MRSN
T20I Star
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Runs
- 30,597
If you attempted to count all the stars in a galaxy at a rate of one every second it would take around 3,000 years to count them all.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Think you mean clockwise?Venus rotates on its axis counter clockwise... or the opposite direction to all the other planets
No, your aircraft would increase in mass as it gets closer to light speed, toward infinite mass and you don't have an infinitely powerful engine so you can't do it.
Maybe we will be able to make wormholes by then, though.
I want to ask PPer this question,
What happens if you reach the end of the universe, what is after it?
wow some mind blowin facts above..keep it up MRSN!
I forgot to post yesterday....
Brilliant Job...spent a good 1 hr 15 min last night reading this.....
is it the only universe we have or something like parallel universes also exist?
thanks guys!!..and TM, in theories yes it does..for more watch out this documentary explains a lot..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HENLeZ1TcHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ds47ozzSrU
http://www.daynews.com/latest-news/...-theory-particle-discovery-is-confirmed-16369Physicists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN have discovered a new particle last summer. However, they held back the information as they wanted to be very sure about their findings. They have finally confirmed last Thursday, March 14 at an international conference in Italy that the Higgs boson, after years of research, had been found.
The discovery was actually made in July 2012 but experiments and further research were still to be made before the scientists made the decision to confirm their findings.
The Higgs boson, also called the “God particle” is highly important to physics. The boson and its energy field were crucial in the shaping of the universe that is linked to the 13.7-billion year Big Bang Theory. This pertains to the creation of stars, of the planets and all life forms, and in scientific jargon, the particle that gives mass to matter.
Tentative
While the scientists are very excited about their discovery, they are still tentative. They have been working on this for decades and yet they are still hesitant to confirm that this is the elusive boson that they have been searching for. Joe Incandela, spokesperson for the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS), one of the two teams working on this project at CERN said that although it is a Higgs boson, it does not seem to have all the properties the theoretical Higgs boson must display.
Higgs boson and its importance
The particle was named after Peter Higgs, a British physicist. Fifty years ago Higgs has predicted that the boson (the particle and its energy field) exist. These are the last of the major elements that were missing in the Standard Model they have created, to simulate at the basic level, how the cosmos works.
For decades the questions on why some key particles have mass had remained unanswered. Its high importance was defined by the construction of the world’s most expensive experimental facility, the Large Hadron Collider, the highest energy particle accelerator and the largest in the world. Its construction started in 1998 and completed in 2008. Over 10,000 scientists, engineers, as well as hundreds of laboratories and universities from more than 100 countries collaborated for the creation of the Large Hadron Collider, located in a 175-meter deep and 27-kilometer long tunnel near Geneva, under the Franco-Swiss border.
What next?
While the discovery may not interest the laymen, it is a monumental find in the scientific community as this will enable them to have a better understanding of the formation of the universe, because for them, the Higgs boson is its building block.
However, other results of further experiments will have to wait. The “atom smasher” Large Hadron Collider had been shut down last February 2013 to allow its power and reach to double and would be back in operation in 2015.
Saturn's moon titan is the only moon to have a reasonable atmosphere, it also has lakes, pebbles and rivers but made from ice and methane instead
http://www.helium.com/items/440031-assessing-time-as-an-illusion-of-the-human-brain?page=2Time does not exist in nature separate from man. But that is not the same as saying 'time is an illusion'. Time is a man-made invention and is used as a measure of instances from one period on to another.
Now, in terms of an existential entity called time, which one could identify in the physical universe... like an atom or an apple. That is of course a false proposition. But one could say the same thing for words. If I pick up a rock, I identify it through that label 'rock'. But nothing within existence which is separate from man's conscious mind exists in wordily form as "rock". Language, like time, is a tool of the conscious mind. But again this is not the same as time being an illusion, anymore than language is.
Time is an aspect of mankind's memory. We are able to mark time for the simple following reason: We have an awareness of past events and future possibilities through stored memories and that awareness creates the mind space that allows us to infer timescales on events.
So, what one could say is that time does not exist as an existential entity, independent of man. Rather, time only exists as an invention of man, as a tool to mark timescales as we move through space and we relate that space to events in memory.
Time did not always exist, in the same way as the wheel did not always exist. They are both man-made inventions. One is a physical object that exists independently of the mind and the other exists as a consciously held concept. But the fact that one is a consciously held concept with no physical form, does not make it any less real. The fact that we can use time as a scale and we create instruments (watches and clocks) to mark passing moments is as real as any man-made wheel.
Time in one respect does exist as a real event, which is as physically real as the man-made wheel. The hand on the clock, ticking by second by second, that is a physical event. But of course beyond man's conscious awareness of the event it becomes meaningless. But, then again, so would the wheel and neither could exist in the first place without a conscious mind with the capacity to invent them.
Time is a form of measurement. It measures events as they move along in our mind and gets stored as memories. It is only our conscious ability to take 'time-out' and think in terms of past and future that gives time meaning.
Of course, in reality there is no past and there is no future. There are only universal actions in the present. From that perspective time does seem like an illusion. Indeed, existentially speaking, time is illusory because without reference to a conscious mind, which could be aware of time, then time does become meaningless.
If one took existence to mean everything bar conscious awareness, then time disappears into the 'ether' and has no more validity than unicorns.
But the very fact that mankind does have the mind-space that allows individuals to hold memories is the very ability that separates man form the present moment. Of course, mankind cannot literally separate himself from the present moment. But, he can juxtapose the present moment against past memories and this allows him to then think beyond the past and the present and on into the future.
For example, if a man puts a foot mark in the sand and then begins to walk. The very fact that he can remember his first footstep is what gives him the ability to timescale the passing of time as one foot is placed in front of another.
Time is nothing more than an instrument of measurement of the passing of moments in memory. Just as the scales of metric meters and imperial yards are man-made inventions to measure height, depth and width.
Time then, is a man-made invention that allows us to measure moment to moment increments, defined by us in scalesn such asn minutes and hours.
So the conclusion is that time has no meaning universally in a universe void of conscious beings. Indeed, such a universe is mindless and time would be irrelevant. A universe void of consciousness would not only be incapable of measuring time, it wouldn't even care.
Time relates to the memory of conscious beings and, while conscious beings exist, so will time.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_sun_s...zing_cold_in_space_what_causes_the_differenceThe main reason this happens is due to the vastness of space itself. Space, as we comprehend it, is the infinite void encompassing everything but with tiny bits that generally fall into the category of stars, planets, and debris (comets, nebulae, etc.). These bits are, in fact, so small that even a star still undergoing fusion, and producing enough heat to blind one for looking at it, is inconsequential in the grand scheme.
A useful metaphor can be a bowl of soup in an air conditioned room. The soup is hot, but it does not produce any actual heat, and will slowly degrade until it is the same temperature as the room. The stove top produced the heat, and the soup will always continue to cool unless it is kept in a superheated environment. Stars, on the other hand, are massive accumulations of gas pulled into itself relentlessly. The atoms knock into each other all the time and fuse into each other to form bigger and badder ones. This 'fusion' expels a minute amount of radiation, not even enough to see or feel. Although, when you multiply it trillions upon trillions of times, as is due process in a star, it can become a heat source more powerful than anything capable of being produced on Earth.
In the grand scheme I mentioned earlier, Earth is less than a thousandth of a hair's width from our Sun, as is the nearest star more than 4 light years away. Earth is unique in that the gases and particles found on it's surface allow the passage of some of the radiation, mainly light, which collides with these and produces slight heat again. When it all adds up (on a scale thousands of times smaller than the Sun's) the temperature is nudged into a 'sweet spot' where life can prosper.
At night, when none of this is happening, and the collisions are producing no colors to obscure the sky, you see a black abyss dotted with starlight. Temperature dips in the night hours without the reactions for the same reason. Earth spins continuously, so day comes again and heat builds. However, if the planet were to spin only once a year, one side would always face away from the Sun, and become as cold as space. Similarly, the side always facing the Sun would have no cooling time, and become a molten wasteland.
Space is just that: space; emptiness. It has no heat preserving atmosphere like Earth's and, therefore, radiation from stars have no obstacles. Once it leaves the surface of a star, it travels on and on forever, but does not deteriorate. Depending on exactly how much radiation is produced from a point in space, the parts that eventually hit our eyes and telescopes are so thinly spread, so small in quantity that they are just too tiny to see. It is the same ordeal when viewing something as simple as a bowl of soup in front of you, or across the table, where the perspective creates the illusion of the far bowl being smaller, even if it is identical to the nearer. This goes beyond the question's scope, but if you want to know more on this particular point, see the Wikipedia article on Perspective at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(visual).
The definition of 'freezing cold' as well as 'burning hot' is relative, just like slow and fast, or dark and bright, to a common reference. To us, a hot day is one that fills the thermometer, and a cold day is one that shatters it. As for space and what's in it, there are no real limits either way.
____________
I always find this kind of question so interesting. I could be completely off. It seems that space (at least the vacuum part) is neither hot nor cold. If there is no matter, there is nothing to measure for its heat content. You might go into a walk-in refrigerator and say "Wow! It's cold!" and what you are saying is that the air inside is cold. It is the tendency of an object to either absorb or release energy that would determine the temperature of that object. On the daylight face of Mercury you would fry to a crisp. On the night time side you would freeze and shatter. So is Mercury occupying space that is hot, or is it occupying space that is cold?
Photons and other massless particles travel through space and may 'contain' a certain amount of energy. But as they pass through a section of space they do not give up any of that energy--- until and unless they hit something. So they pass through space without giving up or absorbing energy from the vacuum through which they travel.
As you begin to discuss the various kinds of particles that occupy a region of space, then you can talk about their energies/temperatures. It would also be handy to know how far away they (you) are from the nearest star(s).
good stuff.
I would love to know the margin of errors on some of these things. Considering the time periods are based on billions/millions and distances are in millions of light years, wonder how do we know the methods we have within a time frame of lets say 40-50 years are anywhere close to being accurate.
Not only can we see planets or the Moon transiting the Sun...
*note on the first image, hubble is the little dot seen together with Space shuttle Atlantis (the larger object)