1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What makes it go Faster & Slower?

« on: Yesterday at 21:45:55 »

Crikey, you seem to have produced a child-genius.  Or you're making it up.

2

General Science / Re: Why can I see the moon during the day?

« on: Yesterday at 21:34:07 »

Why can I see the moon during the day?

The Moon spends a part of each day visible in the sky during daylight hours
- Apart from the day of a full Moon (when it is in the opposite direction from the Sun)
- and a few days around a New Moon, when the Moon is in the sky during daytime, but we are trying to view the dark side of the Moon, which is practically invisible close to the very bright Sun.

Overall, the Moon should be visible in the sky during some part of daylight hours for about three-quarters of the days of the month (assuming no clouds, of course!).

I commend Evan's post, which explains it exactly.  The Moon is present in our sky just as much during the day, as during the night.

The only reason we associate the Moon with night, is because we notice it more at night than during the day.

3

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Is the earth really flat?

« on: 04/03/2021 19:26:05 »

You have posted a lot of questions that you could get a quicker answer using Google.

Are you trying to sabotage the site BC?  Of course everyone could get quicker answers using Google.

But wouldn't that render the Naked Scientists web-site completely redundant.  Except for the mutual pleasure of social scientific intercourse.  Isn't that what we all want on here, really.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Our solar system in relation to universe expansion?

« on: 04/03/2021 18:53:29 »

The universe is expanding everywhere in every direction as a consequence of the so called big bang ... what effect does this have on our solar system?

Our solar system (and our galaxy cluster for that matter) is gravitationally bound and will remain so despite expansion of space. So there can be no change to our solar system due to this effect.

But surely, if Space is "expanding", it must be doing so throughout the entire Universe.  Including within the Solar System.

Wouldn't that make planets in the Solar System, get further apart, as the Space between them expands?

I notice that you refer to "Gravitational Binding".  But doesn't Gravitational "binding" , ie "attraction" operate through Space, following the "Inverse Square" law.

So if Space expands, won't the "binding" or "attraction"  correspondingly reduce?

Which would result, in the case of the Solar System,  in reduced gravitational force from the Sun on the planets.
So causing the planets to move away from the Sun.

5

Guest Book / Re: Thank You Very Much!

« on: 24/02/2021 22:09:44 »

The Ads are essential as a source of revenue to fund the site.

No-one on the site, actually takes any notice of the Ads.  But the companies who place the Ads, naively think we do.

So they keep paying money to put their Ads on.  Which is good.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could there be life on other planets?

« on: 24/02/2021 19:32:11 »

Zer0, you make valuable points in your post.

When we we look for evidence of "life" in the Universe, we may be taking an unduly "Carbon-centric" approach.

We're making the assumption that because Carbon is the basis of life on Earth, so it must be throughout the Universe.  But is this assumption justified. 

Other elements than Carbon, may have the potential to generate life.  An example is Silicon.

This element is the basis of all computers.  And don't these computers qualify as "living" beings?

They consume energy, in the form of electric current, excrete waste, in the form of excess heat, perform behaviours, such as running apps and displaying pixels on screens.  And reproduce themselves all over the planet.

Admittedly, they require a "host" to reproduce - in the form of Apple and other companies.  But does that disqualify them from being "alive".

Fleas and lice and viruses require hosts. 

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could there be life on other planets?

« on: 21/02/2021 21:11:26 »

Which is the reason why the statement was so absurd especially when it was a NASA scientist who should know better.

NASA scientists probably do know better.  But they need to enthuse the public.  To get funding for future missions.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What do we do about the orbiting space junk?

« on: 18/02/2021 18:54:27 »

Although I appreciate the environmental issues raised by previous posters on this topic, I do quite like the thought that we've put all those satellites, and even bits of junk, into space.

It gives me a feeling of pride, in our human accomplishment.  Does anyone else feel the same?  I mean, looking up at the starry night sky, and seeing one of our artificial satellites travel quietly and routinely among the stars, and think:

"We did that"!

9

General Science / Re: What arethe top contenders for long term energy storage?

« on: 05/02/2021 19:18:30 »

This whole thing reminds me of a comment by Arthur C Clarke.  Stone Age people worried about being cold in their beds at night.  When their beds were on top of a coalfield.

10

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 28/01/2021 22:26:01 »

You write so many posts, so full of ideas, that I get jealous.

11

Guest Book / Re: Are there rules on reviving old threads?

« on: 08/01/2021 23:17:31 »

If reviving old threads, make sure you have something new to contribute.

12

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 05/01/2021 19:13:52 »

Should we care? Nobody worried too much about the dinosaurs. If the end happens slowly, our descendants will get used to it, like the desertification of the Sahara.  If it happens quickly, what's the problem? A bit of chemistry happened on a rock, then it evaporated.

Absolutely!   One shouldn't treat a biological incident as a cosmological tragedy.

13

Technology / Re: The most advanced space technology you ever heard about

« on: 31/12/2020 18:41:40 »

What is the most advanced space technology you ever heard about? Today, when we are close to the crewed journey to Mars it`s rather interesting to know, what was for you the real breakthrough in the space tech world?

Surely it has to be: "Project Orion", in the 1960s.  Orion space-vehicles were to be propelled by nuclear energy, generated by many hundreds of small fission-bombs.  These would be detonated in sequence, at intervals of a few seconds, under the base of the vehicle.  The base would be protected from blast-erosion by films of oil.

The result would be a really gargantuan spacecraft, weighing thousands of tons and the size of an old ocean-liner, capable of travelling to Mars in a few weeks or months . And to the outer planets within a similarly short time.

The motto of the Orion ship designers was "Saturn by 1970!"

Why it never came to fruition, is something of a mystery.  You can read about it on Google.

14

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 29/12/2020 20:57:19 »

The Red Planet has been the most severe disappointment of our "Space Age".

In a previous Age, when we were observing only through our Earth-based telescopes, we used to think Mars might have life on it.  In the form of intelligent Martians.  Building their canals to distribute water from the polar ice-caps, so as to fertilise the orange deserts, and make them bloom into green vegetation, which we saw in our telescopes.

Alas this was pure carp, and merely the product of of chromatic aberration in refracting telescopes such as Lowell used, plus wishful thinking and possibly some deliberate drawing on the imagination.

 The vision was busted by the Mariner-4 space-probe in 1965, and all the subsequent probes.  No Martians. 

Mars is just a bigger version of our Moon.  Plastered with craters, completely sterile, and no use to any one.

15

Just Chat! / Re: The dumbest aspect of the British political system

« on: 22/12/2020 19:49:34 »

[quote [
How many people do you think are usually involved in a peer review?
[/quote]

I've no idea.  Is it less than 99 professors, and more than 1 student?