Recent content by phyzguy

Surely given the alpha and delta coordinates in Table 1 of the paper you cited you can plot those points on the star map. If not, what don't you understand?

Why would anyone do that? Is there reason to doubt scientists from JPL and the Max Planck Institute? If you doubt them, you could try running your own simulation to check them.

I think @Cerenkov in his initial post just wanted to know approximately where they are headed. In terms of the motivation for writing the original paper, who knows? Maybe just for fun. The positions and velocities of nearby stars are known pretty accurately thanks to Gaia, and they took into...

Of course. In the paper in the OP, they extrapolated ahead about 10 MYr, using the known positions and velocity vectors of the nearby stars, so that is all taken into account.

If that's what you want, that's pretty easy. In Table 1 of the paper you quoted in the OP, alpha and delta are the Right Ascension and Declination of their velocity vectors. Those you can just plot on a star map. On the attached, I did that, with Voyager 1 in magenta and Voyager 2 in yellow.

The fact that "if two quantities are equal and you do the same thing to both of them then they are still equal" seems pretty elementary. I'm not sure I would search for a "deeper understanding".

Table 1 of the paper you linked gives you the velocities of the spacecraft in the ICRF coordinate system, which is centered on the sun. This link has some good examples on how to transform these velocities into a galactocentric coordinate system. At these low relative velocities (relative to c)...

I think you mean the mass of 61Ni = 60.931060 u

If you look at the binding energy per nucleon of atomic nuclei, it peaks in the vicinity of iron. You can get energy by fusing nuclei lighter than iron or by fissioning nuclei heavier than iron, but once nuclear fusion has arrived at nuclei near iron, no more energy can be obtained. Since no...

Basically, no one knows. This is sometimes called "the hard problem of consciousness". It's fairly easy to understand how the neurons in your brain (which of course are made up of atoms!) can process images, respond to stimuli, etc. But why it gives rise to subjective experience like feelings...

Reading your link, it looks like by "hydrostatic burning", they mean the nuclear fusion that occurs while the star is still in hydrostatic equilibrium. People often refer to nuclear fusion reactions as"burning", by analogy with chemical burning. Any normal star is in hydrostatic equilibrium...

No, you can't.

If you know the answer, why do you need an online calculator?

The DeepL translator is excellent. I have fed it medical reports in Spanish as a pdf and it returns a new pdf in English which to me seems nearly perfect, including the medical jargon.

So you have everything you need, right?