FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2      Non-Film Score Discussion: Science: Chile Telescope Photographs Exo-Planet     1 2    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jun 14, 2016 - 9:01 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) A jaw-dropping new photo shows a probable alien planet orbiting a star that lies 1,200 light-years from Earth. The potential planet appears as a brownish dot to the left of the bright bluish-white star CVSO 30 in the newly released image, which was captured by the European Southern Observatory's (ESO) Very Large Telescope in Chile. To appreciate just how fantastic it is to have a direct image of this candidate world, consider that CVSO 30 is about 280 times farther away from Earth than is Alpha Centauri, the star system nearest to our own. And remember also that 1 light-year is about 5.9 trillion miles (9.5 trillion kilometers). So the newly photographed world, known provisionally as CVSO 30c, is about 7 quadrillion miles (11 quadrillion km) away (in the direction of the constellation Orion, for what it's worth). Source: http://www.space.com/33160-alien-planet-photo-cvso-30c-vlt.html    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 10:19 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) That's quite a pic! Although obvious now, it wasn't that long ago all we could see were the aggregation of stars that surround us. We inferred that those stars must have had planetary systems with inherent isotropy throughout the visible Universe. This is stunning evidence of the biblical-like predictions scientists made based on their absolute faith in the power of reasoning.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 10:51 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) It is stunning. We're also imagining the early formation of actual solar systems and it matches up with their predictions. Our technology seems to know, no bounds. One day will be able to tell if there are living organisms on exo-planets right from our telescopes. It's astounding.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 11:35 AM     By:   Warlok   (Member) It is. There is something to seeing such in plain imagery... . 11 quadrillion? Phhh - I run just under that every morning... (look left, look right)    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 1:26 PM     By:   Metryq   (Member) Solium wrote: We're also imagining the early formation of actual solar systems and it matches up with their predictions. "Imagining" or "imaging," and whose predictions?    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 1:43 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) Solium wrote: We're also imagining the early formation of actual solar systems and it matches up with their predictions. "Imagining" or "imaging," and whose predictions? Yes, imaging. My laymen's explanation. A star is born from a cloud of gas and the debris left over accumulates into orbiting planets. http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/alma-hl-tau-protoplanetary-disk-640x515.jpg    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 8:06 PM     By:   Metryq   (Member) While the nebular hypothesis has been around a long time, and is still taught in every astronomy text, it is untenable. First of all, it is circular reasoning, if you'll pardon the apparent pun. A cloud of gas and dust has no central locus around which to begin spinning. And even a cloud with a central mass already in existence would not simply begin to collapse if it were spinning. Orbital mechanics wouldn't allow it. The favored ice-skater-pulling-in-her-arms analogy points to another conundrum—there's too much angular momentum in the system (see Hannes Alfvén). Also, compressing gas heats up, further retarding any tendency to collapse. Virtually every exoplanet observed is an argument against the nebular hypothesis: "hot Jupiters" orbiting much too close to their primaries, planets orbiting too far away—our own Solar system cannot be explained by the nebular hypothesis. Such poetry may sound good in TV documentaries, but the nebular hypothesis is little more than a perpetual motion machine requiring the Solar system to have always been here in its current state.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 8:21 PM     By:   Warlok   (Member) Would not a cloud of gas and dust coalesce around larger masses of heavy minerals i.e. asteroids, and would not spin be induced by the movement of a mass within its own time-space fabric depression (think a ball tossed in your bathtub), friction against the wall of the fabric? I suppose in the first case it might be positted that its chicken & egg, that asteroids themselves still need to form. Still, isn`t it a natural cohesion/accretion quality of matter to form together? Also, wouldn`t the gravitational properties scale with size and always exceed the heat properties of which you speak?    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 9:47 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) You are correct. Tiny particles are attracted by electromagnetic forces. As they grow bigger gravity takes over. Nebula's are the remains of supernovas. These are the nurseries for star formation. It is said we are made of star stuff. That's because heavier elements like iron (we have iron in our blood) can only be created by supernovas.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 9:58 PM     By:   RoryR   (Member) These planets are just gas giants. Let me know when they find something like earth with talking apes on it.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 10:14 PM     By:   Sir David of Garland   (Member) Save your pennies, Solly, for the first tour shuttle heading there...    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 9:37 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) @ RoryR - Their finding rocky worlds too. Though most are to close to it’s star and or three times bigger than Earth. (dubbed Super Earth's) @ DavidinBerkeley- Well at the distances we are talking here they gotta first invent suspended animation.    Posted:   Jun 17, 2016 - 8:02 AM     By:   Metryq   (Member) Solium wrote: (dubbed Super Earth's) Just another inaccurate, science-by-press-release term. Mercury, Venus and Mars would be "Earth-like" by this measure. Spectrographic analysis? Planetary astronomers already failed on that count with Solar comets, still referred to as "dirty snowballs" in almost every news article, despite the fact that we've known it is wrong for many years. (The alleged "water" detected in cometary tails is sputtered silicates bonding with hydrogen from the Sun. The resulting hydroxyl is not really "water.")    Posted:   Jun 17, 2016 - 8:13 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Solium wrote: (dubbed Super Earth's) Just another inaccurate, science-by-press-release term. Mercury, Venus and Mars would be "Earth-like" by this measure. I agree there's nothing "scientific" about the terminology. It's only meant to designate rocky worlds two or three times larger than Earth itself. Mercury is tiny, so no reason to put that in a Earth size category. Venus is virtually the same size as Earth, just a bit smaller, it is Earths "twin". Mars is half the size of Earth, but it has many Earth like features past and present.    Posted:   Jun 17, 2016 - 10:23 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) I've got no problem with condensation. Seen water turn to steam and ice. So how do stars form, then? I do admit I don't really know. If we look at our neighborhood, what processes do we attribute to the formation of Proxima Centauri and Barnard's Star? The total material comprising a star needs to gather. It must have a border in spacetime to separate it from it's nearest stars in all spatial directions. How does local implosion of that material become focused to a particular point acting as the centre of a formed star? What happens to the surrounding 'cloud' of nebulous stuff when a star eventually ignites and begins irradiating it's surroundings with radiation in all spectra? Edit: come to think of it, there is a hierarchy - Big Bang produces a single field of initial stuff (particle/force groups), followed by what exactly? Pools of stuff collapse into galaxies, then within those galaxies a local group of fields collapse to form stars along with their solid bodies in orbit? Why is there this hierarchy? Did the first stars to evolve exist in free space or did galactic congealing have to take place first? It's the Gell-Mann threeness set of properties - Universe, galaxies, stars and their offspring.    Posted:   Jun 17, 2016 - 3:23 PM     By:   Graham Watt   (Member) I actually find reading about this stuff and thinking about it incredibly stimulating. I came here with the intention of making a jokey, flippant comment, but I don't feel like it now. Science is amazing.    Posted:   Jun 17, 2016 - 5:23 PM     By:   Metryq   (Member) Graham, you might find The Electric Comet food for thought: https://youtu.be/34wtt2EUToo The documentary was made before the Rosetta mission to 67P, but there are supplementary videos to address the new findings.    Posted:   Jun 17, 2016 - 6:06 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) @ Graham Watt - I suggest going to space.com, slooh.com, nasa.gov, adlerplanetarium.org and other reputable sources. Not kooky Scientology sounding garbage.    Posted:   Jun 18, 2016 - 5:00 AM     By:   Graham Watt   (Member) Thanks Met n' sol, I've actually been following this kind of stuff at baby level for decades, but sometimes my brain hurts so much I just want to watch football. But it's always great to get back into the brainy mindboggling essays and documentaries, even if I do feel like a fish in a bowl trying to comprehend what might be beyond the glass. Time for the old joke - Two fish in a fish bowl. One asks the other, "Hey, do you believe in God?", and the other says, "Sure I do. Who do you think changes the water?"    Posted:   Jun 18, 2016 - 8:01 AM     By:   Metryq   (Member) @ Graham, take it at your own pace, and read what you like. You can trust your own judgment. @ Solium, ad hominem and appeals to authority in science? Velikovsky was wrong about some things, yet correct about many others. That didn't stop some in the scientific establishment from trying to character assassinate him. You'll never guess who led the campaign to smear Velikovsky, then later hypocritically pontificated about integrity in science on the TV series COSMOS. This is the same guy who weaponized global warming for political reasons after the scientific establishment rejected Rupert Wildt's original idea (for scientific reasons). And if you bothered to look into the subject, you'd find that plasma cosmology is not a spin-off of WORLDS IN COLLISION. The idea that comets might be electrical phenomena dates back to the 1700s, but we got side-tracked in the late 1800s and early 1900s by establishment types like Sydney Chapman pushing mathematical fantasies and politics in place of science. Look up Kristian Birkeland, Nikola Tesla, Hannes Alfvén, Irving Langmuir, Halton Arp, Ralph Juergens, Anthony Peratt and Ed Dowdye before spouting off. I know it's a lot, asking you to make arguments on scientific merit, but at least give it a try.     Non-Film Score Discussion: Science: Chile Telescope Photographs Exo-Planet    < 1 2  > >>  Go to page:  1 2   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.