Search results for query: *

Sets are called the building block of maths, but why? To me sets are a collection of 'things'. Were as numbers are what give the 'things' a meaning. Myself I think that addition is the building block and maybe subtraction, all the other processes, addition and division are only quick ways of...

In a lesson on square roots this came up (Root) 27 simplifies too 3(root)3 ok. when I work that out it's = 5.196... or if I say 3squard (root)3 this works out to 15.588.... What am I missing?

while the photon travels at light speed and a neutrino travel at just below light speed why then are photons stopped by an object and the neutrino can past through?

As the universe expands all objects are moving away from us, so how is it posible that the Andromeda galaxy is on a path to merge with our galaxy?

This a quote from Nature of the 30 of june 2022 'Like the electron, the muon has a magnetic field that makes it act like a tiny bar magnet. As muons travel, they generate various particles that briefly pop in and out of existence." Now I would like to know how 'various particles' pop in and out...

When something is described as say 7 billion light years away would't it be more accurate to 7 billoin years ago?

It seem incredulous to me that the Milky Way was formed just 13.775 million years after the start of the universe. If this is correct was it in the form that it is today?

Light is red shifted further into the red as the object recedes from our viewpoint. So when the object gets so far away that the red shift goes into the infer-red it then disappears from our view at the same time it will be going at a very large percentage of light speed (99.999...%). So light...

PIxinsight: in Star alignment go to Star Detection and try these settings:- Detection scales try 8 Log Sensitivity try -3 All the rest in star detection leave at default

you can still get it on DVD!

Thank you all for explaining

So I was right in my thoughts that for a given mass regardless of it's compaction the gravity is the same. This brings up another query: Why is it only black holes colliding that is produce gravity waves that are detected? Is it because the said B/H have such a high density?

I've just watched a vid about jets of matter and neutron stars. It was stated in it that a neutron star is a star that's been compressed from say a sun sized star to the size of a city, every thing OK upto now. Then it goes on to say that it has, the neutron star, enormous gravity, this is were...

No not a mass. Was just reading that they may have been found by the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector and it seemed that if they are so hard to detect here on Earth then they may be a candidate for Dark Matter.

I would like to hear what the opinions are. Could sterile neutrino's be dark matter? I'm sure this has been discussed if not here then somewhere.

If you are relying on Hawking Evaporation, that's going to be a very very long time.

If you get a power interruption while it's in use this can cause all sorts of problems, you then maybe require a resync of the home position,

" the circular orbit is very special case of elliptical orbit - not very likely to occur." Why? This is very likely to be rubbish, when you swing a ball on a rope around your head the orbit is circular, replace the rope by gravity and it's still a circular orbit.

If we take 1 high gravity object and 1 smaller object at a distance from the first object, the first is stationary in relation to the smaller object, and it is in orbit around the first. Will the orbit be circular the center of mass of the two? Now if we put an other object in a different orbit...

Aren't our pole at different temps? Or am I missing the point of the post?

Seems like a very long bow to me.

well that's what I thought from the beginning

Oh well! it is dust!

Yes to the questions. As for the last part, I don't think it: I'm just surmising. If there was some observable "echo" then a generic sensor could be produce so that all wave lengths could be observed at the same time. Of course it would take a great deal of computing power, I image much more...

Sorry, what I'm thinking is that if a wave after arrival at the sensor and after being detected the resultant change from the native wavelength to the image, does that image have any echo of the incoming wavelength. (It's starting to confuse me!) Let me try and explain with an hypothetical...

In the electromagnetic wave lengths say from x-rays to the 21 cm hydrogen line, the wave has a wave length. When it hits a receiver, eye, camera sensor whatever, it is turned into an electrical signal that can be interpreted by that device. Now we get to my question, is there an echo of that...

From where I used to live this was a naked eye object, you had to have good seeing and dark adapted eyes and also know where to look, now I've move into town it's gone :( and I'm only in a 2 dark sky area!

It's found by a formula called the 'small angle approximation' I think!

Just have wish I hadn't!

Thanks fresh_42, I sort of thought that but it's good to have it confirmed by someone that knows a bit more maths than I do

I was reading a book on black holes by Kip Thorne the other day, well weeks really, and I came across this in one of the footnotes 10^10^79 (10 to the power of 10 to the power of 79) And I really don't know what it means. Does it just mean what it says? If it does can you raise a power to a power?

My god wish I'd never read the article incorrectly.

yep your right I was getting all excited but then there is this paragraph You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say...

Looks like Dark matter may have been wheedled out of the spaces it inhabits as this article in the Newscientist is correct https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found

starting to look like dust around it

A conglomeration of dark matter?

To say it was unimpressed is praising it

what about 'water world'?

looks like a problem for the Drake equation, but different parameters!

symbolipoint; it wasn't a question but an article that may (may) refute Pythagoras as the discoverer of the theorem named after him, and by 1500 years!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/24/mathematical-secrets-of-ancient-tablet-unlocked-after-nearly-a-century-of-study <Moderator's note: link corrected, Article intro added>

In the late '50s when I became interested astronomy it was said that there was no way that we could ever see a star. The only way we will ever see them is as a point of light, "the laws of optics would never let us see the star as anything other than as a point" !

no of course it doesn't but the full moon only ever rises as the sun is setting at temperate and tropical latitudes

One thing that get me going is were a full moon is shown rising in the middle of the night

What if dark matter is the product of black holes? That is, another form of matter that exists in our universe but is undetectable by the normal forms of observation.

1984, the piano player, just 2 of the top of my head but there are lots

https://futurism.com/the-40-year-old-mystery-of-the-wow-signal-was-just-solved/

Here is another off the wall thought; could it be in a binary system with a small black hole? It would be small but gravitational lensing could account for the large amount of dimming. more plausible than a mega structure

Is that what anorexics have?

What about it being a binary with a brown dwarf as the other star?