Voyager 1 and 2 still alive!!!! 38,000 mph!

NERD ALERT
1711113755956.png


Nothing "new" here in concept. Two secs on background.

Cosmologists have been arguing about the Universe's origins for millennia.

Expanding, not expanding, big bang or not, etc., Consensus is there was a "big bang", followed by "inflation", and nearly 14B years later its STILL explanding.

Lotta nerdy stuff in what I just wrote, but ONE thing has been bugging the folks who believe in "big bang". Universe SHOULD be expanding at "same ratte" everywhere you look IN IT.

But its not.

They thought for 100 years that our measurement tools werent good enough.

Now Jimbo is best we've got and even IT has measured and semms to have this differential expansion rate (it appears to be expanding a different rates, depending on where you look

1711113812561.png

source: After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

The "headline" for the space kids, including folks who have been granted Nobel Prizes for their work: We kinda STILL don't know what we THOUGHT we knew.

Actually fascinating work, WAY over my pay grade. But its, by crude analogy, like somebody telling me the Earth is really flat -- yeah, some folks really believe that to THIS day .. but I ain't one of 'em.

Anyway, link above can help ya veg out to your hearts content. This really is a big deal though for the space kids, where once again, just when we think we have a bead on things, we DONT/MAY NOT.
 
Last edited:
amazinblue82 said:
NERD ALERT
View attachment 651502

Nothing "new" here in concept. Two secs on background.

Cosmologists have been arguing about the Universe's origins for millennia.

Expanding, not expanding, big bang or not, etc., Consensus is there was a "big bang", followed by "inflation", and nearly 14B years later its STILL explanding.

Lotta nerdy stuff in what I just wrote, but ONE thing has been bugging the folks who believe in "big bang". Universe SHOULD be expanding at "same ratte" everywhere you look IN IT.

But its not.

They thought for 100 years that our measurement tools werent good enough.

Now Jimbo is best we've got and even IT has measured and semms to have this differential expansion rate (it appears to be expanding a different rates, depending on where you look

View attachment 651503
source: After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

The "headline" for the space kids, including folks who have been granted Nobel Prizes for their work: We kinda STILL don't know what we THOUGHT we knew.

Actually fascinating work, WAY over my pay grade. But its, by crude analogy, like somebody telling me the Earth is really flat -- yeah, some folks really believe that to THIS day .. but I ain't one of 'em.

Anyway, link above can help ya veg out to your hearts content. This really is a big deal though for the space kids, where once again, just when we think we have a bead on things, we DONT/MAY NOT.
Click to expand...
The Hubble Tension and the fact that after decades of research nobody knows what dark matter or dark energy is even though it is supposed to make up 95% of the universe, is as the article indicates an embarrassment. So I like it when somebody comes along and kicks over the apple cart and comes up with a new idea that throws out these increasing suspect ideas and doubles the age of the universe in the process!
www.sci.news

Universe Has No Room for Dark Matter, Astrophysicist Says | Sci.News

University of Ottawa’s Professor Rajendra Gupta challenges the current theoretical model for the composition of the Universe by showing that, in fact, it has no room for dark matter.
www.sci.news www.sci.news
 
Last edited:
Fratzog said:
The Hubble Tension and the fact that after decades of research nobody knows what dark matter or dark energy is even though it is supposed to make up 95% of the universe, is as the article indicates an embarrassment. So I like it when somebody comes along and kicks over the apple cart and comes up with a new idea that throws out these increasing suspect ideas and doubles the age of the universe in the process!
[/URL]
Click to expand...
I tried to slog through Gupta's paper. I get the idea - which is radical enough - but only marginally get the theory.

Dark matter and dark energy - two DIFFERNT things - seem to have a role if not only by

(1) the significant proportion of their presence in the universe vs. what we can "see", and
(2) the obvious conclusion one has to come to that the standard particle model is IN-complete (e.g., we dont even know what dark matter is).

Hence my particular fascination AND frustration with cosmology/physics. The MORE we know, the LESS we know.

Glad really gifted folks are working on it,
 
Latest Webb vs. all other telescopes.

source:NASA’s Webb Probes an Extreme Starburst Galaxy

1712243134043.png


M82, 12 million LY away. We have known about it for centuries.

Its 5x brighter than the Milky Way, and only about 40% the size (40 LY diameter vs. 100,000 LY), still part of the Local_Group of galaxies of which ours is a part. Its making stars 10x faster than our Milky Way & several other things seem to be going on you can veg out at links.

The big deal?

Lotta galactic "wind" from these star formations. Galactic "wind" is NOT new idea, but never seen in this clarity, giving new insights into how stars come to form (e.g., what causes this MUCH wind, and what is effect (i.e., "chicken or egg" concept) of it, etc,?

In the space kids' hands, they are surely to learn stuff they didnt know BECAUSE they can see the "movement" of the wind through the galaxy.

That's as deep as my pea brain can get on this one :)

 
Last edited:

NASA SPACE NEWS​

​

NASA Engineers Crack the Code Behind Voyager 1's Gibberish Stream​


 
Turboomni said:
Click to expand...

sorry to go all nerd here. :)

1713615599989.png

Are the V'ger's now travelling at "right-ish" angles to the plane of the the ecliptic?

I think they are.

If this illustration from the video is "vectored" as it appears, it would seem when we "sling-shotted" these craft to use the big planets' gravity assists, we ALSO sped them up, AND redirected their angular velocity too.

If so, the CURRENT trajectories would seem irrelevant given all the empty space around our solar system. Meaning, nothing for BILLIONS of miles within 2,000 human generations (like, for 40,000 years @ 40K mph) until we come close to nearest star (along one of the V'gers' vectors - not the closest star to Earth).

Again, did the space kids try to take a few hundred years off the trip to next star by changing stellar directions of the craft in space?

Anybody see/understand that differently? Help a fellow "nerd" out .. :poke:
 
Last edited:
amazinblue82 said:
Are the V'ger's now travelling at "right-ish" angles to the plane of the the ecliptic?
Click to expand...
It would seem so. I remember reading something about this before. I don't remember if this was done on purpose or done because this was the planetary hand Nasa was dealt. It would seem a combo of both. With a limited power supply they may have wanted the most velocity and both to go on very different trajectories. My ignorant guess only.
 
Turboomni said:
It would seem so. I remember reading something about this before. I don't remember if this was done on purpose or done because this was the planetary hand Nasa was dealt. It would seem a combo of both. With a limited power supply they may have wanted the most velocity and both to go on very different trajectories. My ignorant guess only.
Click to expand...
This is what Copilot has to say about solar and galactic planes which might make some sense of the probe trajectories shown above.

Copilot
The plane of the solar system (known as the ecliptic plane) and the plane of the Milky Way (the disc of our galaxy) do not align perfectly. They form a significant angle with each other. Specifically, the inclination between them is approximately 60.2 degrees123. This means that they are not parallel; instead, they intersect at this angle in the sky.
While the Milky Way and the Solar System are not precisely lined up, their relative orientation is a fascinating aspect of our cosmic neighborhood. The mismatch between their planes contributes to the intricate dance of celestial bodies across the night sky.
 
Fratzog said:
This is what Copilot has to say about solar and galactic planes which might make some sense of the probe trajectories shown above.

Copilot
The plane of the solar system (known as the ecliptic plane) and the plane of the Milky Way (the disc of our galaxy) do not align perfectly. They form a significant angle with each other. Specifically, the inclination between them is approximately 60.2 degrees123. This means that they are not parallel; instead, they intersect at this angle in the sky.
While the Milky Way and the Solar System are not precisely lined up, their relative orientation is a fascinating aspect of our cosmic neighborhood. The mismatch between their planes contributes to the intricate dance of celestial bodies across the night sky.
Click to expand...
that makes perfect sense.

that explains this Milky Way view (this is a real photo, you need a clear night and NO light pollution in in open space .. and its THIS clear with the naked eye) from our position in one of the spiral arms:

dark_skies_1400.jpg

The Milky Way is like a lumpy, flat-ish, "pinwheel" they think is nearly as old as the Universe itself (14 billion years). It was also once a disk (so the theory goes) that forned as a "spiral galaxy" around a black hole.

4 billion years later, at whatever angle relative to it, the disk that ultimately became the Solar System was oriented. Simple reminder -- as I should know better -- vector quantities (angles & velocities) exist in space, too.

This pic (and artist'sdiagram) shows our view, from Earth, looking THRU the "plane" of the Milky Way, TO WHICH the "plane" of our Solor system is "titled" ~60 degrees. Even in an impossibly large Universe, things are oriented vs. one another.

1713797508055.png

source (not to scale): https://www.quora.com/Galacttic plane vs plane of ecliptic of solar system.

Which is why a gamma-ray burst from a massive star (novaed, or bacame a neutron star), close enough, for long enough duration, IF the axis of the star was pointed right at Earth, it could light the atmosphere on fire.

And kill everybody. Un-likely in the extreme, but not impossible.

Artists conception of gamma ray (the yellowish color) "jets" shooting out of star's poles for billions of miles. To "hit" us, one of those poles would have to be pointed right at us.
1713701078615.png

ASIDE:

I won a bet with my daughter, made almost 25 years ago, here in just 2010.

She asked me why wasn't I "upside-down " in my pics from Sao Paulo, Brazil. She was with me as far as a precocious 9 yr old could be. Until I told her if we looked at Jupiter in our telescope, FROM THERE, it would look upside down.

Well, she called some "Daddy BS" on me, until 2010, when she took a pic of Jupiter from Buenos Aires herself and viola!! Sum-gun WAS "upside down". She of course knew "why" by then, but had forgotten the bet we made.

I collected with breakfast in bed and a company car wash

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
We have seen how long it takes to get around even in our solar system never mind interstellar travel. There have been a few companies recently that claim to have found the key to taking the next step, "propellantless propulsion". This idea is over my pay grade but it apparently uses electric fields to generate a sustainable force onto an object and allow center-of-mass translation of said object without expelling mass. My grade 12 physics teacher would have surely objected. For those interested here is a link.
thedebrief.org

NASA Veteran’s Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn’t Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity - The Debrief

A veteran NASA scientist says his company has tested a propellantless propulsion drive technology that produced one Earth gravity of thrust.
thedebrief.org thedebrief.org
 
Fratzog said:
We have seen how long it takes to get around even in our solar system never mind interstellar travel. There have been a few companies recently that claim to have found the key to taking the next step, "propellantless propulsion". This idea is over my pay grade but it apparently uses electric fields to generate a sustainable force onto an object and allow center-of-mass translation of said object without expelling mass. My grade 12 physics teacher would have surely objected. For those interested here is a link.
[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
Click to expand...
i aint no way/will never be ready to match brain pans with this propulsion doc. A game of "h-o-r-s-e' on a basketball court i'd demolish him. This topic? prolly not. :poke:

What i can divine look at this however, it looks like (1) it works - Wowza, or (2) it doesnt due to experimental measurement error, or (3) he and team have discovered another fundamental force of nature, related to (1) but it needs a testable, predictable ground in science we understand.

i am more in camp (2). They have reached an unsupportable conclusion.

Example. we dont even know what dark energy or dark matter is. seems to undoubtedly exist despite being "invisible to us, therefore their must be physics .. particles carrying the force, quantum field dynamics, experiments to test it, etc., of a previously undiscovered nature.

in addition, the standard particle model., as some physicists and rubes like me think, has to be incomplete (i.e, some of the stuff we KNOW is in the Universe AINT on it). Hell, we dont even have a quantum theory of gravity yet (120 years after the "invention" of quantum physics).

1713968711911.png

my pea brain instinct on this propulsion "breakthough" is they have something wrong, or more likely misunderstood. this one wont make it though rigorous peer reviews i predict.

OTOH, it could be up there with Einstein & e=mc2, or finding an EPR Bridge (wormhole). That, would be really somethin'.

neat work by those folks in any event.

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Seems routine for Jimbo going on a couple years parked out at L2. Wasp 43-b, discovered in 2011.

Artist's Conception (source: NASA’s Webb Maps Weather on Planet 280 Light-Years Away - NASA Science
1714489421914.png


Weather, on an exoplanet (a planet outside our solar system, over 5,000 found of billions believed to be in our galaxy alone) , a gas-giant the size of Jupiter, 280 Light years away from us, only 1.3M miles from its sun (we are 93M miles from ours, a bigger, star, to which its rtidally locked (i.e., one side faces its sun at ALL times), 5,000 degrees F on sunny side, minus 1,000 degrees F on shady side, and with 5,000 mph winds at its equator.

Hubble knows its there too, has studied its features too, .. just too far away to photograph it in visible light (Hubble made thermal images).
1714490211763.png

source: Wasp 43-b - Hubble
Ah, there's no place like home. Guess we better not mess this one up - we havent found anyplace to go, let allone how to get there. :)
 
Last edited:
NERD ALERT:

Moon gets a time zone -- if NASA gets its way.

NASA is going to do it (set the standard) and hope the other space faring coutries (e.g., Russia, China, the biggest) will adopt it. Guess for the day (eventually) when we'll cooperate on missions to other places.

source: NASA is giving the moon its own time zone. Why the clock is ticking.

Apparently (I didnt know this), from Earth's perspective, the Solar System has one time zone (the "UTC") . A particular, massive, body (e.g., like Mars) has its OWN time zone relative to the UTC.

Obviously, the space kids know how to land stuff on places (e.g., the moon) with less gravity/density (therefore, different LOCAL time relative to earth). They adjust trajectories, retro-rockect firing, etc., for the thing built ON earth to allow it to "land" on that other place.
Hmm .. why did the Japanese moon lander and the Houston private company thing land upside down and tip over, respectively.

Short answer is they didn't "stick" their landings. Instead of coming STRAIGHT down, they had TOO MUCH sideways motion vs. the surface, and "plop, over thet went" at touch-down.

1714593441609.png

They did the travel-from-earth math right (taking into account time/gravity differences), but their craft's designs were susceptible to tipping over on the LOWER gravity moon.

Did they forget, or just underestimate this in their designs (i.e, craft wont tip on earth, assuming it landed on earth with same vertical/lateral momentum it did on the moon).

i think the latter. Even a man in a spacesuit underestimated that basic fact - in real time ON the moon.

In 1972, Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17, went down, almost doing a faceplant, in his top-heavy spacesuit when he got a little to far over his skis, so to speak, bouncing around in Low-G and lost his balance.

1714594023976.png


Anyway, we (earth people launching things to these other places) take into account that, compared to Earth, these places have different gravity due to their mass. We factor that into our time-based calculations.

Your made-on-earth Timex will run FASTER on the Moon, or Mars, because those bodies are LESS massive that Earth. That needs to be accounted for in your navigation/communication algorithms/calculations.

A standard moon time that everybody uses in space has the same benefit standardized time (by zones) does on earth. We'll see.

1714593651188.png
1714593702117.png

In
 
Last edited:
amazinblue82 said:
NERD ALERT:

Moon gets a time zone -- if NASA gets its way.

NASA is going to do it (set the standard) and hope the other space faring coutries (e.g., Russia, China, the biggest) will adopt it. Guess for the day (eventually) when we'll cooperate on missions to other places.

source: NASA is giving the moon its own time zone. Why the clock is ticking.

Apparently (I didnt know this), from Earth's perspective, the Solar System has one time zone (the "UTC") . A particular, massive, body (e.g., like Mars) has its OWN time zone relative to the UTC.

Obviously, the space kids know how to land stuff on places (e.g., the moon) with less gravity/density (therefore, different LOCAL time relative to earth). They adjust trajectories, retro-rockect firing, etc., for the thing built ON earth to allow it to "land" on that other place.
Hmm .. why did the Japanese moon lander and the Houston private company thing land upside down and tip over, respectively.

Short answer is they didn't "stick" their landings. Instead of coming STRAIGHT down, they had TOO MUCH sideways motion vs. the surface, and "plop, over thet went" at touch-down.

View attachment 658752
They did the travel-from-earth math right (taking into account time/gravity differences), but their craft's designs were susceptible to tipping over on the LOWER gravity moon.

Did they forget, or just underestimate this in their designs (i.e, craft wont tip on earth, assuming it landed on earth with same vertical/lateral momentum it did on the moon).

i think the latter. Even a man in a spacesuit underestimated that basic fact - in real time ON the moon.

In 1972, Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17, went down, almost doing a faceplant, in his top-heavy spacesuit when he got a little to far over his skis, so to speak, bouncing around in Low-G and lost his balance.

View attachment 658756

Anyway, we (earth people launching things to these other places) take into account that, compared to Earth, these places have different gravity due to their mass. We factor that into our time-based calculations.

Your made-on-earth Timex will run FASTER on the Moon, or Mars, because those bodies are LESS massive that Earth. That needs to be accounted for in your navigation/communication algorithms/calculations.

A standard moon time that everybody uses in space has the same benefit standardized time (by zones) does on earth. We'll see.

View attachment 658753View attachment 658754
In
Click to expand...

That is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around, the idea that time goes by quicker with less gravity relative to earth. I guess that means if you live in a space station orbiting Jupiter everyone back on earth will age faster than you. Strange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pete Kaczmarski
Hagerty article, Imperial ambitions in the age of Exner and Eisenhower
Replies
9
Views
3K
LeBaron1973
LeBaron1973
Fratzog
A Bit of Steinbeck History
Replies
0
Views
1K
Fratzog
Fratzog
68PK21 440.6bbl
  • Locked
For Sale 1971 Plymouth Roadrunner NASCAR tribute - race day toy - $24000 (Ferris)
Replies
1
Views
4K
MarPar
MarPar
Turboomni
1969 Dodge, and the changes that should not have been made
Replies
15
Views
4K
fury fan
fury fan
Carmine
Do you like many types/eras of vehicles?
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
commando1
commando1
Back
Top