The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: When we look at the countless stars in the sky, what are we REALLY looking at?  (Read 10436 times)

Offline science_jane

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
The US and its' partners are building a satellite so huge that they theorize they will be able to see the beginning of our Universe. If they can do such a thing then shouldn't we also be able to see all the other evolutionary steps our solar system took to get to its' present position? In the future will man be able to see his/her very evolution unfold, just as easily as he/her pulls up a satellite map of the World on the web? Is it possible...there is really only 1 Sun...our Sun...and the twinkles in the night sky are the steps our Sun took to get to the present as it drifts through the void of space? Is our 'so called' small Solar System TRULY the entire Universe?
....Note: The Zodiac signs are mocked by the Scientific community because in no way do the gravity fields of the planets effect one another, however that is a false statement...all the planets gravity fields effect one another through our SUN! There are 13 Zodiac signs...not 12! Ophiuchus our Healer is the 13th sign!
When we look-up at the countless stars in the Heaven....what are we REALLY looking at?
« Last Edit: 05/04/2008 10:47:06 by chris »


 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
The US and its' partners are building a satellite so huge that they theorize they will be able to see the beginning of our Universe. If they can do such a thing then shouldn't we also be able to see all the other evolutionary steps our solar system took to get to its' present position?
Only if there has always been a mirror (or a video receiver/transmitter) on a very distant planet, reflecting towards us the light (or video signal) coming from our planet...
...or, maybe, if the light from our planet had travelled all the universe and come back...or gone into a wormhole and come out of another...
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did you realise that the gravitational effect of the mass of the Midwife, at your birth, is greater than the effect of the planet; she may be tiny but she is dead close!
If Astrology makes people feel better, that's OK but it doesn't have to be a Science to do that. In any case, since all the original stuff was written about astrology the arrangement out there has changed. Predictions are being made with the wrong data!
Astronomical observations are much more detailed and well thought out than that. Astronomers have seen relative motions at huge distances and the framework for measuring these distances is pretty reliable (up to some of the most 'distant' galaxies).

I often remark when reading these alternative views "Where is the data to support the argument and how does the new argument explain the data better than the old one?" You could be right but you need some serious graft to prove it.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
A 747 jet flying high over you will have more gravitational effect on you than the planets, even if they were all in perfect alignment.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Could that mean that babies born near Heathrow can't make up their minds which star sign they should be following?
That inverse square law has a lot to answer for.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
lol, indeed
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
According to what we know so far, no, we will not be able to see our own distant past or the distant past of the Solar System. In order for us to see such things, we would have to be able to see the light from that time period, but the vast majorite of that light is headed away from us and is long gone. Even if we assumed that this ancient light could reflect off of distant objects and come back to us, the resolution of the 'images' we would see would be dismally poor. As light travels from a spherical source like our Sun, the photons it generates would get further and further apart as they travelled. If you held a piece of paper in front of the Sun at 200 million miles from it, the paper would only be hit by about 1/4 of the number of photons per second that the same piece of paper at only 100 million miles from the Sun would be. You see how distance rapidly deteriotes the maximum possible quality of such an image? Even if we could have the maximum resolution possible (so that every photon we measure constitutes a pixel in the image), I have serious doubts that we could ever see our past even if the ancient light reflected off of some icy moon in a distant solar system. Also, we must consider that the light would be absorbed by other objects in space or even distorted by gravitational effects.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
If you want to find an effect that changes the character of a person according to the time of year that they are born look no further than the seasons on the northern hemisphere.  the first year or two of development of a baby is vitally important for learning and the time of year they are born the weather and the temperature will affect the order that they are presented with changes as they grow.
 

Offline turnipsock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Beekeeper to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
A 747 jet flying high over you will have more gravitational effect on you than the planets, even if they were all in perfect alignment.

hmmm...I'm not to sure about that.

Anyway...



This is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. It was taken by pointing the Hubble at a black bit and then taking 800 images over a period of time and adding the images. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken in visible light, looking back in time more than 13 billion years. The HUDF contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies[1]. The patch of sky in which the galaxies reside (just one-tenth the diameter of the full moon as viewed from Earth) was chosen because it had a low density of bright stars in the near-field.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
hmmm...I'm not to sure about that.
Why? Don't you believe in GMm/rsquared ? Do the sums.
 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
Could that mean that babies born near Heathrow can't make up their minds which star sign they should be following?
That inverse square law has a lot to answer for.

We lived in Windsor for a while and one of my sons first words was Concord. It is the shame the light from that has long gone and we will never see it flying overhead again. Fred is definitely born under the sign of Concord.

I've seen this picture before Turnipsock but I could look at it all day. We can't possibly be alone when you see all this in just one small portion of space. It stops me from feeling lonely.
 

Offline turnipsock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Beekeeper to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Quote
hmmm...I'm not to sure about that.
Why? Don't you believe in GMm/rsquared ? Do the sums.

how high is the jumbo and how much does it weigh? (anything under 30,000ft is unacceptable as you are just twisting things to suit your arguement)

I was watching a thing about the bombing of Hiroshima today. The Enola Gay was about 65 tonnes when it took off, it really jumped up in the air when it dropped its 5 tonne bomb though.

 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
how high is the jumbo and how much does it weigh? (anything under 30,000ft is unacceptable as you are just twisting things to suit your arguement)

He was talking about living near Heathrow airport, so airplains will obviously fly much under 30,000ft...
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Did a quick check on google, a loaded up 747 can weigh up to about 400 tonnes. I didn't come up with that statement myself, but i'd bet money on it that it was right, cause Dr Karl said it :P (runs a show in australia similar to naked scientists Q&A, has been on ns a few times)
« Last Edit: 08/04/2008 09:37:55 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
I know astrology is thought by scientists to be poppycock, but the traits I am supposed to have according to my natal astrological chart are pretty much spot on. It even gave some of my more quirky traits.

I checked a chart that was done for a friend of mine who was born a few days after me, and very few of the traits in that chart apply to me; but they do to him.

My head says it's rubbish, but I still have nagging doubts.
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
If you want to find an effect that changes the character of a person according to the time of year that they are born look no further than the seasons on the northern hemisphere.  the first year or two of development of a baby is vitally important for learning and the time of year they are born the weather and the temperature will affect the order that they are presented with changes as they grow.

So if i am born August 30th in California, how does that effect the order in which changes will be presented?
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
I know astrology is thought by scientists to be poppycock, but the traits I am supposed to have according to my natal astrological chart are pretty much spot on. It even gave some of my more quirky traits.

I checked a chart that was done for a friend of mine who was born a few days after me, and very few of the traits in that chart apply to me; but they do to him.

My head says it's rubbish, but I still have nagging doubts.

I have seen some similarities in what little I have read, but it hasn't been much!
 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
how high is the jumbo and how much does it weigh? (anything under 30,000ft is unacceptable as you are just twisting things to suit your arguement)

He was talking about living near Heathrow airport, so airplains will obviously fly much under 30,000ft...

If you live in Windsor, you can see the pilots underpants!
 

Offline turnipsock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Beekeeper to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Did a quick check on google, a loaded up 747 can weigh up to about 400 tonnes. I didn't come up with that statement myself, but i'd bet money on it that it was right, cause Dr Karl said it :P (runs a show in australia similar to naked scientists Q&A, has been on ns a few times)

I guess if they weigh 400 tonnes, then they might have a but more effect. If you ever watch these things coming into and airport, they don't really have any business being off the ground.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
I used to live so close to the airport i was once walking from the lounge room to the kitchen and a flight attendant told me to sit down!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums