kidyounot: (Default)
lol, i <3 neil degrasse tyson.

interviewer: so, i'll ask you a question that i get quite often from students: why is pluto not a planet?
tyson: *interrupting* he had it coming.

anyway, i love mr tyson because he explains highly fascinating and complicated things with a very down-to-earth lexicon. he'd talk the same way about the universe expanding and slowly freezing to death and about picking a starbucks drink.

i'm watching the live nasa digital learning webcast (at the kennedy space center) for the launch of the sts-125, the last part of the hubble space telescope mission. which is awesome, by the way. the hst gave us all of those HUGE pictures of space objects. <3

"memorisation is not a fundamental part of physical science!" <-- LOVE. i totally agree with him that it should be all about understanding how things work and how they work together rather than trying to memorise numbers or the sequence of planets and all. <333 neil degrasse tyson.
and i also love how he always ends up talking about the death of the sun and the universe and all of those apocalyptic scenarios, lol!
kidyounot: (Default)
say hello to the latest picture by the hubble telescope: planetary nebula ngc 2818. that's what's left of a dead star. orange is nitrogen, blue is oxygen and green is hydrogen.
wow, eh? this is so my new desktop background. it's beautiful.
kidyounot: (Default)
astropicture of the day:

the whirlpool galaxy, also known as M51. warning: the pic is fucking huge (17mb!)! sit back and enjoy some popcorn while it loads :)
kidyounot: (Default)
i'm going to bed, but before i go i want to make the billionth post of this day and give you today's astropic!

behold the core of our very own galaxy, the milky way!
kidyounot: (Default)
i was just thinking today about how i could write in my thesis about lightspeed as way to travel in time, so to speak, but then a question got to my mind, related to that so-called twins paradox (that isn't a paradox really).
[if a twin stays on earth and the other travels to some point in space that would take a 10 light years journey to reach and another 10 light years to get back to earth, for the twin in space 20 conventional years would have passed (as he counted twenty years even though he was going at the speed of light) - the other twin on earth though would keep moving at what we consider 'normal' speed. as the space traveling twin comes back to earth, he will be 20 years older than when he left while the twin that stayed on earth will be something like 50 years older. [so we could say that the traveller has gone fifty years into the future] ]
but
a) did the space traveling twin *actually* travel in time? did he go fast forward? can we say he did just because he came back older? i mean, it sounds cheesy to me. honestly, i'm starting to dislike the theory of time travel relies in light speed. i don't know. i doesn't sound just right.
b) did earth go slow or did the space traveler go fast?
c) what is the standard measure of time in space? lightspeed? warp speed? couldn't it be that we are measuring time the way we do just according to the fact that earth moves at a set speed, but everything else in the universe goes actually way faster, therefore putting *us* below the average speed and not light at a super speed? => is earth traveling back in time in relations to the rest of the galaxy/universe?
d) could it be that time travel is just a way to say 'we want to go as fast as all the rest of the universe goes'?
e) (not speculation but an actual question) does time on the moon pass at the same speed as on earth? if i were to spend 10 years on the moon and come back on earth, would 10 years have passed or more (or less)?
f) if we keep our measurements of time as a standard to define travel, isn't it impossible to go *back* in time? does anyone have a theory about that? because it's clear how light speed would allow people to travel faster than earth therefore reaching the 'future' without growing as old as he would staying on earth in the meanwhile (but not instantly, some time has to pass for the traveller as well)... but back? where would someone have to go? how fast? or how slow?

seriously though, the last question is the most important of all. i can't grasp the concept on my own. back in time? i mean, logically, if one can go forwards, he should be able to go backwards as well. but practically? should we go round the galaxy in reverse? would we go backwards or would a space traveller grow *older* than his fellow earthlings during the same amount of time? like, you travel for 20 light years and when you go back on earth only 10 years have passed? would it make any difference?

please reply, i want to hear other people's opinions! even if you're not basing them on actual physics or stuff like that. i will lose my sleep over this tonight!

Profile

kidyounot: (Default)
kidyounot

April 2010

S M T W T F S
    123
4567 8910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 12:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios