Intriguingly, the two structures are at the same distance from Earth, near the constellations of Boötes the Herdsman, raising the possibility that they are part of a connected cosmological system.
Not only that, but they look suspiciously concentric when plotted out on the sky. I know that's jumping pretty far out there into speculation land, but it'd really blow our theories a new one if there are patterns in the cosmos this large. Neat stuff.
Y’all, the article is obviously written for people in the path of totality. You’re not being clever complaining about the cost and hassle of traveling.
My wife works for the NPS and her old coworker invited us to help out with their eclipse event in Ohio. Apparently they’re already prepping to close all the parking lots and are real worried they won’t have enough rangers.
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.
Had to read the article to find out that they mean 72 “years worth of orbits” happen in 1 earth day. Although unlikely I was hoping that it was orbiting so fast that 1 earth day there would pass 72 earth years to a stationary observer due to time dilation. Not sure how fast it would need to go for that to happen.
Since time and speed are relative, to have 1 Earth day on the star and see 72 years on Earth, it’d simply be a speed multiplier of 72*365.24= 26,296.28 times faster. Our solar system orbits the galactic center at 250km/s or 0.0008c, so ~26k times that puts it at nearly 22c relative to us. So no.
But quite frankly, there must be a way to be a slower observer. Earth’s orbital speed is about 30km/s (0.0001c) so that drops the product way down to 2.6c. And while the Parker Solar Probe holds the record for the fastest man made object at 0.0006c at its closest solar approach, it actually took a lot of energy to slow it down to get it to the sun and stall it’s orbit. Otherwise, it’d just orbit it the same as the Earth. It slides out to a Venusian distance from the sun at apogee and drops to 12km/s, halving the differential requirement to +1.2c. But if everything is relative, how do we even determine where 1c is and know it’s so definitively impossible to reach? I don’t know, I’m starting to have an existential crisis. Maybe time just keeps dilating and simple addition/subtraction doesn’t apply for appreciable values of c so you have to start multiplying in decimals.
Relativistic time dilation is nonlinear, so the time dilation “multiplier” approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light. So you will never need more than 1c to pass any finite amount of time for the observer while only passing a smaller amount of time for the moving object. Using a time dilation calculator, it looks like 1 day inside the moving object to 72 years for the stationary observer works out to roughly 99.9999999% the speed of light (9 nines total). Of course if you take into account earths movement as a “stationary” baseline then it’ll depend on whether you’re moving with or against the fast moving object.
It used to melt my brain too but there’s no need to know “absolutely stationary” since you’re comparing 2 objects. And due to the time dilation, the 1c limit is different depending on the observer, the time dilation will prevent anyone from observing >1c even if one person is going 0.9c relative to another person who is also going 0.9c relative to a stationary observer.
COPUOS operates by consensus, requiring approval of all of its more than 100 member states to move forward on any issue, and thus allowing even a single nation to block action
That’s a shitty way to get anything done. Unanimous approval should only be for really big issues. Otherwise just let it be a majority vote.
There will be millions of applicants for this. They’ll get the cream of the crop for this experiment. If we ever end up actually going to mars then these people will be in every history book.
I buy a lot of my telescope equipment from Celestron so I got their kit. It was like $2 more than the knockoff brands but I like my eyeballs so went with a company I trust with relatively inexpensive optics.
The Covarying Coupling Constants theory posits that the fundamental constants of nature,[…], are not fixed but vary across the cosmos.
This undermines current fundamental axiom of science that laws of physics are constant across universe. Until we go there and measure them to be actually different. This hypothesis doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I’m skeptical of this theory as well, but I’d point out that our observations show that at galaxy scales, gravity is much stronger in certain places than we’d predict using our current model of gravity and the matter we can otherwise detect, and at even larger scales the acceleration of the universe’s expansion is being driven by something we don’t understand.
Right now, the dominant theory in cosmology is that each of these observed phenomena are driven by dark matter and dark energy, but we don’t have any direct evidence of the existence of either, just indirect evidence that stuff doesn’t behave as we might expect.
So it’s a choice between theories that don’t make intuitive sense, and break some fundamental assumptions about physics.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.