Or the effect we see on gravitational lensing that is accounted for by “dark matter”? I don’t see how that could be explained by “light losing energy”…
Not an astronomer but if I read the article correctly the observations gathered about galaxies rotating and colliding would be explained instead by regional changes in what were previously assumed universal constants, which would be very interesting if true but 1 paper isn’t consensus yet
The team’s measurements even suggest that the supernovae that virtually cleared the bubble of space in which the Milky Way resides was born in a cluster of stars within the Radcliffe Wave.
Wait, the Milky Way is inside of a bubble generated by novae which were inside a cluster which is inside the Radcliffe Wave which is… itself… inside the Milky Way?
The Radcliffe Wave formation is a bunch of gas that is apparently, wiggling, in incredibly huge time and distance scales, like a sinusoidal wave.
So, imagine very, very long ago, before the Milky Way formed, you have a particular dense gaseous region/formation.
Dense gaseous regions tend to give birth to new stars. This region did so, and then one of them supernova’d.
Next, the Milky Way ended up forming in the void created by this supernova.
Then, this dense gaseous region was basically incorporated into the Milky Way (seems like one of its spiral arms) over another absurdly long period of time.
But, for some reason, it is wiggling, in a manner that dense gaseous regions have not been observed to behave in.
Thats the best I can do here, I am not an astrophysicist, though I did take two quarters of intro level astronomy in college lol.
Probably worthwhile to note that the article says that their data ‘suggests’ not ‘shows’ or ‘proves’ the bit about the supernova clearing the Milky Way void.
To actually prove that would encompass, among many other things, running the clock backward on star orbits/trajectories over billions of years using extremely complicated models and mountains of data I am absolutely not qualified to comment on.
Im just trying to very broadly explain the chain of events here if this supernova really did cause the void the Milky Way formed in.
Anyway, other fun fact: Our Milky Way Galaxy is not actually a pure spiral Galaxy as it has so often been depicted for quite a long time.
It is actually a barred spiral galaxy. Basically, instead of just swirly arms, there are actually short, more or less straight parts to the arms as they emanate out from the center, which then begin to curve into spirally arms.
Between that or blimps on Mars and other planets, it's almost a given to have something with any new exploration. Just like rovers are so much better than a fixed location for a one-shot deal.
Based on the gradient of pressures from the “surface” to the core, it’s entirely feasible. I’ve read about ideas for blimp colonies on Jupiter as well as Venus!
If that photo was taken right before impact, none of the continents will remain continents because it’s all about to melt and we might have another moon when everything settles down and we evolve back from scratch over the next several billion years.
All this time? What like less than 100 years looking only? That’s a blip on the cosmic scale. 100 lightyear sphere of our galaxy is what, less than 1%? With all the theories and possibilities of what’s going on out there, it’s way too rash to start theorizing like this in my opinion.
If dark matter is fully explained by such black holes, their most likely mass, according to some theories, would range from 10^17^ to 10^23^ grams—or about that of a large asteroid.
In case this doesn’t tell you a lot, 10^17^g is half the weight of Mount Everest, and 10^23^g is 4x the weight of the Antarctic ice shield.
The earth is estimated to “weigh” 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds. (That is weird when you think about it. The weight of the earth being based on what something weighs on earth, I mean.)
Mt. Everest is only about 357,000,000,000,000 pounds and is just a tiny fraction of the mass of the earth.
So. My point is that we need a better way to portray scale of things in the universe. AUs work to a point but then we have to quickly move to parsecs. Parsecs quickly give way to light years. (Or vice-versa, depending on how you visualize things better.) Light years kinda work, but only for between 14-26 billion years. Even after all of that, I can hardly still fathom the size of Mt. Everest. (This was a rant, but not an angry rant.)
Weight in pounds isn’t the right unit here. Weight varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field you’re in, whereas mass does not. A kilogram here on earth weighs 2.2lbs but on the moon it only weighs 0.36lbs.
In the English Engineering System, the unit of mass is 1 pound mass (lbm), and is equivalent to the amount of matter that weighs 1lb at 1G. I won’t argue that EES is a good system, but it does at least have a kludged unit for mass. It has an equally kludged unit for force, too, called pounds force (lbf).
I cannot fathom the size of anything on an astronomical scale. I have seen the videos that zoom out and show Earth at scale with the Sun and then the Sun at scale with other stars. No matter how many times I view the facts it will be incomprehensibly large.
It’s a worth pointing out that pounds (lbs) is a measurement of mass, not weight, and is therefore not determined by the gravity acting upon it, or the source of it.
Totally! My favorite astronomical “wow” with my daughter was when she was 12. She wanted to learn about photography, so I set up a tripod at dusk to teach her about aperture, shutter speed, and motion blur. We also compared shots with a remote shutter so she could see how the slightest camera shake during a long exposure would result in a blurry shot.
We were about to go inside once the stars came out, but instead I thought it would be fun to show her how they looked with a two second exposure. “Wait, why do they look like little commas? Are they moving?” I didn’t say a word. I just looked at her, and then it hit…
😳”No! We’re moving!”🤯
Facts aren’t nearly as interesting without the connection of self-discovery.
She came really close to another mind-blowing fact: if you’re talking about linear motion, there’s no difference at all between “they’re moving” and “we’re moving”. Too bad the apparent motion of the stars is caused by rotation, otherwise it would have been a great lesson to introduce basic relativity concepts.
She understood the curved lines as illustrating the rotation of the Earth. We didn’t get into motion away from the universal center.
She’s much older now. Tyson’s version of Cosmos came out in her teens, so we watched all of those and then went back for the OG Sagan episodes. She’s my favorite nerd.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.