Baby Astronaut

Unless you've already readied stuff for a pot-luck, I think light snacks would do just fine instead. Then we're not bogged down much. And in case of rain, there's the American Museum of Natural History as a good alternative. Keeps us dry, and it's lots of science. Heck, we can decide to go there after a bit of park relaxing. Tip of the hat to mooey for the idea. The train is cheap, the all day pass is under $10 if we decide on the museum or elsewhere. We'll keep it a tad spontaneous. As a possible last resort and if we end up all over 21, maybe we can even vote whether to check one of the "best brainy bars" reviewed at the link. For the ones who signed up, you'll find my cell number in your message box to call when you're nearby, to help keep us coordinated. It's going to be a fun science-y day with fellow boards people. And I'm looking forward to meeting everyone. Excellent. Hope you're able to make it.

Bumping to see if anyone has further info to contributre. A star just beginning to collapse has passed 1/3 way into the event horizon of a black hole. The star's velocity and angle keeps the rest of it from entering the black hole as the collapse occurs. A tug of war is occuring between the star's 1/3 material inevitable collapse towards its center outside the BH's horizon, and the point-of-no-return gravitational tug of the black hole on that same 1/3. Although my scenario's improbable, and highly so, is the occurrence itself -- the tug of war described above -- is that impossible, such as it wouldn't have any chance of occurring any way?

The moon is drifting away slowly. What about the Earth from our sun -- or towards? If the Earth drifts from the sun a good distance, I'm thinking it can potentially avoid the fate of an enlarged sun down the road.

Not what you're thinking At least not quite. Virtual particles wink into existence throughout all of space. Can it be possible in the future to grab and isolate those particles for conversion to usable energy before they wink out again? If so, might it be the ticket to free energy? Assuming of course it takes less energy input to harness their output of energy. Side question: what happens if the virtual particles don't return to the vaccuum energy of space? Does the non-virtual Universe's total energy increase?

Wow, that resolution can see an object just eight inches across on the moon. (?) If my calculations aren't off.

What's that mean precisely? I looked it up but found no leads.

Ha!, awesome link Yet I didn't find the relevant stuff in Google, but found it using my trusty IxQuick search engine of choice. Look at their excellent Privacy notice higlighted in the circle, and you'll see why I continue to use it. Anyhow, your keyword lead and Edtharan's suggestion helped me find close to what I needed. Here's what I found looking it up. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/18/wonder-twins-telescope-sees-stars-dying-gasps The image above is not an illustration, it’s an actual image of a red giant star undergoing dying paroxysms and blasting a dense shell of molecules into space ..... This incredible picture was not taken by a single telescope. It was produced by combining the light of four different 1.8 meter telescopes in a process called interferometry. It’s a fiendishly complex process that virtually creates a telescope that has the same resolution (ability to see small objects) as a single telescope spanning the separation between the smaller ones. In other words, separate the smaller ’scopes by 100 meters, and you can create a virtual telescope 100 meters across. The longer the wavelength, the easier this process is (though it’s never easy); in this case the image was taken in the infrared. It took multiple observing sessions over several nights, but in the end the astronomers were able to see objects as small as two milliarcseconds across– much smaller than Hubble can resolve, and equivalent to an object just four meters across sitting on the Moon’s surface! The image referred to... A related link. http://www.skatelescope.org/pages/page_genpub.htm An initiative has emerged to develop a telescope to provide two orders of magnitude increase in sensitivity over existing facilities at metre to centimetre wavelengths. To achieve this goal will require a telescope with one square kilometre of collecting area - one hundred times more collecting area than the Very Large Array (VLA). ..... The SKA will be an interferometric array of individual antenna stations, synthesizing an aperture with diameter of up to several 1000 kilometers. A number of configurations are under consideration to distribute the 1 million square metres of collecting area. These include 30 stations each with the collecting area equivalent to a 200 metres diameter telescope, and 150 stations each with the collecting area of a 90 m telescope

I don't remember what magazine, perhaps Discover (a while back), the article said NASA planned to have giant telescopes arranged in a system where each is many kilometers away from the others, with their lens perfectly aligned to create a fantastically large magnification (because of the distance apart). The other thing I remember is a scientist's claim that if aliens did exist on a planet, with this you'd be able to see the white of their eyes. Anyone familiar with the article, or the concept, plan, whatever?

I'm thinking no one can really bring hot food, so maybe we can go with small cold items. Don't sweat it too much, I'm bringing a cooler with ice packs and extra snacks for munchies. Plus a canopy tent for shade just in case we need it. And even some German potato salad if anyone likes that. But surely there's plenty of eats around too, it's NYC. There's a small group of us, so if bringing something would be inconvenient, then don't give it a second thought. I can bring along some veggies too from my garden if anyone's into healthy snackage. ...plenty in there

For everyone's convenience as it's nearer to Port Authority and it's easier to find the others, I'm changing the location to Bryant Park. And, from what I heard it's a free WiFi spot -- another plus. Looking at the Satellite view of "Bryant Park, NY" on Google Maps (and zoomed in), I'm thinking label "A" is probably a good spot for it. Again, I'll be there an hour early. But 2 p.m. is the official time. So, for anyone interested in popping in by video....how do you feel about Oovoo, Skype, or just regular webcam?

Cool, sounds promising, just note that I want something most people are likely to have. I'll give it a looksy, thanks. You'll have to choose a different beverage due to age, however you'll receive it in time for a toast with us on the 30th. Nicely done, congrats! (working many hours the next two days, see you all Wednesday)

You know, go ahead. I realized the pool for answers is small. Therefore, if correct, you may pass it on to someone who's attending, or heck, I'll even mail the bottle to ya (feeling generous at the moment ) And, perhaps you can toast with us... For I just got an idea earlier today. People who live far away can still "attend" the meet using a webcam. But I'm not familiar with the tech, like how it works for viewing multiple people who drop by to say hi. If the laptop's positioned ideally, they can see us and we'd be able to see new log-ons that pop in. I've got a laptop, and can get a webcam, plus if anyone gives instructions on the software needed I can hook it up, test it, and have it ready for the 30th. Thoughts?

That is a freakin awesome idea. the tree is correct about resolution, but just knowing the possibility is great food for thought. Not by itself, but manipulating one in a specific pattern does create information transfer in the other, and vice versa.

(clue: image properties) Wow, not too many like {free} beer here?

The question then should be: is it illegal to spectacularly awaken a person, as with a tremendous and purposeful noise, especially if such results in a heart attack or even frightful death? Good question. No sure if that's in the law books.

Btw, did you post in the Mods forum?

The meet time is officially 2 p.m. to give leeway for any sleepy heads (I'll be there at 1 p.m. to begin setting up). I'm checking on a good place for indoor alternates in case of rain, will post it next week after my current job's done. I'm happy with 4 people, though maybe we can add one person each week until the 30th...for a total of 7 people. And to help achieve that, I'll begin a contest of the trivia sort -- with prizes you can get at the meet. The cooler I'm bringing will have a six-pack of unique beer nice and icy cold. And I'm giving five of them away -- one each, to the first correct answer (who's at least 21). First one will be easy, but it's a double-question. And, since it's related to the work I do, you learn a tad about me. So...#1. In the pic below: what's that contraption the guy (denim jacket) is standing on, and what year did the event take place?

Is there any? What difference in 3D size exists between a tiny black hole and a super-massive one? For isn't a black hole simply a point with no dimensions regardless how massive? If they do lack physical dimensions, and consequently have no size difference, is the radius of their event horizon the only difference in size?

Excellent, we've got another person and still over a month to go. Plenty of time for more sign-ups. I'm working over a lot for a couple more weeks, so I'll hopefully find time to post meanwhile.

Doh! I was confusing ecology with geology, bascule -- not making a crack at you. Ok, here's my suggestion: don't make a new boards section. Instead... We can give "Earth Sciences" the spot occupied by "Amateur Science" (which itself could then go under "Other Sciences"). It can include geology, plus the atmospheric sciences, environment, and oceanography, none of which I see explicitly labeled/covered here. And then shorten the "Ecology and the Environment" subheading under Biology to just "Ecology".

The object causing it, so ignore the horizon (in relation to comparing sizes of a black hole and elementary particles). Sure, I get it. No information can escape from beyond the horizon. But what about the part of it that's outside the horizon? Let's say this object's even identical to our sun, but compacted to 3 km -- its schwarzschild radius, I believe. And its compaction occurred at the exact moment that nearly 1 km of the star crossed the event horizon, yet it's careening through space at high enough velocity that its "outside" 2 km portion wouldn't fall into the black hole -- due to the angle of its trajectory and the position at which it brushed the event horizon -- thus its outer portion would continue traveling (away from the black hole). We'd still be able to tell what happened to a collapsing object this side of an event horizon. Does it collapse all the way anyway, or does the collapse process simply just dissipate midway? Here's what I'm ultimately saying: the collapsing portion within our side is in a tug-of-war between its "unstoppable" gravitational collapse and the other side's "point-of-no-return" gravitational black hole tug.

Nice idea bascule. If that's the case, why not make Earth Sciences a subset of "Other Sciences"? Also Ecology really does have no place under Biology

On #3's answer I follow you, on the rest I don't quite. Also...for #4, I was just referring to one black hole, not two of them. Because the object at the event horizon is about to form a black hole -- it just hasn't yet, as it's only in the beginning phase of schwarzschild-type collapse, which is unstoppable by all known forces. Except, perhaps, if half of the starting-to-collapse object were at that very moment passing an event horizon, while its other half is still outside the event horizon. So my question is: can that situation halt the "unstoppable" collapse? You sort of answered that one with #3, yet the situation I'm presenting is on a "natural scale" (even if the chances of it occurring are severely limited). However thanks for your reply and help so far.

Might be in either of the following posts by you. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=368897&highlight=Co2+physics#post368897 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384198&highlight=Co2+physics#post384198 Cheers!

A few questions popped up while reading answers in the other thread related to black holes. I then looked up schwarzschild radius, and even more questions popped up -- hope someone can oblige. 1) Is a black hole's radius smaller than an elementary particle or atom's radius? 2) Gravity is supposed to be the weakest force. Yet a black hole is pretty damn strong. Light can't even escape it. Therefore, if the other forces are stronger than gravity, can each one prevent light from escaping too? 3) Once the schwarzschild radius is fulfilled, the ensuing collapse of mass is unstoppable by any known force. How is that possible if the other forces are stronger than the gravity responsible for the collapse? 4) Also: what if an object's schwarzschild radius were fulfilled just as it crossed the event horizon of a neighboring black hole...wouldn't that actually prevent the object's collapse? I'm thinking of the same mechanism for black hole evaporation, where virtual particles are split at the event horizon. In the same manner, wouldn't a collapsing object be split apart during the process -- before it entirely collapsed? 5) Is space able to expand within a black hole (i.e. cosmic expansion)? I just mean space itself, not any objects "carried" by space during its expansion.