ChrisARippel
ChrisARippel t1_japw4zr wrote
Reply to Does the solar system have an elliptical orbit around SagA*? If so, how do we know this? by ytness2
The Sun is 99.98% of the mass of the Solar System. Sun's overwhelming mass compared to the other planets controls their orbits.
Sag A" is only 0.003% of the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy.
-
Sag A* has a puny 4 million solar masses.
-
Milky Way Galaxy has 200 billion stars plus a much greater mass of Dark Matter, together totalling 1.2 to 1.9 trillion solar masses.
-
4 million vs over 1.2 trillion solar masses. The stars and the Dark Matter should have a much greater control of the Sun's orbit. And prevents the Sun from flying away.
ChrisARippel t1_jaegn0r wrote
Reply to comment by House13Games in help in creating a space and board game by Dexters_Network
You are right that realistic scale creates problems because each planet further out is about twice as far as the planet further in.
Since I only just imagined the game in my head last night, I haven't played with "fixes". This is something that game designer would have to do.
Alterations might be to only use the four outer planets and stretch their au from the Sun less than double. And the board could be only half or a quarter of a full orbit.
ChrisARippel t1_jaauuzv wrote
Game name: Orbital Mechanics.
Board: Eight planets orbiting counter clockwise around the Sun. Their orbits are the correct number of astronomical units from the Sun. (The exact number of centimeters would be based on the size of the board. The orbits would be marked as circles on the board.
The board are tiny squares. Spacecraft move from one square to another.
Board Set Up: Planets would randomly placed on their orbits. Spaceships for of all players are placed on Earth at the start of the game. Though there is no reason players couldn't start on/orbiting another planet. There is no reason players couldn't start on/orbiting different planets.
Numbers 1 through 8, but not including 3, are placed in a box. Each player draws a number from the box. 1=Mercury, 2=Venus... 8=Neptune. This becomes their target planet. The first player reaching their target planet is the winner. One obvious issue is that reaching Mars should be easier than reaching Neptune. I haven't figured out how to deal with this.
Play Movement: Players take turns moving diagonally toward their target planet.
Their first move is 1 square. Their second move is 2 squares. Third move 3 squares. Each move is more squares. But halfway to their target they must start moving 1 less square so the spacecraft allows down.
After each round of play all planets are a number of squares along their orbit. Neptune is moved one square. Uranus two squares. Saturn three squares. ... Mercury 8 squares.
A spaceship sitting within 2 squares behind the planet when it moves will add the number of the planet's move to the spacecraft's future moves. For example, if a planet moved 5 squares on the move putting it on Jupiter's orbit. When Jupiter moves 4 squares along its orbit, the spacecraft moves 9 on its next move and adds 9+6 moves on the next move.
A spaceship sitting within 2 squares in front of a planet when it moves will subtract the number from the spacecraft's future moves.
When a spacecraft reaches the halfway point in the trip, the spaceship needs to move one less move on additional moves to slow down the spacecraft. The spacecraft can only land on the target planet in one move. If spacecraft are moving too fast when reaching the planet, spacecraft must orbit the planet slowing down one each move, until spacecraft can land in one move. First, spacecraft to land on the target planet in one move wins.
ChrisARippel t1_ja8dq25 wrote
Have you considered making a the Cosmic Web?
Though many people have heard of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, I suspect fewer people have heard of the Cosmic Web. The idea will be new.
-
Matter and dark matter condensing into filaments. Where filaments cross galaxies appear.
-
Dark energy expanding voids between the filaments.
-
The Cosmic Web is impressively BIG.
Building the Cosmic Web on a computer. Part 1
Millennium Cosmic Web Simulation Project
There are more cool videos of Cosmic Web, e.g., tours through the web, etc. for a presentation.
Articles
Possible photograph of Cosmic Web
Cosmic Web could be hiding new physics
I think you could also imitate a Cosmic Web with cotton fibers, glue and paint.
Good luck.
ChrisARippel t1_ja7mhmh wrote
Reply to TIL John Scopes, a high school teacher in Tennessee, was arrested and tried for merely teaching the theory of evolution in 1925. by JesusLikesHisCheezIt
The linked article describes several ironies.
-
The Dayton, Tennessee high school's biology textbook endorsed evolution as a version of eugenics promoting the superiority of the white race.
-
William Jennings Bryan opposed evolution because of its frequent association to eugenics and Social Darwinism.
ChrisARippel t1_ja3iu0v wrote
Reply to comment by Fun_Sized_Momo in Explosions in space movies? by DemonOfTheAstroWaste
The Sun is hot plasma gas, not fire requiring oxygen. The trail from your ship was probably hot plasma gas, not fire requiring oxygen.
ChrisARippel t1_j9jnfjx wrote
Reply to What are in your opinion the scariest objects / occurrences in our universe? by SpaceCinema_
Horror movies never scare me because, for some reason, I always am aware the action is occurring on a screen, not in my personal space.
In am awed by the power of supernovae and supermassive black holes, but I am aware of the vastness of space and time which keeps these objects away from Earth. The vastness of space is our ally against these destructive objects. To me, there are no scary objects in space.
ChrisARippel t1_j8sft7a wrote
"The total mass of all the asteroids [in main asteroid belt] combined is only 3% that of Earth's Moon.". [Source
Could steal some moons from other planets.
Where would you put your planet?
ChrisARippel t1_j89uyi2 wrote
Here is an article you might find interesting.
There are gases and dust which move up and down in a day-night cycle.
ChrisARippel t1_j890a44 wrote
Reply to comment by ExoGeniVI in I would like to know more about this. “NASA finds Strange Cosmic Bubble Around the Solar System?!” by ExoGeniVI
Truest sentence in the universe.
ChrisARippel t1_j88qt55 wrote
Reply to I would like to know more about this. “NASA finds Strange Cosmic Bubble Around the Solar System?!” by ExoGeniVI
Wikipedia article discussing superbubbles in general. Sections on formation and list of examples. Reference section lists scientific articles going back to the 1970s.
Solar System is in a superbubble called the Local Bubble.
ChrisARippel t1_j6wq3ec wrote
Your statement will become more interesting/meaningful when you define the god space/heat death leads you to believe in.
ChrisARippel t1_j6n6n2v wrote
With many cliches, there is another cliche suggesting the opposite.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.
Germany may have started two World Wars, but the causes of, reasons given, and the fighting methods were quite different because Hitler and the Allies remembered WW1 and were determined not to repeat it. At best, the two world wars only rhymed.
ChrisARippel t1_j6lkfjj wrote
Reply to You just don’t believe. by thepositivepandemic
One boss asked me my sign. When I said Virgo. He said ok because you will be neat. Your predecessor was not and this upset his staff. I nearly laughed because I am not.
ChrisARippel t1_j6iliod wrote
Reply to Why can we see exoplanets from distant galaxies, but not close-ups of planets outside the Kuiper Belt? by Worth-Masterpiece-98
Map showing location of exoplanets. Most are within 5000 light years. Gravitational lensing allows astronomers to see a few in the direction of the galactic center.
As I recall, astronomers may have detected one exoplanet in the Magellanic Clouds.
ChrisARippel t1_j669ogv wrote
Reply to comment by Varsect in If you could instantaneously place a space telescope at any desired distance (LYs), from any planet/galaxy etc., where would it be and what would you be documenting? And for what purpose? by kennyarsen
Observations from the space telescope would be looking to disprove isotropy from that location. If the space telescope doesn't disprove isotropy from that location, this is at least partial confirmation. Similar to Eddington's 1919 eclipse test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Milky Way may well be invisible to the space telescope, but other galaxies may well be visible from both directions.
ChrisARippel t1_j65hpbc wrote
Reply to comment by Varsect in If you could instantaneously place a space telescope at any desired distance (LYs), from any planet/galaxy etc., where would it be and what would you be documenting? And for what purpose? by kennyarsen
Thanks for asking.
When the OP stated instantaneously placing a space telescope light years away, I assume this also meant information would be instantaneously sent between Earth and the telescope.
I would place the telescope at the edge of the observable universe for two reasons.
-
Test the cosmological principle that the universe actually is isotropic and homogeneous everywhere, inside and beyond the observable universe.
-
Hopefully, compare the same galaxies at different stages of life. The Milky Way is estimated to have started 160 million years after the Big Bang. It would be interesting to compare early images of the Milky Way from that space telescope with what we see today from Earth.
ChrisARippel t1_j64tl9k wrote
Reply to If you could instantaneously place a space telescope at any desired distance (LYs), from any planet/galaxy etc., where would it be and what would you be documenting? And for what purpose? by kennyarsen
I would place it on the edge of the observable universe, 46 billion light years from us. I would point it toward the Milky Way and away from the Milky Way, toward that part the universe we cannot observe.
ChrisARippel t1_j5yg7hn wrote
Reply to What educational books about space should be read for a general idea of it? by happy__teo
The Big Bang: the origin of the universe by Simon Singh is describes the development of cosmology leading to the Big Bang Theory. It is thick, but well-written. It is a good, popular orientation to the cosmological aspect of space.
ChrisARippel t1_j2lf4jo wrote
Reply to comment by gubbygub in Is any "movement" visible in the fluctuations of the CMB over time, or does it appear static? by JarasM
JWST infrared filters can't see the CMB microwave radiation.
-
JWST infrared filters range from 0.6 to 28.5 micrometers wavelength
-
CMB microwave radiation = 1.9 millimeters wavelength.
-
1.9 millimeters = 1,900 micrometers
Sorry
ChrisARippel t1_j2kd97a wrote
Reply to Is any "movement" visible in the fluctuations of the CMB over time, or does it appear static? by JarasM
I agree that we would not expect much change over human lifetimes.
Another problem, not yet mentioned, is that each time astronomers take a "picture" of the CMB, camera technology improves the resolution creating a much different picture. Improved resolution is easy to see. I don't think changes in the CMB between 1989 and 2013 would be easy to see.
Here are images from COBE (1989), WMAP (2001), Planck (2013).
ChrisARippel t1_j2bh365 wrote
Reply to I don’t believe in the black hole. by Rabbitlooker
In 1971, two astronomers proposed x-ray source Cygnus X-1 might be a black hole. This is the first object to be nominated for being a black hole.
If further investigations proved Cygnus x-1 was not a black hole, Stephen Hawking would be very disappointed because he had done so much work on black holes.
In 1974, Stephen Hawking bet Kip Thorne that Cygnus x-1 was not a black hole. Then if Cygnus x-1 turned out not to be a black hole, Hawking would at least have won a bet.
In 1990, enough evidence had finally accumulated that Kip Thorne conceded and Hawking won the bet. Cygnus x-1 is a black hole.
ChrisARippel t1_j24jzlr wrote
Reply to A *dumb* question, for a mixup by Independent-Choice-4
How fast can you throw?
The Moon's escape velocity is 5,324 miles per hour.
ChrisARippel t1_jb2xme0 wrote
Reply to We don’t know how the universe formed. by puzzlebread_
The first step of science is admitting we don't know something.
The second step is committing themselves to finding the answer.
Science is not knowing answers.
Science is processes for finding answers.