Announcement Astrophysicist Joe Pesce is back - this time, in video!

[MMohammed]

That's right, this is your chance to have your questions about the universe answered on video by Dr. Joe Pesce! Space.com Senior Writer Chelsea Gohd will be interviewing Joe this Friday, January 29th and will be answering your queries about the universe.

Just post your question on this thread for a chance to have it featured in the interview. Who knows, you may even be able to impress Dr. Joe himself!

 

[Helio]

Cool!!!

 

[mharratsc]

With the actual measurement of differential charge flow in hydrogen lanes between galaxies, will mainstream astrophysics finally begin to engage in productive discussions regarding the effects of electrochemistry and electrodynamics on matter and energy in our observable area of the Universe?

 

[Pies]

1 The a.m. observed direction of the moon's illumination does not appear to line up with the observed position of the sun - the torch/football analogy. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1idusvrkxhlaeyj/Drawing%204.jpg?dl=0

2 I used this link https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earththe calculated
to calculate the projected diameter of the sun using the link's calculated diameter of the umbra and penumbra plus, the accepted diameter of the moon and the accepted earth/moon and earth/sun distances. The calculations would appear to show the sun's diameter to be 1.68million miles.

3 The illumination of the a full moon does not appear to follow the laws of reflected light from a sphere.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJ4P1T7OHI

https://www.dropbox.com/s/13s9yyjay3ah4h4/Reflected light.jpg?dl=0

 

[Broadlands]

There have been recent media reports, presumably of aliens moving through space at high velocities. What sort of materials, cellular tissues, could these space visitors be made of? Do they have bones and skin? Or are they inorganic robots?

 

[rod]

Pies post #4 contains a link to 12:34 minute Youtube video on shadows, spheres, etc. in photography. As Pies says in the post "3 The illumination of the a full moon does not appear to follow the laws of reflected light from a sphere."

This was discussed in another thread on Sun and Moon. I did watch the 12:34 minute video. At the end the author says the universe is made of spheres, cubes and cylinders I wonder if the Moon is not a sphere, is it then a cube? Should be interesting to see the answer(s) here. I will point out that Mars at opposition, Jupiter at opposition, and Saturn at opposition falls within this question too At opposition, these planets are 100% illuminated and can be studied using good backyard telescopes.

 

[Jeff L]

If we built a thousand Saturn V rockets and buried them nose first into the Earth side by side and then set them off. Would it be enough to move the Earth?

 

[Xinhang Shen]

That's right, this is your chance to have your questions about the universe answered on video by Dr. Joe Pesce! Space.com Senior Writer Chelsea Gohd will be interviewing Joe this Friday, January 29th and will be answering your queries about the universe.

Just post your question on this thread for a chance to have it featured in the interview. Who knows, you may even be able to impress Dr. Joe himself!

Does special relativity tell us a physical clock will show time dilation?

For example, in the twin paradox, when the traveling twin returns to the earth, the relativistic time on the spaceship does have passed less than the relativistic time of the earth, but the biological age of the traveling twin is the product of the relativistic time and aging rate. When the relativistic time becomes shorter on the spaceship, the aging rate of the traveling twin becomes faster than that of the twin on the earth, which makes the biological age of the traveling twin exactly the same as that of the earth bound twin.

Similarly, a physical clock on the spaceship will have the same displayed time as that of the clock on the earth because the displayed time of a clock is the product of relativistic time and frequency divided by a calibration constant, and the dilation of the relativistic time is canceled by the increase of the frequency in the product to make the displayed times of the two clocks the same. That is, clock time (our physical time) is still absolute and won't change when observed from different reference frames.

As clock time is our physical time used in all observations, relativistic time is a fake time, and thus special relativity is wrong.

Is there any error in the above reasoning?

 

[sam85geo]

Question. Based on the data from the recent measurement probes sent to our Sun, is the Sun-Earth distance lessening? i.e.: becoming less than the approx. 150Mkm radius?

 

[Ray Gunn]

To an outside observer, matter falling into a Black Hole will appear to slow to a stop at the Event Horizon due to time dilation. Why then are we able to observe -- via gravitational waves -- the collision and merger of two black holes into a single larger Black Hole, i.e. why doesn't it appear to the observer to take an "infinite" amount of time for the merger to occur?

 

[Owahay]

We look at asteroids and comets to get clues to how old our solar system is, but how large and old would a primal body need to be to differentiate enough iron and nickel to make a fragment the size of the 60 ton Hoba West meteorite?

 

[Ray Gunn]

Conventional Wisdom suggests that the entire mass of a Black Hole lies within an infinitely small, infinitely dense Singularity at the center. But an alternative hypothesis is that the Black Hole's mass lies at the Event Horizon.

It seems to me that this could be tested by observing the light from stars behind the central black hole in our galaxy. Light from these stars is bent by the gravity of the black hole. Furthermore, light which passes within a few radii of the event horizon should bend differently depending on whether the black hole's mass lies at the center (point source) versus at the event horizon (hollow sphere).

However, since I've never heard this discussed, I assume my reasoning is wrong. What is my mistake?

 

[IG2007]

Joe Pesce is back! Cool!

Q-1: Is interstellar human travel even possible?
Q-2: This question concerns the recent article in the Space.com website, a whitehole seems to have the same properties as a blackhole except that it has much more gamma rays around it, so, have we got powerful enough tools to prove the existence of whiteholes?

 

[Helio]

Are we able to say yet if the vast majority of the most distant large galaxies we observe AGNs?

 

[Helio]

What's your guess on astronomy from the Moon in say, 25 years? Will radio astronomy be first?

 

[iwnt2kw]

Does special relativity tell us a physical clock will show time dilation?

For example, in the twin paradox, when the traveling twin returns to the earth, the relativistic time on the spaceship does have passed less than the relativistic time of the earth, but the biological age of the traveling twin is the product of the relativistic time and aging rate. When the relativistic time becomes shorter on the spaceship, the aging rate of the traveling twin becomes faster than that of the twin on the earth, which makes the biological age of the traveling twin exactly the same as that of the earth bound twin.

Similarly, a physical clock on the spaceship will have the same displayed time as that of the clock on the earth because the displayed time of a clock is the product of relativistic time and frequency divided by a calibration constant, and the dilation of the relativistic time is canceled by the increase of the frequency in the product to make the displayed times of the two clocks the same. That is, clock time (our physical time) is still absolute and won't change when observed from different reference frames.

As clock time is our physical time used in all observations, relativistic time is a fake time, and thus special relativity is wrong.

Is there any error in the above reasoning?

That is the Correct Answer

 

[iwnt2kw]

That is the Correct Answer

Let me be more clear Like I have said many a times in the past That there needs to be a new math created (a second math) Because special relativity is correct But what lots of scientist are not clarifying is that Special relativity only applies to non-living matter And the second math that I'm referring to Now this math is going to apply to living matter (to living things , animals , humans , plants) And not dead things Like dirt , planets , Galaxy's , sun's , stars These things are not alive per-say (not as something with blood flowing in it's veins) Because things that are alive Are going to be And will be effected in a totally different way When it comes to time dilation (because of the G-Forces involved) A human body would die And the mathematical formulae's haven't been adjusted for this (sadly) The time dilation in relativity is true (it's real)