronomers have discovered a distant pair of titanic black holes on a collision course. Each black hole’s mass is more than 800 million times that of our sun. As the two gradually draw closer together in a death spiral, they will begin sending gravitational waves rippling through space-time. Those cosmic ripples will join the as-yet-undetected background noise of gravitational waves from other supermassive black holes. Even before the destined collision, the gravitational waves emanating from the supermassive black hole pair will dwarf those previously detected from the mergers of much smaller black holes and neutron stars." - more at link reference : https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a14
  8. Note carefully, beecee, that you have yet to provide a citation for your petty bold statement :
  9. Note carefully, beecee, this is the Science News section. This is not the place to raise your "Creation myth".
  10. Should this be considered? : https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/how-do-astronomers-know-universe-expanding " When looking at the radiation emitted by distant stars or galaxies, scientists see emission spectra ‘shifted’ towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum—the observed wavelengths are longer than expected. Something causes the wavelength of the radiation to ‘stretch’. But rather than an actual change in the wavelength, this phenomenon was something similar to the Doppler effect—they only appear stretched relative to the observer. The further away an object is, the greater the shift. The Doppler effect The noise of a siren or a car speeding past sounds higher in pitch the closer it gets to you and lower as it moves away. This is called the Doppler effect, where waves, in this case sound waves, change in frequency and wavelength as the source moves towards you (higher frequency, shorter wavelength) or away from you (lower frequency, longer wavelength). There is no actual change in sound; the car isn’t making a different noise. It just sounds different due to the car’s movement relative to you. " https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/how-do-astronomers-know-universe-expanding
  11. Does the expansion of the universe actually affect the wavelength of light or does it simply affect how that wavelength of light appears or is perceived relative to the observer? Isn't it similar to the Doppler Effect, in that the sound of a Train, a Siren or a Race Care doesn't actually change as it approaches or recedes, it just appears to change relative to the listener?
  12. With a name like "Obsessed With Gaming", I'm guessing the interest is not for using a BCI to figure the Square Root of Sodium Chloride...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.