What is the Universe expanding into..

[Galu]

Why get into this stuff here? This belongs over on the ‘alien’ thread. Surely we can have one place on the forum for decent science discussions? Seriously.

I totally agree, and below is more decent science pertaining to the Apollo 11 mission, which I presented with additional information on page 458. The information went unchallenged at that time as such evidence is hard, if not impossible, to argue against,

The giant 50ft Lovell radio telescope at the Jodrell Bank Observatory in England, although not formally involved in tracking the Apollo 11 mission, still listened in to its progress.

The attached image (courtesy of The University of Manchester) shows the trace from the observatory's chart recorder as the telescope tracked the Eagle lander on its descent to the surface of the Moon. The smooth peaks are the computer-controlled descent, the bumpy section towards the end is the point at which Armstrong took manual control, when he realised the planned landing site was in fact a boulder field and they needed to come down elsewhere.

 

[rayma]

"The smooth peaks are the computer-controlled descent, the bumpy section towards the end is the point
at which Armstrong took manual control, when he realised the planned landing site was in fact a boulder
field and they needed to come down elsewhere."

There was literally only seconds of fuel left when they touched down.

 

[Galu]

Speaking of the intersection of NASA and fiction, I've always thought this was one of the most interesting pics that combines both. This shuttle was the pre-space one, that only flew on the back of an airliner, was "launched" and glided to a landing, testing the landing before the "real" shuttles flew. Like the others eventually wound up, it's in some museum somewhere.
The Shuttle Enterprise | NASA

Thanks, benb! 😎

I hereby attach the photo as some readers may not have clicked on the link.

 

[Disco-Pete]

"The smooth peaks are the computer-controlled descent, the bumpy section towards the end is the point
at which Armstrong took manual control, when he realised the planned landing site was in fact a boulder
field and they needed to come down elsewhere."

There was literally only seconds of fuel left when they touched down.

As I said, I don't adhere to conspiracy theorist rhetoric per se, I don't need my perspective validated. It's on it's own. I don't deny spacecraft landed on the Moon.

 

[rayma]

Lest we forget.
List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents - Wikipedia

 

[Disco-Pete]

You may be interested in the comparison images I posted back on page 457 (see attachment).

What we see is a comparison of the Apollo 17 landing site between the original 16 mm footage shot from the Lunar Module window during ascent in 1972, and the 2011 lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO) image of the Apollo 17 landing site.

Note the matching of the lunar rover tracks.

Now, the LRO may have been launched by NASA, but the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of non-affiliated academic groups which are not located in the US and are not funded by the US government, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin.

So what? Operated by remote control. No proof people were driving that thing.(I mean the one that made the tracks)🙂

 

[Bonsai]

I have been reading the Cambridge Cismology lectures, and there was a reference to an interesting paper here

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/425155/pdf

Which is a detailed inventory of all of the known types of energy in the universe. Except, of course we don’t really know what about 95% of it is - we just call it dark energy + dark matter.

Anyway, quite an interesting paper with plenty of detail

 

[gpauk]

Why get into this stuff here? This belongs over on the ‘alien’ thread. Surely we can have one place on the forum for decent science discussions? Seriously.

Exactly. And the best way to keep it that way is ignore the trolls, by not feeding them, especially after midnight... 🙂

.. and - interesting paper! Thanks for the link.

 

[Galu]

Anyway, quite an interesting paper with plenty of detail

Here's a nicely presented description of our currently accepted and most commonly used cosmological model:

Concordance Model | COSMOS

Those who are interested in the details can simply click in the highlighted terms.

 

[Disco-Pete]

@ gpauk..In that case you should refrain from posting here. Perhaps you could start at the beginning of this thread and keep yourself occupied for a while. To use another poster's definition, this thread is "replete" with topics unrelated to the op. Most of which were not initiated, including this one, by me. 😀😎

 

[gpauk]

Here's a nicely presented description of our currently accepted and most commonly used cosmological model:

Concordance Model | COSMOS

Those who are interested in the details can simply click in the highlighted terms.

Good site - thanks!

 

[Galu]

I note that the COSMOS site suggests that a major CDM (Cold Dark Matter) candidate is the WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

Physicists have been hunting for the WIMP for decades and I believe it is now the LCS (Last Chance Saloon) for the elusive particle! 😀

Last chance for WIMPs: physicists launch all-out hunt for dark-matter candidate

 

[MITsound]

Energy doesn’t behave like physical entities with mass ie energy doesn’t attract energy unlike objects with mass attract each other.

Interesting. I've never considered this. Now I'm wondering about e=mc2. Is it an incomplete equation? When energy coalesces into matter, what happens with the gravity component?Is it somehow created as part of the observer effect, does it not exist until matter is observed?

 

[rayma]

Light is affected by the gravitational field, as with black holes. From 1919:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/LightsAllAskew.pdf

And light does indeed interact with itself, but through quantum effects.
Light is seen to scatter off light – Physics World


The complete Dirac-Einstein equation:

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ....... where p is momentum, and m is rest mass

A derivation is here:
Mass-Energy – The Physics Hypertextbook

 

[Galu]

When energy coalesces into matter, what happens with the gravity component?

The gravitational attraction of an object comes from both energy and mass.

The rest mass of an atom comes mostly from the binding energy of the nucleons rather than the sum of the masses of the individual protons, neutrons and electrons.

Consequently, there is no distinction between energy and matter when it comes to gravitational force.

 

[Bonsai]

My statement was wrt to pure energy and not the energy in E=mc^2 ie mass.

 

[Galu]

By "pure energy", you will be referring to electromagnetic radiation i.e. photons are "pure energy".

So rayma has interpreted the question correctly.

 

[Galu]

My statement was wrt to pure energy...

Is there any such thing as "pure energy"?

Let's ask Ethan! Ask Ethan: Is There Any Such Thing As Pure Energy?

So the full answer to the question of whether pure energy exists is:

• For all of the particles that exist, massive and massless, energy is only one property of them, and cannot exist independently.
• For all of the situations where energy appears to be lost in a system, such as through gravitational decay, there exists some form of radiation carrying off that energy, leaving it conserved.
• And that dark energy itself may be the purest form of energy, existing independent of particles, but as far as any effect other than the expansion of the Universe, that energy is inaccessible to everything else in the Universe.

 

[Galu]

It seems it is wrong to suggest that photons are "pure energy":

Why is light pure energy? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers

"Saying that light is "pure energy" would imply that light only carries the property of energy and no other properties, which is simply not true."

For instance, as rayma pointed out, photons have momentum.

 

[Bonsai]

We seem to be overthinking the energy thing. I was simply trying to point out that two masses, for example, will be attracted to each other gravitationally whilst two ‘energy entities’ won’t be in the same way.

We can ascribe all sorts of properties to a photon as Dr. Baird above has done, but at the end of the day do not have a rational explanation as to how one propagates through a vacuum. In the words of Prof Fleisch it remains a ‘deeply philosophical question’ despite being able to describe the behavior of EM more precisely than just about any other fundamental phenomena thanks to Maxwell.

😉