Post Something Interesting

Bill Walker said:
There is a Welsh speaking community in Patagonia. Not sure what the speed limit is...:)

Click to expand...


Been a few documentaries about the Patagonia Welsh. Welsh teashops in the Chubut Valley and towns with names like Trelew. Think there's still an Eisteddfod there too.

There was a claim that at one point when the Welsh language was most on its uppers there were more Welsh speakers left in Patagonia than Wales but not sure if that's true. Either way the two communities of speakers have had a beneficial effect on each other. I think it's great.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
So we’re not going to see it in our lifetime as I’d say it would have been detected by Hubble or JWST before now.

Saw a really interesting program by Brian Cox yesterday, where he discussed the possibilities of time travel.
He didn’t rule anything out per se, but basically we can and do see the past all the time, because of the length of time it takes for light to travel to your eye and the impulses interpreted by your brain.
Time is reletaive as Einstein proved. And if we see space time as in 3-D we are always moving forward so actually going back in space time is impossible.
Click to expand...
Why? Does the light travel faster towards telescopes?
 
During The Dam Busters raid in 1943, pilots were required to fly at 60 feet in order to execute the mission, but during the making of the 1956 film, the director thought it looked too high so asked the pilots to fly at 30 feet in order to create the effect of low flying.
 
Last edited:
citizen_maine said:
Why? Does the light travel faster towards telescopes?
Click to expand...
Telescopes can see further away than our eyes can. But, in space terms, the further away something is, the further into the past it is because of how long it takes the light from the object to reach us.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Telescopes can see further away than our eyes can. But, in space terms, the further away something is, the further into the past it is because of how long it takes the light from the object to reach us.
Click to expand...
This is something which baffles me.
I understand that the further away an object is, the longer the light from that object takes to reach us.
But surely some of those objects would be ahead of us?
If we observe an object we say that it is x light years from us, in the past.
If some advanced life exists on one of those objects and they are observing us simultaneously, how can we be x light years in their past also?
Perhaps an egghead could provide the answer?
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Telescopes can see further away than our eyes can. But, in space terms, the further away something is, the further into the past it is because of how long it takes the light from the object to reach us.
Click to expand...
But, if the object is the same distance away, why would a telescope 'see' it first?

Edit: We're talking about a star we can see with our naked eyes
 
Spirits in public houses are ridiculously overpriced! A one litre bottle providing forty measures at an average price of £240. Cost to trade for one litre bottle being circa £12, and they little wonder why their all on their arse.

Overheads not included but do the maths. Your far better off supping on the Moon and solving riddles!
 
Grassland Blue said:
This is something which baffles me.
I understand that the further away an object is, the longer the light from that object takes to reach us.
But surely some of those objects would be ahead of us?
If we observe an object we say that it is x light years from us, in the past.
If some advanced life exists on one of those objects and they are observing us simultaneously, how can we be x light years in their past also?
Perhaps an egghead could provide the answer?
Click to expand...
I think that all the stars we see are in the past so if anyone on those stars were looking at us all the stars would be in there past so they can’t see us.
I just made that up because I’m guessing I’d love to know and I’m sure someone on here knows the answer
 
If the earth and the moon have a gravitational effect on one another how come when astronauts travel out of the earth's atmosphere they become weightless?
 
Two Gun Bob said:
Spirits in public houses are ridiculously overpriced! A one litre bottle providing forty measures at an average price of £240. Cost to trade for one litre bottle being circa £12, and they little wonder why their all on their arse.

Overheads not included but do the maths. Your far better off supping on the Moon and solving riddles!
Click to expand...

Add in a mixer. The shite they dish out from a 'soda syphon' is actually a powder that gets mixed with water as they press the button. It is chemical shite for 'cola' 'lemonade' etc and costs them pennies but they charge upwards of 40 pence for a dash, 80 pence for half a pint.
 
It's only possible to fold a piece of paper in half 7 times, however if it could be done 42 times it would reach the moon.
If it could be folded 103 times, the thickness would be larger than the observable Universe: 93 billion light-years.
 
Grassland Blue said:
This is something which baffles me.
I understand that the further away an object is, the longer the light from that object takes to reach us.
But surely some of those objects would be ahead of us?
If we observe an object we say that it is x light years from us, in the past.
If some advanced life exists on one of those objects and they are observing us simultaneously, how can we be x light years in their past also?
Perhaps an egghead could provide the answer?
Click to expand...
Because the time it takes for our light to reach them is the same as it takes their light to reach us.

There could be life on another planet around another star who have focused a telescope on Earth and they are this minute witnessing the meteor hit us that killed the dinosaurs because it’s taken 65million years for the light from that impact to reach them.
 
citizen_maine said:
But, if the object is the same distance away, why would a telescope 'see' it first?

Edit: We're talking about a star we can see with our naked eyes
Click to expand...
We’re talking about the likes of the James Webb Space Telescope which has left Earth’s orbit and detects infrared wavelengths.
At sea level on earth a lot of theses wavelengths would be absorbed by water vapour in the atmosphere.
JWST is travelling away from us out into space and basically can see further back into the past than Hubble could or anything on Earth.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Because the time it takes for our light to reach them is the same as it takes their light to reach us.

There could be life on another planet around another star who have focused a telescope on Earth and they are this minute witnessing the meteor hit us that killed the dinosaurs because it’s taken 65million years for the light from that impact to reach them.
Click to expand...
Saves me typing. Thanks.
 
"In a nutshell"............. This expression alludes to the Roman writer Pliny's description of Homer's Iliad being copied in so tiny a hand that it could fit in a nutshell.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
We’re talking about the likes of the James Webb Space Telescope which has left Earth’s orbit and detects infrared wavelengths.
At sea level on earth a lot of theses wavelengths would be absorbed by water vapour in the atmosphere.
JWST is travelling away from us out into space and basically can see further back into the past than Hubble could or anything on Earth.
Click to expand...
However, it's currently orbiting about 1 million miles away and light takes an additional 4 seconds to reach us here. So basically the light from Betelgeuse (the star we're discussing) takes 4 seconds longer to reach us. How would JWST already know if the star had exploded?
 
citizen_maine said:
However, it's currently orbiting about 1 million miles away and light takes an additional 4 seconds to reach us here. So basically the light from Betelgeuse (the star we're discussing) takes 4 seconds longer to reach us. How would JWST already know if the star had exploded?
Click to expand...
If you go back to me answering PC, he said if it happens tomorrow. or in our lifetime….

Ok maybe I was being a bit facetious but I was taking his description of time literally. If Betelgeuse explodes tomorrow we’re not going to witness it with or without telescopes. We’ll be long gone by the time the light travels here.
However if he meant if we detect this tomorrow, what we would be witnessing is something that happened a fair while ago.

Does that clarify my thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top