For science!
#41
Posted 30 November 2009 - 12:35 AM
This one's probably more 'realistic' for the photo, and I'm sure you'll agree it's still pretty damn impressive. I would imagine that your view of that skyscape with the naked eye would be somewhere between the two, since the human eye is vastly more sensitive. It will respond to one photon of light. The camera requires significantly more than that.
#42
Posted 30 November 2009 - 01:08 AM
Eh, on the cheapest cameras maybe. In any decent (no, not very expensive) camera you can tune the sensitivity the way you want, with our without flash2) Not using a flash would mean that the camera wouldn't catch the light as well.
But on the camera, you can have it catch light longer. For normal photos this will cause massive motion blur, but stars don't move that fastI would imagine that your view of that skyscape with the naked eye would be somewhere between the two, since the human eye is vastly more sensitive. It will respond to one photon of light. The camera requires significantly more than that.
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#43
Posted 30 November 2009 - 01:15 AM
#44
Posted 03 December 2009 - 11:09 PM
Space travel. How far have we got?
#45
Posted 03 December 2009 - 11:45 PM
#46
Posted 04 December 2009 - 12:17 AM
Now, compare the big numbers.
Light speed = 1,079,000,000
P10's distance = 13,455,000,000
So, that's 13 light years roughly. In thirty-three years? Consider an object with considerably more mass, going considerably slower (it would actually have to, to prevent human occupants basically being turned into a fine paste by the ridiculous G-forces of going at the 28,000mph that P10 is travelling at)...
As for colonising our own solar system, it's a slowish process but not beyond our current technology level. Greenhouses, algae tanks and a fission reactor would sort the oxygen out. Water's the main constraint though recyc and the odd top-up delivery could probably make even that sustainable. The moon's what, a couple of days away for human travel (Apollo 11 launched on July 16, the lunar module landed on July 20)? Mars is a couple of months, max. Which is all well and good considering just how much stuff you'd have to take there. To send it all in one go would be a ridiculous endeavour, requiring a rocket more powerful than we could feasibly produce. So, you'd have to build your expeditionary stuff in orbit, not unlike the way Mir and Skylab were, and the ISS currently is. Then your crews gotta get up there. And they have to be in transit for months, and then land on Mars. Oh, sure, you could send follow-up teams but those initial crews are going to be the ones doing the colonising (and you need people for that shit - you can't automate the building of colony modules...).
So, yeah. Colonising the Moon or Mars is doable for sure. It's that, logistically speaking, it'd be the biggest nightmare the human mind has ever begun to contemplate. The Normandy beach landings in 1944 were logistically absurd. Even colonising the Moon would make them look like a trip to the fucking supermarket. I would not want to be the poor bastard who planned the Mars colony...
#47
Posted 04 December 2009 - 01:26 AM
The only thing impossible is impossibility.Basically, interstellar travel is impossible. Or rather, impractical.
Gravitational Corridors...There's only so fast we can propel something before the fuel weight outstrips the amount of power that fuel could potentially provide.
#48
Posted 04 December 2009 - 12:45 PM
#49
Posted 04 December 2009 - 01:20 PM
#50
Posted 04 December 2009 - 01:42 PM
#51
Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:07 PM
You could travel at ten times light speed and the G-forces would still be 0. They are caused by change of speed (e.g. acceleration, turning), not speed it self.to prevent human occupants basically being turned into a fine paste by the ridiculous G-forces of going at the 28,000mph that P10 is travelling at)..
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#52
Posted 04 December 2009 - 05:51 PM
Vort, seriously. Let's just cool it, k?I'm curious, Archie, where do you think God lives? If we go too far into space will we run into Him and incur His wrath? As a Christian, shouldn't you be against space travel, as we're looking to abandon the planet God entrusted to us?
#53
Posted 04 December 2009 - 06:42 PM
#54
Posted 04 December 2009 - 06:47 PM
Ehm, what? Are you referring to wormholes? If so, they're totally theoretical. Or maybe you're clutching at straws of science fiction.Gravitational Corridors...
LOL, unless there really is a hyperspace realm, we've no chance. Even if we do, it would probably require the ability to go faster than light to get there. And as I explained, the engine that would make us reach that speed would be so massive that its mass would be a brick wall against going any faster. That's not including fuel.So we're nowhere on the warp drive front?
That is rendered irrelevant by the fact you still need to get up to speed. G-suits won't protect you from the forces required to get you up to 24k in good time. And a stable acceleration gradient that would get you to that speed without turning the occupants to paste would probably add a fuck of a long time to your interstellar journey.You could travel at ten times light speed and the G-forces would still be 0. They are caused by change of speed (e.g. acceleration, turning), not speed it self.
#55
Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:51 PM
BA HA HA! ... Eh, em. No honey.So we're nowhere on the warp drive front?
#56
Posted 05 December 2009 - 01:32 AM
Some time ago, a friend suggested something (don't know what) and I said it was impossible, because the laws of physics are the same everywhere, on every planet. I don't actually know why, but I was/am convinced of it.
Why should they be though? Anybody have a scientific answer to that?
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#57
Posted 05 December 2009 - 01:48 AM
Well... a strong statement for a race that's never had their species on another planet.because the laws of physics are the same everywhere, on every planet.
But we know factually that that isn't quite true. There's even a planet in the Horsehead Nebula that exerts gravity, meaning up is down in comparison to earth. But that's beyond the point... no other planet is at 9.8. There might be, but still. Physics is different on every world. Especially if it's close to a black hole.
#58
Posted 07 December 2009 - 12:33 AM
Why would anyone assume they were different? Why shouldn't they be the same?
And what's this crazy horsehead planet? Got a source?
#59
Posted 07 December 2009 - 12:45 AM
That makes the amount of gravity different, not the physical laws that define the phenomenon of gravity. The gravitational force is simply determined by the mass, which is defined by an exact formula. A planet close to a black hole follows that same law, but objects around it are also affected by the black hole.But that's beyond the point... no other planet is at 9.8. There might be, but still. Physics is different on every world. Especially if it's close to a black hole.
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#60
Posted 07 December 2009 - 01:39 AM
A planet in the Horsehead Nebula. Hmm... I'll see if I can find it again. Found it on accident on that Space Age site as a personal observational discovery. Hopefully they named it by now.And what's this crazy horsehead planet? Got a source?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users