ExtonGuy
ExtonGuy t1_jdy3ghz wrote
Reply to Why don’t we use Venus as a dumpster? by Postnificent
We would risk the nuclear rockets crashing back to Earth, into a city. Even if it's only 1 in 10,000, that's too much risk. Chemical rockets are bad enough.
ExtonGuy t1_jdtlik0 wrote
The original press release said that the jet (from the poles) is now pointing directly toward us. That makes it a "blazar". https://spaceref.com/science-and-exploration/a-galaxy-changes-its-classification-as-a-relativistic-jet-changes-direction/
ExtonGuy t1_jdr2fbx wrote
When the universe ends, all the black holes will have evaporated. Your atoms will have evaporated… first from each other, then the very electrons, protons, and neutrons in each atom will separate from each other. The neutrons will decay into protons and electrons, and probably even the protons will decay into neutrinos.
At the end times, there will be no black holes, no atoms. Just photons, electrons, and neutrinos, all separated from each other by trillions of trillions of light years.
ExtonGuy t1_jdfcowv wrote
Reply to So from what I understand Sagittarius a is in the Center of Milky Way. If any planets orbit this black hole would there be time dilation? by EarthInteresting9781
Not a dump question at all. Every day, there are about 10,000 people finding out about Sgr A* for the first time. And that's in just the US.
ExtonGuy t1_jdfce78 wrote
Reply to So from what I understand Sagittarius a is in the Center of Milky Way. If any planets orbit this black hole would there be time dilation? by EarthInteresting9781
Unless you're within 30 or 40 million kilometers of Sgr A*, the time dilation isn't going to be much at all. For comparison, the radius of Mercury's orbit is 58 million km.
ExtonGuy t1_jd16fm9 wrote
Sure, it would work. Where are you going to get the "unlimited power"? Not even nuclear power is unlimited. It could be used to produce heat, which would be used to kick something out of the rear of the spaceship.
You just need something 50 times the mass of the payload (including that nuclear heater). So 1 part living system & heater, and 50 parts reaction mass to kick out. Now, how heavy is a nuclear reactor that can heat water (or whatever you're using) to super hot plasma?
ExtonGuy t1_jd060j5 wrote
Reply to The effects of Red Shift by SimplyZer0
For almost all stars, the red shift (or blue shift) is less than 0.1%. That’s easily corrected at the receiver.
ExtonGuy t1_jcxpp1d wrote
The diameter is about 0.21 nanometers. That’s how close they pack under standard conditions.
ExtonGuy t1_jbzwwjo wrote
Reply to DODEA students free themselves from overturned school bus near Ramstein Air Base; minor injuries reported by CW1DR5H5I64A
Would have helped if the article mentioned that DODEA = (US) Department of Defense Education Activity, and that the kids were (most likely) Americans.
ExtonGuy t1_ja8f41k wrote
Assume this "wave" hypothesis was correct, what would be be able to observe? Assuming this hypothesis was wrong, what would we observe? And what is the difference? If there's no difference that you can tell, then this isn't science.
ExtonGuy t1_ja7zt1s wrote
Reply to comment by ferrel_hadley in How big was the point of dense energy before the Big Bang? by ClassicSpurzy
At least 160 times bigger. Anything from 160x to infinity.
ExtonGuy t1_ja0d00n wrote
Reply to comment by fleranon in Today I Learned that the moon distances itself from the Earth by about 3,78 cm(1.49 inches) every year. by LucasOIntoxicado
No, the moon will not leave the Earth. The rate of increase gets less and less over time. Eventually, the distance will stabilize -- except that is so long in the future, the sun will expand and engulf the Earth and the moon together.
ExtonGuy t1_ja0cp2w wrote
Reply to Today I Learned that the moon distances itself from the Earth by about 3,78 cm(1.49 inches) every year. by LucasOIntoxicado
Sorry, but not true. The moon's distance increases by that amount only on average. Some years a lot less, even getting closer. Some years a lot more. Moreover, not true on long time scales, a few ten's of thousands of years.
ExtonGuy t1_j9tfd4i wrote
Reply to comment by extra_specticles in Would an Earth-like planet with identical technology be able to detect signals from us? by lukinhasb
Let’s just keep this discussion to the Milky Way, okay? No need to bring in stuff many billions of light-years away, when the interesting aliens are the one most likely to communicate with us (if they exist), within a few 1000 light years.
ExtonGuy t1_j7urqrp wrote
Moons are important to solar system astronomers. The more moons a planet has, the more graduate students have a topic for their PhD studies. You wouldn't want a bunch of unemployed astronomers, would you?
ExtonGuy t1_j7huxe3 wrote
Reply to comment by MantisToboganPilotMD in As the Sun is moving, is it leaving behind a wave of fire in its path? by misc0007
I thought the heliotail's shape was more determined by the pattern of ejection from the sun. Faster particles from the poles, slower from the equator, in a "puffing" sequence.
ExtonGuy t1_j7hp5qx wrote
Reply to comment by MantisToboganPilotMD in As the Sun is moving, is it leaving behind a wave of fire in its path? by misc0007
The heliotail isn't comet-like. It's made up of particles from the sun, but it points in four directions, like a four-leaf clover. It is not affected by the sun's motion around the galaxy.
ExtonGuy t1_j7hoh44 wrote
Reply to comment by Tp_for_my_cornholio in As the Sun is moving, is it leaving behind a wave of fire in its path? by misc0007
The ice tail from a comet is because the sunlight pushes on the ice. The tail always points away from the sun, no matter which way the comet is moving.
ExtonGuy t1_j7gzznm wrote
No, the sun and the material in it does not feel any affects of the motion. As far as the sun and planets are concerned, there is no "ahead" or "behind" for the motion.
* For the nit-pickers out there: yes, there is tiny (and I do mean tiny) effect from galactic tides.
ExtonGuy t1_j6wrt0c wrote
The question is, does Brahman believe in you?
ExtonGuy t1_j5wvj4t wrote
Reply to If you were in space facing Antartica and you flew towards it, gravity-wise would you be going up or down? by lifesyndrome
"Up" is away from the local gravity source ... the Earth in this case. "Down" is toward the local gravity source.
ExtonGuy t1_j5wpzia wrote
Reply to If you were in space facing Antartica and you flew towards it, gravity-wise would you be going up or down? by lifesyndrome
Do you think that gravity works upside-down in Antarctica? https://research.noaa.gov/News/Scientist-Profile/ArtMID/536/ArticleID/2596/Nowhere-to-go-but-up-A-day-in-the-life-at-the-South-Pole
ExtonGuy t1_j5u9e1a wrote
Well, I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.
ExtonGuy t1_j584frx wrote
Actually, the speed of light is 299 792.459 km/s. But that's a nit.
Your mass with an escape velocity just a hair under the speed of light would already be practically invisible. Any light that left would be red-shifted to extremely large wavelengths, such as (for example) 300 000 kilometers. That's more than 23 times the diameter of the Earth. Also, the energy of the photons would be corresponding low. Detecting (seeing) such a photon would require an antenna of about that size.
Your mass would be, I guess, some type of hyper-neutron star with a mass of 3.56 x 10^(57) hydrogen atoms. I speculate that quantum fluctuations alone would be enough to cause collapse into a black hole.
The mass doesn't "suddenly" become invisible. It becomes invisible very gradually.
ExtonGuy t1_jee6u3j wrote
Reply to TIL in order to prevent certain legal instruments from operating in perpetuity, a Royal Lives Clause may be written into a contract which provides a definite but extended period of time usually tied to twenty-one years past the death of last living descendent of the current British monarch. by AudibleNod
Much more common in the US, is to use a family life. Example: “this trust will last as long as the life of Tom Jones or any of his now living decedents, plus 21 years.” It could be a trust, rental contract, or some other type of contract. Many states have gotten rid of this old 21 year rule, and allow 90 years, 360 years, or even 1000 years.
The point is to not keep property, especially real estate, bound up forever.