planet sizes
#1
Posted 29 December 2007 - 19:50
pretty shocking, how vast the difference actually is.
#2
Posted 29 December 2007 - 19:57
Insomniac!, on 16 Sep 2008, 20:12, said:
I've been given a Bob coin from Mr. Bob, a life time supply of cookies from Blonde-Unknown, some Internet Chocolate from the Full Throttle mod team, and some Assorted Weapons from Høbbesy.
#4
Posted 29 December 2007 - 20:18
Edited by Boidy, 29 December 2007 - 20:28.
#5
Posted 29 December 2007 - 20:22
F O R T H E N S
#6
Posted 29 December 2007 - 21:59
Boidy, on 29 Dec 2007, 15:18, said:
That's not his point. But meh, what do you care.
For those of us that do actually have a mind to care, that's a rather humbling sight to see.
Regards,
Nuker
#7
Posted 29 December 2007 - 22:19
#8
Posted 29 December 2007 - 22:31
To anyone interested in things like this topic, I recommend reading A short history of nearly everything by Bill Bryson. It is a book written in casual style, understandable to everyone, with tons of interesting facts about all aspects of science, including astronomy, physics, geology, biology and chemistry.
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#9
Posted 29 December 2007 - 22:33
Chyros, on 29 Dec 2007, 22:31, said:
Indeed. I could not recommend that book more for someone interested in the subject.
#10
Posted 29 December 2007 - 23:24
Size of large red supergiant Antares 10^11m.
But the most amazing thing of all, the human race, us have found ways fo explaining them, predicting how they move, and even producing versions of them in a lab.
#11
Posted 31 December 2007 - 02:50
Pluto is now longer not considered a full size planet, but rather a dwarf planet.
#12
Posted 31 December 2007 - 07:29
#14
Posted 31 December 2007 - 08:49
"Makes you feel so insignificant, doesn't it?"
"Yeah, yeah......Can we have your liver then?"
I've always been aware of that but this makes it clear: For the universe, we ARE small and "small" is still too big as a word.
The universe is so incredibly huge that there must be other life out there...Where'd be the point in wasting so much space if there's only us?
Edited by Rayburn, 31 December 2007 - 08:51.
#15
Posted 31 December 2007 - 10:07
Humans have shifted about 250,000 miles in space, thats tiny!
#16
Posted 31 December 2007 - 10:35
#17
Posted 31 December 2007 - 10:47
Seriously show me one, the Milky Way isn't a big galaxy and its 100,000ly across (IIIRC), bear in mind if you filled the solar system with water that would form a black hole so a star that huge would be something to behold.
#19
Posted 26 January 2008 - 07:55
Dauth, on 31 Dec 2007, 5:47, said:
Seriously show me one, the Milky Way isn't a big galaxy and its 100,000ly across (IIIRC), bear in mind if you filled the solar system with water that would form a black hole so a star that huge would be something to behold.
Do you mean the fireball thing? I read the article loong ago. I might be able to find it though. May have been on this forum.
#20
Posted 26 January 2008 - 10:20
#22
Posted 26 January 2008 - 17:31
#23
Posted 18 February 2008 - 01:15
Here's an animated gif of this kind of stuff.
It's got Canis Majoris in it, which I believe is truely the biggest star ever discovered so far.
#24
Posted 18 February 2008 - 20:45
1.: It's very hard to make because of the fact that the Hubble constant always changes the speed of the growing of the universe. The constant changes too slowly. Trust me, we're good at maths, but this will require immense skill. Maybe this exists, but then we find it out ourselves. And either way, we come to the second problem:
2.: Our distance measuring using the lights spectrums doesn't worth a watch. It says that all the galaxies emmit the same amount of light, which is impossible because then there would be impossibly big objects. This is going to go to MSN I feel.
Medve
#25
Posted 18 February 2008 - 22:22
Quasar f.e. ?
I'm good at maths, I have a reasonable grasp of Tensor notaion, and moderate skills at Matricies, however the jump between me and the people who understand this stuff properly is probably as big as the jump between me and someone who can just perform 2 + 2.
Quote
No, It merely assumes that objects emit light in the same manner (ie a star at 5000K here is the same as one at 5000k there)
Type 1A supernovae are special and worth a section in my corner of science.
Essentially over 1.4 Solar masses a neutron start forms from a supernova, below that you get a white dwarf. Should a binary system be a white dwarf and a normal star and the white dwarf is accreting matter from the normal star, eventaully it will supernova. These supernovae all have similar properties and this is how we measure distances. (Using the Hubble law, but a very advanced version)
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users