1
Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Re: J. Webb telescope: "...next few months cooling down..."
« on: 25/01/2022 05:08:52 »
Thanks Kryptid. All clear!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / J. Webb telescope: "...next few months cooling down..."
« on: 25/01/2022 04:46:12 »
Re: the "MRSA, The Metaverse & Medical Milestones" podcast. In the report about the James Webb telescope, Matt says: "It's going to be a little while to be honest. So James Webb is going to spend the next few months cooling down to operating temperature and then hopefully, by spring or summer 2022, we'll start to get some nice, pretty pictures back."
Why does an object floating around in space take months to cool down?
Cheers!
PS hope this post isn't in the wrong place!
Why does an object floating around in space take months to cool down?
Cheers!
PS hope this post isn't in the wrong place!
3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can you help me understand "speed"?
« on: 31/03/2020 07:05:49 »
Rather a long time coming but many thanks for all your replies...the "Corona time warp" now means I have time to try and investigate and understand what you've written!
4
Physiology & Medicine / fRe: Is that it? Just two suggestions for improving memory?
« on: 11/02/2020 03:24:01 »
"The best thing about a crap memory is that every day comes as a new surprise. It's great to wake up and say "Hello, gorgeous, what's your name?" - gets the day off to a really good start, especially if you have forgotten the previous night's disappointment. "
That's OK...until she/he kicks you out because you can't even remember their name! And if you can't remember the experience, it's as if you didn't have the experience. Huge chunks of my life didn't happen! And it's a safe bet that the things you remember most easily are the more painful/awkward/embarrassing experiences, rather than the good ones.
That's OK...until she/he kicks you out because you can't even remember their name! And if you can't remember the experience, it's as if you didn't have the experience. Huge chunks of my life didn't happen! And it's a safe bet that the things you remember most easily are the more painful/awkward/embarrassing experiences, rather than the good ones.
5
Physiology & Medicine / Is that it? Just two suggestions for improving memory?
« on: 10/02/2020 20:05:10 »
Just listened to the episode "Soy, slingshots and Cyanide". This is the second episode I've heard that touches on the subject of memory. In this one, two suggestions were made: better sleep, and more exercise. Is that really it???
Is there no research out there that can suggest anything better?
Anything?
At all?
Pleeeese?
I've got a crap memory and have experimented with memory palaces, "implementation intentions", flash cards and a few others with varying degrees of success. But the one that really works....is Siri.
Is there no research out there that can suggest anything better?
Anything?
At all?
Pleeeese?
I've got a crap memory and have experimented with memory palaces, "implementation intentions", flash cards and a few others with varying degrees of success. But the one that really works....is Siri.
6
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can you help me understand "speed"?
« on: 12/11/2019 07:53:15 »
Thanks all for your replies.
Halc, you wrote (many thanks!):
"Under relativity, it is the other twin that is moving relative to either twin, so in the current inertial frame of either twin, the other twin is aging slower. Not intuitive, but that's how it works.
When the 'travelling' twin turns around, his inertial frame changes, and in that frame the twin back home simultaneous with the turnaround event is much older than his age in the outbound frame. That's the relativity of simultaneity in action, and is why one twin is older than the other when they finally meet again."
Really not intuitive... "So in the current inertial frame of either twin, the other twin is aging slower".
What I just can't get past is this idea that time appears to be slowing down for both twins, it just depends on whether you are measuring from one twin's position or the other's...
I'll spare you the ordeal of "banging your head against a brick wall" trying to clarify this further and I'll just have to dig deeper (down the rabbit hole!) and try harder to get my head around it.
Perhaps, if it's not too much of a bother, and you understand my confusion, do you happen to know of any links to explanations that might help me...just idle curiosity as I don't NEED to know this. The trouble I've had is that everything I've read/watched on Youtube that describes, for e.g., the twin thought experiment, always takes as a given that the "reference point" is the twin/you "here on earth", let's say. But if I assume that "I" am the other twin, the one zooming off in the space ship how can I demonstrate/reason that it is "I" that am moving and not the twin on earth that is zooming away from me at an equal and opposite velocity??
Halc, you wrote (many thanks!):
"Under relativity, it is the other twin that is moving relative to either twin, so in the current inertial frame of either twin, the other twin is aging slower. Not intuitive, but that's how it works.
When the 'travelling' twin turns around, his inertial frame changes, and in that frame the twin back home simultaneous with the turnaround event is much older than his age in the outbound frame. That's the relativity of simultaneity in action, and is why one twin is older than the other when they finally meet again."
Really not intuitive... "So in the current inertial frame of either twin, the other twin is aging slower".
What I just can't get past is this idea that time appears to be slowing down for both twins, it just depends on whether you are measuring from one twin's position or the other's...
I'll spare you the ordeal of "banging your head against a brick wall" trying to clarify this further and I'll just have to dig deeper (down the rabbit hole!) and try harder to get my head around it.
Perhaps, if it's not too much of a bother, and you understand my confusion, do you happen to know of any links to explanations that might help me...just idle curiosity as I don't NEED to know this. The trouble I've had is that everything I've read/watched on Youtube that describes, for e.g., the twin thought experiment, always takes as a given that the "reference point" is the twin/you "here on earth", let's say. But if I assume that "I" am the other twin, the one zooming off in the space ship how can I demonstrate/reason that it is "I" that am moving and not the twin on earth that is zooming away from me at an equal and opposite velocity??
7
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can you help me understand "speed"?
« on: 09/11/2019 13:13:18 »
(this is my first post on here so be gentle with me!)
Quoted from latest episode "eggs, eyes etc..., in answer to the question: "How fast a rocket can humans safely travel in?"
"So the Earth rotates at 600 miles an hour. So we're currently on the earth going 600 miles an hour, because we're on the earth we're also going 600 miles an hour. The Earth is speeding around the sun at 70,000 miles per hour. So we are also speeding around the sun at 70,000 miles an hour. The sun is speeding through the galaxy at 450,000 miles an hour, which means we're also spinning at 450,000 miles an hour."
I'm probably dim, but how can I understand "speed" in this statement? Are the references always implicit? For example, in the first statement "we're on earth going 600 mph", should I implicitly understand that the "reference" (if that's even the correct word!) is the centre of the earth, and this jumps to the sun in the second statement "The Earth is speeding around the sun at 70,000 miles per hour". In other words, in astronomy, when speeds are mentioned, should I just assume that I should understand the quoted speed relative to an "obvious" reference.
The reason I'm asking the question is because I simply don't "get" relativity, time dilation etc...e.g. in the classic example of my "twin" charging off in a rocket at near the speed of light aging differently to me, am I not simply "aging" at the same rate relative to my twin, because relative to him/her, I'm charging off in the opposite direction at an equal and opposite speed, therefore cancelling out any warping of time?
Hope that makes (some) sense!
Quoted from latest episode "eggs, eyes etc..., in answer to the question: "How fast a rocket can humans safely travel in?"
"So the Earth rotates at 600 miles an hour. So we're currently on the earth going 600 miles an hour, because we're on the earth we're also going 600 miles an hour. The Earth is speeding around the sun at 70,000 miles per hour. So we are also speeding around the sun at 70,000 miles an hour. The sun is speeding through the galaxy at 450,000 miles an hour, which means we're also spinning at 450,000 miles an hour."
I'm probably dim, but how can I understand "speed" in this statement? Are the references always implicit? For example, in the first statement "we're on earth going 600 mph", should I implicitly understand that the "reference" (if that's even the correct word!) is the centre of the earth, and this jumps to the sun in the second statement "The Earth is speeding around the sun at 70,000 miles per hour". In other words, in astronomy, when speeds are mentioned, should I just assume that I should understand the quoted speed relative to an "obvious" reference.
The reason I'm asking the question is because I simply don't "get" relativity, time dilation etc...e.g. in the classic example of my "twin" charging off in a rocket at near the speed of light aging differently to me, am I not simply "aging" at the same rate relative to my twin, because relative to him/her, I'm charging off in the opposite direction at an equal and opposite speed, therefore cancelling out any warping of time?
Hope that makes (some) sense!
Pages: [1]