astronomy

Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.

then_three_more, w Northern lights predicted in US and UK on Monday night in wake of solar storms

It feels like this has happened a fair few times this year. Is the sun entering a period of heightened activity?

ODuffer, w Northern lights predicted in US and UK on Monday night in wake of solar storms
@ODuffer@lemmy.world avatar

Complete cloud coverage predicted in UK, as per usual, until perhaps June.

Glowstick, (edited ) w Northern lights predicted in US and UK on Monday night in wake of solar storms

Anyone got a map? Saying “as far south as the midwest” is a pretty useless descriptor of where this might be seen

EDIT

map

swpc.noaa.gov/…/aurora-viewline-tonight-and-tomor…

Krrygon,

Thanks for posting the map! Looks like here in central washington, I am out of luck haha. Better luck next time, I s’pose!

Glowstick,

The red line is the “view line” so you might see a glimpse way off on the horizon

stoy,

I have the Aurora Pro app on my iPhone, it sends me alerts when the forecast predicts northern lights in my area (around stockholm)

mozz, w Cosmic cleaners: the scientists scouring English cathedral roofs for space dust
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

A minor accident had forced me down in the Rio de Oro region, in Spanish Africa. Landing on one of those table-lands of the Sahara which fall away steeply at the sides, I found myself on the flat top of the frustum of a cone, an isolated vestige of a plateau that had crumbled round the edges. In this part of the Sahara such truncated cones are visible from the air every hundred miles or so, their smooth surfaces always at about the same altitude above the desert and their geologic substance always identical. The surface sand is composed of minute and distinct shells; but progressively as you dig along a vertical section, the shells become more fragmentary, tend to cohere, and at the base of the cone form a pure calcareous deposit.

Without question, I was the first human being ever to wander over this . . . this iceberg: its sides were remarkably steep, no Arab could have climbed them, and no European had as yet ventured into this wild region.

I was thrilled by the virginity of a soil which no step of man or beast had sullied. I lingered there, startled by this silence that never had been broken. The first star began to shine, and I said to myself that this pure surface had lain here thousands of years in sight only of the stars.

But suddenly my musings on this white sheet and these shining stars were endowed with a singular significance. I had kicked against a hard, black stone, the size of a man's fist, a sort of moulded rock of lava incredibly present on the surface of a bed of shells a thousand feet deep. A sheet spread beneath an apple-tree can receive only apples; a sheet spread beneath the stars can receive only star-dust. Never had a stone fallen from the skies made known its origin so unmistakably.

And very naturally, raising my eyes, I said to myself that from the height of this celestial apple-tree there must have dropped other fruits, and that I should find them exactly where they fell, since never from the beginning of time had anything been present to displace them.

Excited by my adventure, I picked up one and then a second and then a third of these stones, finding them at about the rate of one stone to the acre. And here is where my adventure became magical, for in a striking foreshortening of time that embraced thousands of years, I had become the witness of this miserly rain from the stars. The marvel of marvels was that there on the rounded back of the planet, between this magnetic sheet and those stars, a human consciousness was present in which as in a mirror that rain could be reflected.

-Antoine de St. Exupery

essteeyou,

Wow, that is such evocative writing!

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

It's pure magic

essteeyou,

Just so you know, you’ve got me reading Wind, Sand and Stars now. Thanks!

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

😃

It’s so good

niktemadur,

Well that is some spectacular prose, I am truly transported to a place where spirituality and science meet at a single point of grand mystery and realization that I have felt a few times in real life, alone in nature at surprising places and odd hours, but Saint-Exupéry has taken this all one further level up the rung.
To a level that my father actually lived, as an airplane pilot in Baja California back when the peninsula didn’t have a paved road, an isolated, remote place as yet mostly untouched by man.

One minor caveat, however:

a sheet spread beneath the stars can receive only star-dust

While I understand such a thoughtful writer was going for a feeling, surely with his talent he could have found a way to include windstorms, all the dust and sands they can sweep horizontally across the lands and over hills. The Rio De Oro region is in northern Morocco, surely it often gets blasted by powerful Saharan winds.
A sheet spread beneath the Moroccan sky most often receives desert-dust.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

I suspect it receives relatively few big rocks from anywhere else though

Alice, w Cosmic cleaners: the scientists scouring English cathedral roofs for space dust
@Alice@hilariouschaos.com avatar

cool

Cornucopiaofplenty, w Most Astronauts Get ‘Space Headaches.’ Scientists Want to Know Why

There are people that don’t get headaches?

Jakdracula,
@Jakdracula@lemmy.world avatar

I rarely get headaches. Haven’t really ever gotten any headaches throughout my life.

EddoWagt,

Same, maybe 1 or 2 really mild ones, that were just kind of annoying for a minute or so

Leg,

Here I am getting migraines so bad I contemplate self- terminating on a monthly basis. Life can be cruel.

EddoWagt,

My mom gets that as well, seems awful

aStonedSanta,

I get migraines or just started too. But never get head aches. Migraines for me just make light too overwhelming to look at but it isn’t pain. It’s almost confusion it causes me.

exocrinous,

I’ve never gotten a headache in space.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Bro, I don’t even need to go anywhere. In fact, I’d rather be in a dark room lmao.

ringwraithfish, w Most Astronauts Get ‘Space Headaches.’ Scientists Want to Know Why

If Constellation on Apple TV is right, then it’s an indication that the person has become quantum entangled with their alternative self in another universe.

Good show btw if you are looking for something more psychological with a sci-fi background.

Sekrayray, w Most Astronauts Get ‘Space Headaches.’ Scientists Want to Know Why

They mention this in the article, but the physiology would suggest this is related to CSF/blood pooling in low G.

Taking it a step further, I bet this has a similar mechanism to IIH or the high pressure headaches you get with obstructive hydrocephalus. CSF is supposed to drain down via a relatively passive system. Without G to regulate this I can envision that you’d essentially develop the same physiology as someone with IIH (too much CSF).

Really interesting. A good example of how we have no idea what insane health things we are going to experience with space travel, but also how space travel may shed insight on treatments for other conditions with similar mechanisms we experience in a gravity well.

ieatpwns,

Haven’t this is interesting because I’ve always wondered how evolution would happen when we finally colonize in low g environs. Maybe char was on to something when he said our souls are weighed down by gravity.

prole, w Most Astronauts Get ‘Space Headaches.’ Scientists Want to Know Why

First symptom of space madness

wischi, w Most Astronauts Get ‘Space Headaches.’ Scientists Want to Know Why

Too much blood in their head because of zero g?

1024_Kibibytes,

The article suggests something similar:

“As gravity loosens its grip, blood, lymph and cerebrospinal fluid drift from their usual locations and begin to exert pressure elsewhere.”

MeanEYE, w A Nearby Star Is Expected to Go Nova This Year. Here's How You Can See It.
@MeanEYE@lemmy.world avatar

So, there’s nothing in universe that is longer than “soon”. This prediction of going nova this year, only means it already happened but you can’t see it yet. And since it’s going super nova, that means entire even will be boring anyway. You’ll see a white dot that will increase in intensity during this year and then fade away equally slowly.

For people wondering about dates, there are none. Just like Beetlejuice is expected to explode soon™, that actually means 3000-10000+ years of waiting. So don’t get your hopes up. Out lives are but a blink in universe. All you can do is be diligent and watch it constantly. Doesn’t mean you’ll see much either since at peak magnitude of 2.5 it will be dim enough that you’ll need telescope to see it.

XeroxCool,

Nova, not supernova. Novas happen multiple times. Supernova do not but it doesn’t say supernova. Soon, as in within the next 6 months since its following a cycle that happened about 80 and 160 years ago.

nulluser,

Visible with unaided eyes for several days (but still dimmer than about 120 stars in the sky), and with binoculars for about a week, according to NASA.

stockRot,

Did you read the article? Or do you just like talking?

WarmSoda, w A Nearby Star Is Expected to Go Nova This Year. Here's How You Can See It.

Humans have seen this nova lots of times before. It was first identified by astronomers in the late 1800s, and it bursts about every 80 years.

Indeed, the explosion heading our way would have taken place thousands of years ago, but requires all that time for the light to reach us.

Still, it’s worth checking it out – T Coronae Borealis last shone in 1946 and this will be the last viewing opportunity before the early 2100s.

Very cool.
That is, until the article says to check out Twitter for how to actually see it.

Immersive_Matthew,

Right. I avoid Twitter at every opportunity. I want nothing to do with that cease pit.

nulluser, (edited )

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Coronae_Borealis

On 20 April 2016, the Sky and Telescope website reported a sustained brightening since February 2015 from magnitude 10.5 to about 9.2. A similar event was reported in 1938, followed by another outburst in 1946.[20] By June 2018, the star had dimmed slightly but still remained at an unusually high level of activity. In March or April 2023, it dimmed to magnitude 12.3.[21] A similar dimming occurred in the year before the 1945 outburst, indicating that it will likely erupt between March and September 2024.

And if I’m interpreting some of the other content correctly, it’ll come and go in one night? Maybe someone who knows more about these can confirm or correct me.. See update below.

Also …

Even when at peak magnitude of 2.5, this recurrent nova is dimmer than about 120 stars in the night sky.

So, maybe a bit anticlimactic. 😞

Update: … …nasa.gov/…/view-nova-explosion-new-star-in-north…

Once its brightness peaks, it should be visible to the unaided eye for several days and just over a week with binoculars before it dims again, possibly for another 80 years.

WarmSoda,

So no range of dates then? Still pretty damned cool.

nulluser,

Between March and September, but that’s a pretty wide range. I guess just keep an eye out for the, “IT’S HAPPENING” posts.

XeroxCool,

Reminds me of when Betelgeuse, the orange upper star of Orion, went dim in 2020. Lots of amateur reports on its brightness, 3x per night, for a few months waiting for it to go nova. It settled down a bit before disappearing behind the sun for the season and came back just fine. It was kinda fun to monitor, but soooo many false alarms from people trying to call it first

WarmSoda,

Definitely will keep an eye out. Already have the eclipse in the calendar too.

verity_kindle, w ESA's Euclid Telescope Has an Ice Problem
@verity_kindle@lemmy.world avatar

That is fascinating, I want to know, is there any way to prevent this during assembly? Even with extreme clean room protocols! Does it happen with other telescopes?! Down the rabbit hole, I must go.

atzanteol, w Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old

This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances

Losing energy… to what?

troyunrau,
@troyunrau@lemmy.ca avatar

Wildass hypothesis I just pulled out of my ass with an undergraduate degree in applied physics: maybe interaction with particles emerging from quantum vacuum?

Okay, that sounds like great technobabble. I’m going to watch star trek now ;)

atzanteol,

Seems you may be on to something. Virtual particle interactions seems to be a hypothesis for tired light.

To test this I suggest we reprogram the deflector dish to emit a low-power tachyon pulse to see if we can excite the non-baryonic mass interactions.

CitizenKong,

Don’t forget to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!

felbane,

Shit, if only my turbo encabulator wasn’t broken!

umbrella,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

those are old tech.

obsolete even.

RageAgainstTheRich,

You sound like you know what you’re talking about. I’m taking notes. 📝🧐

circuitfarmer,
@circuitfarmer@lemmy.world avatar

It’s those damn inertial dampeners again

riskable,
@riskable@programming.dev avatar

It’s probably not that the light is losing energy it’s just that the distance it travels over time (the time we “know” is supposed to take for a given distance) appears compressed because of unknown/unseen gravitational forces.

Think of it like this: If there were only one star in the universe and it emits a particle of light we could calculate the distance it would travel over time. Yet we know that star will still have a gravitational effect on that light… No matter how far away it gets.

That’s what they mean by light “losing energy”. Is the energy actually “lost”? Not really. Is this slowing (aka appearance of lost energy) caused by dark energy/dark matter or something more fundamental like spacetime itself being stretched or compressed due to the gravity of astronomical objects we can see or “dark matter”/“dark energy” or… ? We don’t really know for certain yet!

atzanteol,

It’s probably not that the light is losing energy it’s just that the distance it travels over time (the time we “know” is supposed to take for a given distance) appears compressed because of unknown/unseen gravitational forces.

This doesn’t seem to be at all what tired light proposes though. What you’re explaining sounds like red-shift due to an expanding universe. From what I can tell they claim it actually loses energy through interaction with “other things” in the universe.

xionzui,

This doesn’t answer the question in the context of this theory, but the current understanding is that light does lose energy as it travels through expanding space. As the space it’s in expands, the wavelength gets longer, and the energy goes down. It doesn’t go anywhere; energy just isn’t conserved in an expanding space-time.

HereIAm,

If the light loses energy, then it must surely lose it to something? And if your last point that energy isn’t being conserved in our universe, in which case we are either in some deep shit with the first law of thermodynamics, or our universe isn’t an isolated system.

atzanteol,

Seems energy is not conserved.

preposterousuniverse.com/…/energy-is-not-conserve…

The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases.

Scribbd,

Ok. Smarter people probably thought of this, and probably found my hypothesis to be impossible. But what if… It is the the other way around. What if photons are losing energy because they are expanding spacetime. Like tiny little springs expanding out.

Live_your_lives,

Further into the article he says that, "It would be irresponsible of me not to mention that plenty of experts in cosmology or GR would not put it in these terms. We all agree on the science; there are just divergent views on what words to attach to the science. In particular, a lot of folks would want to say “energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.” "

So energy is conserved on the whole, it’s just not conserved if you consider photons apart from their greater context.

SkyeStarfall, (edited )

The energy is actually not conserved across the universe in general relativity, as it is currently understood. Conversation of energy is due to the time symmetry, which the expansion of space breaks.

atzanteol,

BTW, thanks! This comment sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole. It had simply never occurred to me that energy conversation didn’t apply in an expanding universe!

Live_your_lives,

“Energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.”

Quote taken from Atzanteol’s article.

RvTV95XBeo,

You try being a bright ray of sunshine for everything around you all day every day. Sometimes you just get tired, ya know?

Naz,

To the dark matter, of course.

;)

RizzRustbolt,

Entropy, capital “E”.

nayminlwin, w Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old

There’s no dark matter, only dimension flattening weapons being fired at each other by advanced aliens.

  • Wszystkie
  • Subskrybowane
  • Moderowane
  • Ulubione
  • fediversum
  • niusy
  • informasi
  • esport
  • test1
  • muzyka
  • NomadOffgrid
  • lieratura
  • rowery
  • astronomy@mander.xyz
  • Technologia
  • Spoleczenstwo
  • retro
  • krakow
  • motoryzacja
  • sport
  • slask
  • Blogi
  • giereczkowo
  • MiddleEast
  • Gaming
  • Pozytywnie
  • tech
  • Psychologia
  • FromSilesiaToPolesia
  • Cyfryzacja
  • ERP
  • warnersteve
  • shophiajons
  • Wszystkie magazyny