PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

On 2005-07-11 12:54, stardust wrote:
hehe

If you have 10^11 stars per galaxy and 10^9 galaxies (not only on this picture )you will have 10^20 stars.

I won't go into why or how you got to those assumptions, I just want to mention that we are not interested in how many stars are there but the number of planets which most likely is more than one per star.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-07-11 14:48 ]</font>

On 2005-07-11 15:01, stardust wrote:

Please do not feel cheated. Disillusion is not a offense in itself.

Not sure what are you implying? Can you be more specific?

apologize for starting the numbers game, while it would have been so much easier to check the source for reference data to the pic...

at least my own estimation was very conservative - the actual diameter of the pic is 0.05 degree which would translate to 7200 such views for a full panorama.
If the galaxies were evenly distributed around us, the same would apply in vertical direction, making an overall of 7.200 x 7.200 ~ 50 million such pics.
exposure time was 11(!) days during 400 orbits

it's a different question if all that makes any sense at all, but I just like the picture and it's content for it's existence - and the attempt to paint something like infinity in both time and space.

nevertheless I can't resist to comment stardust's equation

How many are not in a double star or n-star system ? 10^-5

this translates to 1 out of 100k, but should be more in the 9 out of 10 range - thus moving the result way to the left

cheers, Tom

the blinded me with.... SCIENCE (!) Th. Dolby

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-07-11 16:42 ]</font>

On 2005-07-12 04:47, stardust wrote:
I hope you guys wont put me in the corner like Galileo was put for seeing the Jupiter moons orbiting.

Ah, don't worry about that, your theory is not threatening to the religious establishment (neither to the scientific community I might add).

I love this stuff, i've had hubble as my wallpaper for ages - don't know too much about it personally, but if you guys havn't heard of the Drake Equation them you might find it interesting...

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/To ... ation.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

My tuppence..


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pseudojazzer on 2005-07-12 07:57 ]</font>

On 2005-07-12 04:47, stardust wrote:
...
We should be very careful in favoring any of the extremes:
The narcissism of mankind to be the elected crown of evolution
And the pseudo scientific approach that declares biosphere the statistical normal case by playing with infinite numbers.

I completely agree

P.S.
and 10^-5 might be 10^-3 but the single star system is the exception and not the double star system.
The reason is that new stars are born in (star-)dust clouds in the very vicinity of others...

tnx for explaining, I was aware of the new star 'peculiarities', but didn't consider such relatively 'wide' relations as multi-systems.

we should not forget that the beautiful picture also represents an accumulation of data in a form that's more or less convenient for our preferred sense.
imho it cannot even been considered 'truth' as it already contains lots of pre- and postprocessing according to a certain idea about 'the universe'.

it was fun checking some references in this context, which includes the inevitable 'space journey' theories and obscure methods to accelerate close to speed of light.

did you know that the biggest problem isn't the engine or energy required, but the spectral shift of radiation ?

passengers of the vehicle would experience a blue shift (opposed to red shift from distant galaxies moving away from us - according to cosmology).
well, a blue shift is a pretty unpleasent thing for our bodies as it turns light into x-rays and and x-rays (a common extra-terrestial source of radiation) into gamma rays...

don't get me wrong - I find those stories funny, but don't take them serious at all.
We all know that interstellar journeys are simply done by navigators, who bow space by the force of their mind...

cheers, tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-07-12 09:35 ]</font>

has anyone one read that book about entropy causing time to move forwards and where photons decide to act like waves or particals depending on whether they go spin detectors or not ?Wish I could remember it's name ..damn..wanna read it again now I'm over pulsar shock .

And then there's what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". That's where, when two particles interact and cause opposite spin, measuring the spin of one particle will instantly be the opposite.

It's spooky since it seems to imply some sort of connection between the particles even after they've travelled apart, and instant communications of spin states no matter what the distance, defying even the light speed barrier.

@spirit
yes... whats that called ???non localised interaction....very friggin quantum . How much can a Koala Bear?? I got half way through before the Presets took over .Where's my spice !!!!
old Frank was such a verbose old bugger but so good for his day ....mind you Delaney and Leguin gave him a run for his money
Cheers
starboy

exiting new discoveries by Hubble at the very end of our universe:

They are coming.

Spirit wrote:
If humans were a sort of divine creature with amazing powers and heavenly grace then I'd think it something pretty special and mysterious.

But we're such delicate, stupid, angry, tormented, violent, love-struck, individual, and sickly creatures, that I think we must be part of universe's "standard muck".

Hmmm...I'd say not to confuse the human potential with how many (if not most, sadly) actually turn out

I'd also say that it's equally erroneous to confuse any description of reality that we uphold with the endless mystery that surrounds us.

And with that, I'm off for a beer!

Not sure if you all are aware of the new telescope built by the European consortium called VLT (simply very large telescope) or European Southern Observatory in Chile. Details here!

I just saw a documentary how the 8.2 meters mirrors were transported from Germany to the top of the mountain in Chile (driving under 5 miles/hour when the mirror was on trucks).

The 8.2 meters mirrors are not the largest in the world but there are 4 of them which will be used combined for inteferometry. Hubble's mirror is 2 meter in diameter.

Newly found Einstein Ring:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-07-25 11:27 ]</font>

That will be cool, as well as this one:



The Giant Magellan Telescope

Very exciting times are awaiting on the horizon (considering also the SETI project that hopes to build a large array of 350 radio antenna dishes).



I think they only have four or another small number constructed so far...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-07-25 14:37 ]</font>

After years & years of under-investment in space technology developement, doesn't it seem to have speeded up .....
A LOT !!! Exciting times indeed, but it does make me wonder WHY NOW ? Searching for
a new homeworld?
For aliens?
For relatives?
For the 'friends' who built the so called
<a href="http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/installation.html">
'Installation'</a> near Tunguska, Siberia.??
<br>
Strange surely that local Shamen were telling of imminent dissaster & arranging an abnormal & evasive movement of their tribes & herds WEEKS before the Tunguska event.
All wildlife left the area BEFORE the event. Siezmic & electromagnetic activity were reported DAYS before the event (even by a scientist as far away as Germany)
<br>
All very strange. Some things aren't as much 'need to now', as nobody knows




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: notbobmoog on 2005-07-26 04:58 ]</font>

On 2005-07-26 04:53, notbobmoog wrote:
Exciting times indeed, but it does make me wonder WHY NOW ?

Because NOW we can and the time is running out!

On 2005-07-26 07:19, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Because NOW we can and the time is running out!

<br>

You said it !!!

we can what (?)
95% of all scientists haven't even been able to sort out their limited way of perceiption - or found a way to put it into a 'cosmic' (or overall) context

they disregard astrology, even though there's no 'so-called' scientific proof against it.

they accept relativity theory (and it's math - which is honestly, ahem... a bit tough for me), but deny interstellar journeys.

they (all) look (usually) in just one single direction
remember Galileo ? and of course others as well
I'm not that confident

cheers, tom

On 2005-07-26 09:33, astroman wrote:
we can what (?)

Come on Tom, you disappoint me. Astrology I'm afraid is more science-fiction than science. I don't think there is a need to prove otherwise.

By "we CAN now" I meant we have the technological resources and knowledge today to build better and bigger telescopes to further expand our knowledge about the Universe.