How the Universe Works
The more I read and watch programmes about this subject the harder it is for me to get my head around.
For example, as I understood it, at the centre of our galaxy is a super massive black hole. Yet in the episode I'm watching now they believe there could be up to 1000s of black holes. It's confusing because my understanding is that everything orbits the black hole in the same way the planets in our solar system orbit the sun.
They've also covered things I am only getting my head around like 'double pulsars'
I understand most solar systems are actually binary or even more than 2 stars. Our solar system is actually quite unique in that it's one star.
They finished the programme talking about how gravity destroys but also creates stars - it's a real head bender to say the least.
I appreciate this is quite a niche topic, but I know we have a few on here that enjoy this. Might be worth a look if you've got nothing else to do.
Comments
-
I've not seen this. Is it on Sky On Demand??
Love this sort of stuff.0 -
I thought it only took six days to create the heavens and the earth?0
-
Well I thought they could of been a bit more in depth and enlightening. I find this stuff all a bit basic. However I am a multi dimensional being/entity with no basis in the corporal universe. I flip in and out of this existence at Planck time speed.
Get yer chops round this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time0 -
Sounds interesting! I love watching anything 'science' related too.
If you look you can find a whole ton of interesting content on YouTube too. Some channels you may like are Vsauce, Veritasium and Sixtysymbols.
For example Vsauce discussing what it would be like to 'travel' in a black hole:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pAnRKD4raY
The concept of the proton sphere is mind-bending when he gets to that. Being close enough to a black hole would mean that light reflected off the back of your head would be pulled in and orbit the whole way around the black hole, eventually reaching your retina. You would literally be able to see the back of your own head!0 -
How many joints had you had before posting this? :-0cabbles said:Been around for a while this one on Discovery Science, but what an excellent show.
The more I read and watch programmes about this subject the harder it is for me to get my head around.
For example, as I understood it, at the centre of our galaxy is a super massive black hole. Yet in the episode I'm watching now they believe there could be up to 1000s of black holes. It's confusing because my understanding is that everything orbits the black hole in the same way the planets in our solar system orbit the sun.
They've also covered things I am only getting my head around like 'double pulsars'
I understand most solar systems are actually binary or even more than 2 stars. Our solar system is actually quite unique in that it's one star.
They finished the programme talking about how gravity destroys but also creates stars - it's a real head bender to say the least.
I appreciate this is quite a niche topic, but I know we have a few on here that enjoy this. Might be worth a look if you've got nothing else to do.0 -
Alas none Atletico. I'm able to watch this quite happily without the aid of any jointsAtletico Addick said:
How many joints had you had before posting this? :-0cabbles said:Been around for a while this one on Discovery Science, but what an excellent show.
The more I read and watch programmes about this subject the harder it is for me to get my head around.
For example, as I understood it, at the centre of our galaxy is a super massive black hole. Yet in the episode I'm watching now they believe there could be up to 1000s of black holes. It's confusing because my understanding is that everything orbits the black hole in the same way the planets in our solar system orbit the sun.
They've also covered things I am only getting my head around like 'double pulsars'
I understand most solar systems are actually binary or even more than 2 stars. Our solar system is actually quite unique in that it's one star.
They finished the programme talking about how gravity destroys but also creates stars - it's a real head bender to say the least.
I appreciate this is quite a niche topic, but I know we have a few on here that enjoy this. Might be worth a look if you've got nothing else to do.
1 -
Bloody hell. I'll look out for that. They referenced black holes last night. They both create and destroy. As although gravity sucks in a star, it can also reject it as well, hence what they said is a gamma ray burstJakeCAFC_94 said:Sounds interesting! I love watching anything 'science' related too.
If you look you can find a whole ton of interesting content on YouTube too. Some channels you may like are Vsauce, Veritasium and Sixtysymbols.
For example Vsauce discussing what it would be like to 'travel' in a black hole:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pAnRKD4raY
The concept of the proton sphere is mind-bending when he gets to that. Being close enough to a black hole would mean that light reflected off the back of your head would be pulled in and orbit the whole way around the black hole, eventually reaching your retina. You would literally be able to see the back of your own head!
Thanks for those mate I'll have a look0 -
VG I'm sure it would be. I've seen these ones knocking around for a while. It's Discovery Science.ValleyGary said:I've not seen this. Is it on Sky On Demand??
Love this sort of stuff.1 -
I love the fact that all the essential building blocks of life (including oxygen, I have just discovered) where created during the birth of stars in Nebulas.
By comparison the creationist belief of how god created everything is mundane.0 -
I do like particle physics as well, but I prefer astro. When dealing with particle physics it is harder for me to get my head around such a concept. The LHC has started up again now, doubling the speed at which they are accelerating particles and conducting experiments, so they should come up with some really interesting data.soapy_jones said:Well I thought they could of been a bit more in depth and enlightening. I find this stuff all a bit basic. However I am a multi dimensional being/entity with no basis in the corporal universe. I flip in and out of this existence at Planck time speed.
Get yer chops round this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time0 - Sponsored links:
-
Imagine the World is like an electron and the Universe we see is confined within the atom and the atom was part of a piece of wood which was the leg of a chair. Woodworm holes would be very difficult to explain if you didn't know about the life cycle of a beetle, but if you crawled through one they led to another strange World from which you never returned. And how on earth would we work out we came from a tree. It would be a World we could never access and would never comprehend.
The amazing thing is people like Stephen Hawkins have the imagination to envisage the unimaginable and describe a picture for us to try and re-create in our head. Trouble is we don't have their brains to compute it.
Keeps us busy wondering, but don't hold out much hope for understanding where the hell we fit into the scheme of things.3 -
Do we have to fit in? Or be part of the bigger scheme of things? Perhaps we just are.Dippenhall said:Imagine the World is like an electron and the Universe we see is confined within the atom and the atom was part of a piece of wood which was the leg of a chair. Woodworm holes would be very difficult to explain if you didn't know about the life cycle of a beetle, but if you crawled through one they led to another strange World from which you never returned. And how on earth would we work out we came from a tree. It would be a World we could never access and would never comprehend.
The amazing thing is people like Stephen Hawkins have the imagination to envisage the unimaginable and describe a picture for us to try and re-create in our head. Trouble is we don't have their brains to compute it.
Keeps us busy wondering, but don't hold out much hope for understanding where the hell we fit into the scheme of things.
It seems that (a large part of) humanity has a need to figure out why are we all here, but perhaps there is no reason. Perhaps it was all just chance or we are just vehicles for bacteria or something else. I think it is essential and interesting to discover what we are made from and where those bits came from (how they were made) but perhaps there is no purpose or master plan and therefore the future is ours to create and enjoy.0 -
So, even multi-dimensional beings don't know to use "have" instead of "of".soapy_jones said:Well I thought they could of been a bit more in depth and enlightening. I find this stuff all a bit basic. However I am a multi dimensional being/entity with no basis in the corporal universe. I flip in and out of this existence at Planck time speed.
Get yer chops round this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time6 -
Quantum physics and astro physics are in so many respects the same thing - just one looking in and one looking out but ultimately looking at the same four fundamental forces. But I undertsand what you are saying - it's easier to comprehend the very big over the very small.cabbles said:
I do like particle physics as well, but I prefer astro. When dealing with particle physics it is harder for me to get my head around such a concept. The LHC has started up again now, doubling the speed at which they are accelerating particles and conducting experiments, so they should come up with some really interesting data.0 -
I'm not a neuroscientist so I'm unqualified to say so.. but I believe that everyone has a similar brain capacity. If people really want to learn maths and the sciences then they are more than capable.
Sure some of the advanced concepts of quantum mechanics etc. may be difficult to get to grips with, but that doesn't make them impossible. If anything, it makes it more satisfying when it clicks or the jigsaw falls into place! The only way we can advance is to face up to challenges, rather than simply dismiss them for being too difficult.
The sad reality is that a lot of kids are told at school that maths and science are too complex. Far too difficult for anyone who isn't a 'boffin'.
It's really not surprising then that we've got a severe lack of scientists. If kids are told from the off that the subject matter is 'too difficult' to understand then there's no surprise that they aren't motivated to study it further. A shame because the rewards for doing so are enormous.0 -
Yep, I'm interested as to how much further they can go in trying unify the theories of those 4 forces. Scale was the first thing this author called Lisa Randall wrote about in a book I read called 'Knocking on Heaven's door'bobmunro said:
Quantum physics and astro physics are in so many respects the same thing - just one looking in and one looking out but ultimately looking at the same four fundamental forces. But I undertsand what you are saying - it's easier to comprehend the very big over the very small.cabbles said:
I do like particle physics as well, but I prefer astro. When dealing with particle physics it is harder for me to get my head around such a concept. The LHC has started up again now, doubling the speed at which they are accelerating particles and conducting experiments, so they should come up with some really interesting data.
worth a look0 -
The physiology of an individual brain in it's raw embryonic state is unique and based entirely on the combined DNA of both parents. Assuming there are no (or significant) chromosomal or genetic defects then yes, broadly speaking, the capability is similar but certainly not the same. The ultimate capability of a brain is a combination of inherited and environmental factors - the old nature/nurture debate. Exposure to certain and variable stimuli during the first five or so years has an equal if not greater impact on the development of brain capacity - the neural pathways and connections formed or exercised during those early years will determine capability during later life.JakeCAFC_94 said:I'm not a neuroscientist so I'm unqualified to say so.. but I believe that everyone has a similar brain capacity. If people really want to learn maths and the sciences then they are more than capable.
Sure some of the advanced concepts of quantum mechanics etc. may be difficult to get to grips with, but that doesn't make them impossible. If anything, it makes it more satisfying when it clicks or the jigsaw falls into place! The only way we can advance is to face up to challenges, rather than simply dismiss them for being too difficult.
The sad reality is that a lot of kids are told at school that maths and science are too complex. Far too difficult for anyone who isn't a 'boffin'.
It's really not surprising then that we've got a severe lack of scientists. If kids are told from the off that the subject matter is 'too difficult' to understand then there's no surprise that they aren't motivated to study it further. A shame because the rewards for doing so are enormous.
Having said all that bolloxs - we only understand a tiny fraction of the brain's development and function!0 -
Gravity is the problem though!! The greatest minds have been trying to prove the Unified Theory ever since Albert suggested it - they can unify electromagnetic, strong and weak but have singularly failed to add gravitational force to the unification. One day maybe - or maybe Einstein's theory was wrong!cabbles said:
Yep, I'm interested as to how much further they can go in trying unify the theories of those 4 forces. Scale was the first thing this author called Lisa Randall wrote about in a book I read called 'Knocking on Heaven's door'bobmunro said:
Quantum physics and astro physics are in so many respects the same thing - just one looking in and one looking out but ultimately looking at the same four fundamental forces. But I undertsand what you are saying - it's easier to comprehend the very big over the very small.cabbles said:
I do like particle physics as well, but I prefer astro. When dealing with particle physics it is harder for me to get my head around such a concept. The LHC has started up again now, doubling the speed at which they are accelerating particles and conducting experiments, so they should come up with some really interesting data.
worth a look0 -
fascinating. I do love this stuff but it winds me up at the same time no end. Its unbelieveable to think that there are more solar systems out there than grains of sand on planet earth. Where does it stop, we will never ever know. Sometimes i go into a trance thinking about all and its a weird feeling.0
-
That's exactly how I feel. We can't get our heads round it. We are the size we are and to imagine either something at a super massive size or something down at the quantum/planck level is beyond us. The physicists have the benefit of the maths and understanding the figures, and do a great job (one I would love to do).Sonicstud85 said:fascinating. I do love this stuff but it winds me up at the same time no end. Its unbelieveable to think that there are more solar systems out there than grains of sand on planet earth. Where does it stop, we will never ever know. Sometimes i go into a trance thinking about all and its a weird feeling.
Check this out
Imagine being in an area where the light pollution is minimal and you get views like
http://www.universetoday.com/118788/a-night-sky-timelapse-you-dont-want-to-miss/0 - Sponsored links:
-
Anyone here tried that Bill Bryson book. 'A Brief History of Almost Everything'? Very good if your physics did'nt go much beyond O Level, and a good read. Like most science stuff these days though, probably out of date on publication.1
-
Great book but I think the word history gives a clue as to where it's at. More of a history of scientific investigation than an up to date primer.0
-
All true Stig, but it got as far as string theory and multiple dimensions which is a step beyond me.
Mind you, I bought a10" telescope to see stuff in the sky! The astro stuff fascinates me!0 -
