/server/ - 188

Thread Specific Utility Board

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

Check out our friends at kind.moe

Open file (222.18 KB 1024x768 1215608096616.jpg)
/space/ - Space Anonymous 03/17/2021 (Wed) 12:22:49 No.1097
Outer space, constellations, astronomy & space travel
Open file (468.71 KB 1920x1080 rocky_super-earth.jpg)
>>1094 Given faster than light travel, our first destination, being relatively close at 4.37 light years away from Earth, would be Alpha Centauri. That star system may have a habitable planet, so it would most likely be worth a visit.
>>1098 >may have a habitable planet >habitable Can you define 'habitable' better Anon? Compared to say, Earth's Moon as an example.
>>1099 >Can you define 'habitable' better Anon? Compared to say, Earth's Moon as an example. What am I a dictionary? Habitable is just any place one can stay at without perishing, there's many degrees of it, like needs that living organisms like human beings need in order to survive, yes the moon, venus and mars have been considered for habitation (on venus you'd have to be above the clouds) We don't know yet how habitable it is in Alpha centauri, but there's a chance that there might be some potential for habitability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b Other potentially habitable planets are most likely considerably further away
This map puts things in perspective how vast space is https://www.joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
>>1100 >but there's a chance that there might be some potential for habitability >a chance that there might be some potential Seems a bit vague, not to put too fine a point on it. AFAICT there are very tight constraints on the ranges of conditions & resources that would allow for the existence of any life in this universe, much less human life w/ advanced civilization.
>>1103 Its in the range in which it could support life as we know it, if it has water and if it is not tide locked There might be other factors like solar storm/radiation but its hard to tell because its so far away (even if its relatively close given distances between star systems)
>>1104 Well it certainly would be fun to be able to just zip out to another planetary system and enjoy some sort of utopia there. But the technical and physics issues in such a thing seem pretty insurmountable just at first glance.
I just saw this, its a pretty big and magnificent photo; https://hackaday.com/2021/03/20/a-milky-way-photo-twelve-years-in-the-making/
>>1106 Wow that's really amazing Anon, thanks! What dedication to his craft this man showed.
Open file (1.21 MB 2683x671 AB_MosaicPanels.jpg)
>>1107 The photographic plates plot. >
Open file (138.81 KB 960x843 1615463126527.jpg)
Open file (117.57 KB 1200x533 lv5a50ff0a.jpg)
Open file (319.88 KB 1200x1200 qb5a50ff0b.jpg)
Open file (106.91 KB 1200x631 rm5a50ff0a.jpg)
>>1111 Nice digits Anon. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that image doesn't match the caption at all. A) That's clearly a dust-cloud within the Milky Way (note the stars, not galaxies in the background being obscured). B) At the (relatively near, cosmically-speaking) distance mentioned, something 1Gly in scale would obscure probably 30% of the background galaxies across the entire sky. No such phenomenon exists. One interesting phenomenon that does exist is the so-called 'Great Attractor'. It's basically the 'invisible' central mass of our local galactic super-cluster -- about which all it's galaxies co-orbit.
>>1113 Are you an astronomer? From my perspective its difficult to tell anything for sure without pics, graphs and so on to back it up, but its interesting that such things could be out there somewhere, if anyone says otherwise its on them to prove that there aren't any (which seems far fetched given current technology level and knowledge) The further out you go, the bigger the area for things to explore
>>1114 >Are you an astronomer? An amateur Astronomer, yes. I don't have much time for observations beyond simple stargazing a few times a week. >...if anyone says otherwise its on them to prove that there aren't any Actually, science and logic both operate in just the opposite way. The observable substantiates claims. The in-observable constitutes nothing more than speculation. Here's a simple example that might clarify this better. We have abundant, diverse observations in both astronomy and cosmology (as well as numerous corollary physics/chemistry data) that establish far beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe itself began in a hot creation event ~13.8Gya. This event is commonly referred to as 'The Big Bang' after the term derisively coined by the Astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1949. Along with many other scientists of his day, he wanted to ridicule the very idea that the universe had a beginning, because that implies directly there was a First Mover (another, even more ancient philosophy). This is, God created the universe. However, over decades of observations and using ever-newer instruments, the evidence mounted and was eventually irrefutable; the universe did have a very distinct beginning. Those are the science facts, again backed up by mountains of observational evidence. However, the controversy hasn't ended, with many scientists morally offended by the very idea there is evidence for the handiwork of a god. But, the evidence is now undeniable insofar as the origin of the universe goes, and the obvious metaphysical implications still abide. Accordingly, one of the many 'loopholes' that have been speculated is the so-called Multiverse Hypothesis. This is a fallacy. There is neither any way to observe a supposed other universe (more or less by definition), nor is there even the slightest shred of evidence for even one other, scientifically speaking. On the one hand, science has shown there is a temporal history to the universe. On the other hand, men have conjectured that proves proves nothing, and 'anything goes' could possibly be real. One is science, one is not. One has already established it's position by direct observation, one is mere speculation. The onus for proof is squarely on the latter, not the former. >tl;dr Science operates on what we do know -- not what we don't.
>>1115 I wonder if all these new satellites being launched might have any impact on stargazing >The observable substantiates claims. The in-observable constitutes nothing more than speculation. Observing of something that isn't there isn't any less valid than observing something that is there, now is it? I mean in this case its something that is observable (that there's seemingly nothing there) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29 Science merely means applied knowledge. As you say, it depends on what is known. Fact of the matter is there's this thing we call a universe, for now that is good enough.
A lot of intriguing observations have been made, some of them turn out to be something other than originally thought, some have yet to be explained and some have been confirmed (like some of the things in our solar system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua >>1098 https://www.space.com/exoplanet-candidate-spotted-alpha-centauri-a

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?