Jump to content

Danijel Gorupec

Senior Members
  • Posts

    694
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Danijel Gorupec last won the day on July 19 2020

Danijel Gorupec had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://charming.awardspace.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Danijel Gorupec's Achievements

Molecule

Molecule (6/13)

100

Reputation

  1. hmm... I will try to be more careful... Generally, yes.... you generally need to invest different amounts of energy to maintain speed of two objects of non-equal mass in gravitational field. The exception are the trajectories that are always perpendicular to the gravitational force.
  2. Interesting... at first I would instead expect that calf, lamb and deer babies keep quiet, not to attract predators. Isn't it true that in some animals, mothers can leave their babes in quiet hiding for some limited time? Human babies obviously do not even think about predators, lol.
  3. Yes, a dumb question, but I am just listening to a baby crying across the village and I cannot remember if I ever heard any baby animal crying that loud... Strange. Are baby gorillas equally loud when crying? As far as I can remember, baby chicken can get very loud - possibly only quieter than human babies due to smaller body size. Are ostrich babies particularly loud?
  4. Did they actually test this? My understanding was that all test hits were performed on non-functional satellites that had predictable trajectories - and if the weapon is designed to target evasion-capable satellite, then they tested shit. Are you saying that the weapon has a local sensing system that locks it on the satellite? I was under impression that all guidance is made from Earth. (Because if the weapon does not have any local sensing, then you can still play the game with an 'imagined evasion-capable satellite'.) EDIT: just occurred to me that even if local sensing is employed, they could still easily reprogram the software to miss 'five yards to the left'... and confirm the expected result using the all-mighty earth-based tracking systems.
  5. Maybe, but such agreements generally do not hold in case of war. Just brainstorming: maybe we can calculate the critical satellite density that can cause the destructive chain-reaction, then make an agreement to keep the density lower.
  6. Why does someone need to actually hit a satellite to test an anti-satelite weapon? You simply imagine a point in space and make your weapon fly through that point at certain exact time - this is a hit. Hitting an actual satellite seems more like an exhibition to me.
  7. I would say it is naive to think that only one thing happens when two civilizations make a contact. All possible things happen instead. There are various fractions and interest groups, 'freedom fighters', smugglers, opposition groups, shady business persons etc. I guess, at least some of them would try to make a contact with us... It is difficult to me to imagine a monolithic civilization (if I imagine aliens as a product of evolution). So, I would say, lack of contact is not due to their rational decision, but must be due to 'technical' difficulties. For the 'technical' difficulties... obviously, distances and limited light speed do not help. But there must also be something else - there must be one more prohibitive rule that I cannot figure out.
  8. Yet, some people cannot live without insulin shots - and it would unfair to ban them from sports (as you know, sadly, many top athletes today are registered as diabetic - is this fair or not?)
  9. This is also my opinion (the existence the 'unlimited' class), but I see drawbacks. For example, drug assisted vs drug non-assisted sports (should there be several 'unlimited' classes depending on the amount of drugs allowed, or should drug usage, like insulin, be completely banned?). Further, soon there will be cyborg kids around - what about them (we already had complains about runners with prostheses).
  10. All powerful. I want to know the theoretical distance that I can still 'touch' by any means possible. I was playing with this number a little, and if my back-of-envelope calculations are any good, then my light ray will not be able to reach an object that is currently farther than cca 5.3 billion light years (and the ray will reach an object at this limiting distance in about 14 billion years). If my calculations are correct, then this 'controllable' universe is much smaller than the observable universe.
  11. what then is the approximate size of this 'controllable' universe? (That is, the part of the universe that we can affect in any way... I don't know if this universe is already named somehow; borrowed the term 'controllable' from the control theory).
  12. If I choose a galaxy near the edge of the observable universe, and I send a ray of light toward this galaxy, will the light ever reach the galaxy?
  13. I did not understand if they added water to the soil or not? (btw, I would be more interested about an experiment to check if lithoautotrops can live there - but I guess it could take a long time to check it)
  14. I see. So it seems the effect is especially pronounced for 'overexposed' stars. So I guess they can have certain control by using proper exposition time. But, since we know how the effect is caused, shouldn't we be able to simply remove the effect from the image numerically? If this can be done, I guess they didn't do it just because the image looks more interesting to general population with all those rays sparkling around.
  15. Recently I saw comparison between an image taken by Spitzer and an image taken by James Webb space telescope (here, for example: https://www.planetary.org/space-images/spitzer-vs-jwst-in-infrared ). Why there are those rays of light visible around bright starts on the James Webb image (but not on the Spitzer image)? BTW, Is there a specific English term for this effect? Also, does anybody know what could be the exposition time needed to make these pictures (both, Spitzer and James Webb)?
×
×
  • 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.