;-)
Dedicated to the short attention span of our mainstream scientists:
"Our equations for the sun, for example, as a ball of hydrogen gas, describe a sun without sunspots, without the rice-grain structure of the surface, without prominences, without coronas. Yet, all of these are really in the equations; we just haven't found the way to get them out."
I like to translate: Our mathematics does not correspond to the observations, it is therefore UNscientific, popular-scientific mainstream spinning, and does NOT allow any statements about the development of suns;-)-: "Being an average star, the Sun will evolve into a red giant, eject a beautiful nebula and end up as a white dwarf."
Painted posters for... well, you know;-)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6879068-we-have-written-the-equations-of-water-flow-from-experiment
https://books.google.de/books?id=4r...without prominences, without coronas.&f=false
Dedicated to the short attention span of our mainstream scientists:
"Our equations for the sun, for example, as a ball of hydrogen gas, describe a sun without sunspots, without the rice-grain structure of the surface, without prominences, without coronas. Yet, all of these are really in the equations; we just haven't found the way to get them out."
I like to translate: Our mathematics does not correspond to the observations, it is therefore UNscientific, popular-scientific mainstream spinning, and does NOT allow any statements about the development of suns;-)-: "Being an average star, the Sun will evolve into a red giant, eject a beautiful nebula and end up as a white dwarf."
Painted posters for... well, you know;-)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6879068-we-have-written-the-equations-of-water-flow-from-experiment
https://books.google.de/books?id=4r...without prominences, without coronas.&f=false
I don't think it was this unless it was badly reported
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...new-type-star-explosion-micronova-2022-04-20/
Quote: "Astronomers have detected a previously unknown type of stellar explosion called a micronova involving thermonuclear blasts at the polar regions of a type of burned-out star called a white dwarf after it has siphoned material from a companion star ... less energetic than a blast called a nova in which a white dwarf's entire surface blows up, and tiny compared to a supernova that occurs during the death throes of some giant stars."
Not "a sun sized star gone nova" as you said, AjohnL, but an interesting phenomenon nonetheless.
Not "a sun sized star gone nova" as you said, AjohnL, but an interesting phenomenon nonetheless.
The Reuters link above took me to this interesting piece of information that was released only yesterday:
U.S. scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have achieved net energy gain in a laser fusion reaction for the second time since December.
Fusion ignition briefly generated 3.15 MJ of energy output after the laser delivered 2.05 MJ to the target, i.e., more energy from fusion than the laser energy used to drive it.
A heck of a long way short of solving the world's energy problems, but a small step in the right direction!
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...peat-fusion-power-breakthrough-ft-2023-08-06/
U.S. scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have achieved net energy gain in a laser fusion reaction for the second time since December.
Fusion ignition briefly generated 3.15 MJ of energy output after the laser delivered 2.05 MJ to the target, i.e., more energy from fusion than the laser energy used to drive it.
A heck of a long way short of solving the world's energy problems, but a small step in the right direction!
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...peat-fusion-power-breakthrough-ft-2023-08-06/
For the density of the observable universe of about 4.6×10−28 kg/m3 and given the known abundance of the chemical elements, the corresponding maximal radiation energy density of 9.2×10−31 kg/m3, i.e. temperature 3.2 K (matching the value observed for the optical radiation temperature by Arthur Eddington[10][11]). This is close to the summed energy density of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the cosmic neutrino background.
Mathematically, the total electromagnetic energy density (radiation energy density) in thermodynamic equilibrium from Planck's law is
e.g. for temperature 2.7 K it is 40 fJ/m3 ... 4.5×10−31 kg/m3 and for visible temperature 6000 K we get 1 J/m3 ... 1.1×10−17 kg/m3. But the total radiation emitted by a star (or other cosmic object) is at most equal to the total nuclear binding energy of isotopes in the star. For the density of the observable universe of about 4.6×10−28 kg/m3 and given the known abundance of the chemical elements, the corresponding maximal radiation energy density of 9.2×10−31 kg/m3, i.e. temperature 3.2 K (matching the value observed for the optical radiation temperature by Arthur Eddington[10][11]). This is close to the summed energy density of the cosmic microwave background
The observable universe is not what we can resolve with modern techniques. Best remember that.
Obler, in 1823, felt that interstellar dust and gas could obscure a lot of light from distant stars. As it turns out, the Universe has been around so long that the dust and gas have heated up via collisions, and they actually emit the same light as those distant stars they obscure, so no dice there (Al 50, Chase).
From a bit about Obler, Bit bizarre that such things prevent us from viewing the core of out galaxy other than where there are gaps,
As I said I don't think the page related to that but no luck trying to find it in firefox's crap history.
😉 Seems we are into the main sequence. Best read in detail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
I'm afraid I do not follow.
Due to the expansion of the Universe, objects that emitted light 13.8 billion years ago, from a distance of 13.8 billion light-years, are now 46 billion light-years away.
Technology enables us to detect and observe faraway objects in the observable universe by capturing and processing the types of electromagnetic radiation that lie outside the visible spectrum.
At the farthest limits of the observable universe is the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
Attachments
between Earth and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years[52] (14 billion parsecs), making the diameter of the observable universe about 93 billion light-years (28 billion parsecs).[52] The distance the light from the edge of the observable universe has travelled is very close to the age of the universe times the speed of light, 13.8 billion light-years (4.2×109 pc)
Any attempt at determining what could be called the back ground heat needs extrapolation from what we can actually meaningfully detect. There is a rather large jump to get to the heat. It's value depends on age.
More recently
As of 2013, using the latest models for stellar evolution, the estimated age of the oldest known star is 14.46±0.8 billion years
Then comes Gupta who more recently has decided it may be twice as old. Rational appears to be the development stage of high red shift galaxies that Hubble allowed us to see. He's changed his sums to make this fit. Criticised according to a popular "science" web page as he has introduced some new factors . The standard views are currently looking for stated levels of dark matter and energy to make their thoughts fit related to aspects that are rather fundamental.
😉 Einstein criticised others by saying they were over educated. Another way of putting that is education prevents them from thinking out of the box. He could. Actually at the sharp end of things I don't think that is entirely true but anyone that comes up with something unusual is likely to have problems. Eg A video that was posted on a lecture about something noted about observable quasars. He was getting observation time so some one must think it's worthwhile on the other hand that may end.
Some scientists believe that starlight, and not the Big Bang, is responsible for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).
Others believe that the traditional calculation of the CMB temperature is inappropriate.
It appears to be to the latter that you, @AjohnL, refer - or perhaps both!
That's the most I can contribute at the moment as my laptop's refusing to charge again after a long period of behaving itself, and I'm currently on my cheap and limited tablet!
Others believe that the traditional calculation of the CMB temperature is inappropriate.
It appears to be to the latter that you, @AjohnL, refer - or perhaps both!
That's the most I can contribute at the moment as my laptop's refusing to charge again after a long period of behaving itself, and I'm currently on my cheap and limited tablet!
LOL - anything you can think of really and just pointing factors out and wondering if any can be factually proven - ever. Tired light is an example. It is rather difficult to prove or disprove. The distances involved are far too large.
This may be why the man gets his observation time and funding
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Mirabel/Mirabel1.html
The oddity he notices is disregarded due to current theories so Nature for instance wont publish his papers. From memory red shift was given as a reason but these oddities appear to be there 😉 according to him anyway.
You all speak too much of "believe". But "believe" does not exist in "science".
You have no training in methods and method criticism!!!
Here an excerpt - I have not yet listened in, do not know whether e.g. also the antenna technologies, which WMAP is based on, are treated, but here it should become clear that also WMAP does NOT allow any statement about e.g. any "big bang";-)
You have no training in methods and method criticism!!!
Here an excerpt - I have not yet listened in, do not know whether e.g. also the antenna technologies, which WMAP is based on, are treated, but here it should become clear that also WMAP does NOT allow any statement about e.g. any "big bang";-)
How about another Quiz, for the amateur Mathematicians? 🙂
I am interested in this because we (alledgedly) live in a 4D Spacetime, and I want to get a handle on it.
It's not quite the same as Spacetime, where one dimension is Time, whereas here we are looking at four dimensions of Space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
If my 3D Cube has a unit length of 1 along the sides, what is the face diagonal length? What is the long diagonal length right across the cube, from top to bottom if you like?
What is the longest diagonal on a 4D Spatial Tesseract? And I was surprised how easy that is.
The following construction helped my thinking, and even the mighty Euclid could do this sort of thing:
Hint, it's a Pythagoras Problem. You know, the sum of the squares of the sides and the hypotenuse, an' all that. 😎
I am interested in this because we (alledgedly) live in a 4D Spacetime, and I want to get a handle on it.
It's not quite the same as Spacetime, where one dimension is Time, whereas here we are looking at four dimensions of Space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
If my 3D Cube has a unit length of 1 along the sides, what is the face diagonal length? What is the long diagonal length right across the cube, from top to bottom if you like?
What is the longest diagonal on a 4D Spatial Tesseract? And I was surprised how easy that is.
The following construction helped my thinking, and even the mighty Euclid could do this sort of thing:
Hint, it's a Pythagoras Problem. You know, the sum of the squares of the sides and the hypotenuse, an' all that. 😎
Last edited:
Quiz...
Here goes:
Give a shortest proof, why GPS calculation needs data from 4 satellites to figure the location of the receiver.
Why 4 ?
Here goes:
Give a shortest proof, why GPS calculation needs data from 4 satellites to figure the location of the receiver.
Why 4 ?
Tesseract diagonal.
Coordinates of the end points are
(0,0,0,0) (1,1,1,1)
Is this a good approach ?
I think so, answer: 2
Coordinates of the end points are
(0,0,0,0) (1,1,1,1)
Is this a good approach ?
I think so, answer: 2
Last edited:
I think you have quickly zoomed in on the Solution, @mchambin. @galu must be frustrated by his computer breakdown issues, but he really needs to buy a new one to further contribute to the advancement of Mathematics.
I hadn't really thought about it until now. 2 is SQRT 4, of course.
I wonder if I should buy the entire set of 3D Platonic Solids for an affordable £30? About 35 Euros. Though disappointingly, it includes no 4D polytopes.
My understanding is that with every symmetry, comes a Conservation Law:
Emmy Noether said that. Particle Physics and the Standard Model is built on it.
The notorious 21cm Hydrogen Line explained simply. I am always amazed how tiny the nucleus is. If the electron shell is the size of the Albert Hall, say 100m across, the nucleus is the size of a peppercorn!
Rutherford figured that out.
I hadn't really thought about it until now. 2 is SQRT 4, of course.
I wonder if I should buy the entire set of 3D Platonic Solids for an affordable £30? About 35 Euros. Though disappointingly, it includes no 4D polytopes.
My understanding is that with every symmetry, comes a Conservation Law:
Emmy Noether said that. Particle Physics and the Standard Model is built on it.
The notorious 21cm Hydrogen Line explained simply. I am always amazed how tiny the nucleus is. If the electron shell is the size of the Albert Hall, say 100m across, the nucleus is the size of a peppercorn!
Rutherford figured that out.
Last edited:
He or the group aren't making much money
112 Total members
112 Paid members
709 Posts
$2,001 Per month