Comments on: Order Of Magnitude

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:53:39 +0000

I think we are searching in the wrong way we should think about our mind now we use very little percent of our mind we need to increase it’s percent of use than we will be able to know a lot about every thing

By: Albert Rogers

Albert Rogers — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 16:46:19 +0000

As for what I think I know about Dark Matter and Dark Energy, I’d refer you to Neil deGrasse Tyson on the latter, because he’s admirably brief. “We do not know what’s pushing everything apart, we just call it Dark Energy.” I think I’ve got that right.
But Dark Matter is easier. The behaviour of whole galaxies, as I understand it, implies a much larger mass performing their mutual attractions than the stuff we can see and deduce from other observations.
Newton showed that the gravitational field inside a sphere of constant density is the same, at a given radius from the centre, as if from a point mass at the centre equal to the mass of a sphere of that radius
Now try to figure out the gravitational field of a Ringworld a uniform torus. Anywhere on the surface you’re fine. Presumably exactly on the axis and some distance out, you’d be att
racted to the dead centre and fly past, then oscillate back again. But from slightly off axis, that oscillation will eventually land or splat you on the torus.

By: Albert Rogers

Albert Rogers — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 16:25:47 +0000

First of all, this post is exactly why the Steady State hypothesis of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold was indeed a testable scientific one. I consider the observation an even more convincing refutation, an ugly fact to slay a beautiful theory (Nobody WANTED semi-infinite Time), than the Cosmic Background radiation.
If anybody knows exactly why the Big Bang had to be an unimaginably large point-sized mass, rather than an unimaginably dense and four dimensional mass of non-zero dimensions, I’d like to know it. I figured out for myself that a primeval Black TeratoHole (i.e. a more monstrously big one than any other) won’t meet the Ultimate Principle of Relativity, that all observers are equal. A Black Hole has an event horizon, and an observer near the horizon is different from one further inside.

By: UniversallyMystified

UniversallyMystified — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:03:28 +0000

If the same is mass is now to be distributed among 10X the number of galaxies, does that not then mean that estimates of the mass of a galaxy were wrong?

By: Randall

Randall — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 01:15:02 +0000

If the estimate for the number of galaxies in the universe has gone up by a factor of 20, does this mean that the number of galaxies in that sand grain sized patch of sky is not 10,000 but rather 200,000?

By: Elver S.S.

Elver S.S. — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:13:36 +0000

The mass is the same just distributed among 10x the number of galaxies.

By: macemoneta

macemoneta — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:17:40 +0000

If there are 10x the number of previously known galaxies, that would imply that there’s now 10x as much known mass. How does that impact dark matter and dark energy?

By: Shivani Mishra

Shivani Mishra — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:25:32 +0000

I never expected that astronomers can do much more than HUDF. It was really great to hear about new reasearch data. I really loved the new image of galaxies.

Universe is really very large.

By: ARNAB CHANDRA MEDHI

ARNAB CHANDRA MEDHI — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:07:42 +0000

To put it lightly….mindblowing