10-year old girl discovers, photographs supernova

[malic_2]

---

If you look up at the night sky, most of what you see happened thousands, if not millions of years ago. When we look up into the night sky, we are seeing mostly the past, and not the present. That star you're looking at might have exploded or winked out thousands of years ago--what you're seeing now is light that started its journey thousands of years ago and just now, hitting your retina.

Thus, if there are some alien civilizations out there, who are of equal technological standing with us, then if they are able to point their telescopes at our Sun, and let's just say they are a little more advanced than us in terms of optics, and they see earth, they might see a "lifeless" world, if their distance from us is equal in years to the pre-Cambrian period.

-RODION

this is an interesting subject. So if some alien civilizations watching us right now,what they are actually seeing is a dead world? Why are we even talking?

[yhokz101]

mohunong ba kaha ang pag.travel sa light? like ana nga dugay na kau 240millions years na. ug asa kaha kutob?

- from what they said ako lang e relay is that light could be stopped or rather be faded in time.. not that it travels infinitely but it could travel so fast with great distances until it strikes on something. Like any other light it could be weakened by something, could be absorbed, reflected.. like when it reached earth esp. when it enters in our atmosphere, air and pollution could be the ones that can cause to weakened the light. imho lang ni...

[yhokz101]

this is an interesting subject. So if some alien civilizations watching us right now,what they are actually seeing is a dead world? Why are we even talking?

- a dead world? ...they are seeing the past.. precambrian period brad?.. where macroscopic hard-shelled animals first appeared in abundance so technically not a dead world after all..

[rodsky]

- a dead world? ...they are seeing the past.. precambrian period brad?.. where macroscopic hard-shelled animals first appeared in abundance so technically not a dead world after all..

malic's error is that he failed to see that I used quotes on the word lifeless.

-RODION

[ferma2]

Thanks.. have learned a lot. I think i'll be hanging around in the science section starting today.

Fact 1. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light

-RODION

That's a fact for NOW. It will be pretty cool to be able to travel to a far galaxy and then study earth more accurately.

[stealthghost]

amazing...

question: how far can light travel? naa ba sad calculation kanus.a muhunong og travel ang light? kung wla na makita nato ron katong ni explode na star does this mean ang journey sa light ni end napud?

IMHO, depende sa brightness or Candella?? (something ingon ana, I don't know the correct term)

Example, magpasiga ko og LED through AA battery at 1km.. nya tan.awa kung ma-klaro ba sa layo..

unya pananglitan at 500 meters, constant ang brightness og maklaro ang LED,
then the Battery is at it's weak point and slowly dies,
from 500 meters mo-decrease ang visibility sa LED at some rate
until the battery dies and so the LED is not lit anymore.

but correct me if I'm wrong..

[rodsky]

That's a fact for NOW.

Listen up, all of you, so that this issue will be straightened out.

People really do not understand the principle as to why this is not only a fact "for now"...this is fact and it will remain fact forever. The term "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" is not some metaphor nor a philosophical statement--the foundation for the statement is a mathematical principle. Basically, when you guys keep saying "Oh one day we can travel at (or faster than) the speed of light" is like saying "Oh one day, a number divided by zero will produce SOMETHING OTHER THAN UNDEFINED". Now, pause for a moment and ponder deeply on that last statement and see how totally RIDICULOUS it sounds.

Now, I know why most of you think that this "light barrier" will be broken "someday"--most of you are thinking like this "Well, once upon a time, they said that the "sound barrier" CANNOT be broken, but it was broken lagi (by Chuck Yeager in the Bell X-1)! Sa ato pa, kaang "light barrier", ma break pod na one day..." Now, pause and ponder again...is this really a mathematical issue here? No, the reason why the sound barrier was hard to break before, was that because in the realm of engineering, there was as yet no design nor the materials needed for an aircraft that could do it. But when the Bell X-1 was invented, it was indeed broken, but what they solved was an engineering problem, not a mathematical principle.

In short people, if mathematical principle imong kontrahon, mobangga dyud ka sa pader, kay bisan usaon nimo, a mathematical principle will always remain a mathematical principle.

Now, don't think for a minute that I personally don't think we can reach the stars in a quick and rapid method someday...screeches to a halt, what did I just do back there? See? It's in the wording--when I said reach the stars in a quick and rapid method, I WAS NOT CHALLENGING the mathematical principle of "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"...instead, I took the problem and approached it from another angle that perhaps would allow to travel quickly around the universe WITHOUT having to deal with the problem associated with the speed of light. See the difference now? Yes, in this space, you are ALLOWED to insert concepts like the warping of space/time, wormholes, tachyon speeds and etc. BUT, BUT, never ever mention "faster than the speed of light" again, because again (sigh) "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

-RODION

[yhokz101]

Pardon me Rods, I was caught by this statement "the reason why the sound barrier was hard to break before, was that because in the realm of engineering, there was as yet no design nor the materials needed for an aircraft that could do it." - Similarly, what I was thinking is that maybe for now we could not attain to break the speed of light simply because we don't have the right technology, materials or even the knowledge. This could be a far fetch reasoning "for now" but imho I am not literally taking "breaking the speed of light" as a fact forever.. i could be wrong but just my thought. I like your thinking on "we can reach the stars in a quick and rapid method someday"..

[rodsky]

Pardon me Rods, I was caught by this statement "the reason why the sound barrier was hard to break before, was that because in the realm of engineering, there was as yet no design nor the materials needed for an aircraft that could do it." - Similarly, what I was thinking is that maybe for now we could not attain to break the speed of light simply because we don't have the right technology, materials or even the knowledge. This could be a far fetch reasoning "for now" but imho I am not literally taking "breaking the speed of light" as a fact forever.. i could be wrong but just my thought. I like your thinking on "we can reach the stars in a quick and rapid method someday"..

It's not an engineering issue. It's a mathematical one. If you're familiar with the rule of asymptotes, the issue is very similar, why? Read this:

SPECIAL RELATIVITY: WHY CAN'T YOU GO FASTER THAN LIGHT? — An Essay by W. Daniel Hillis [page 3]

-RODION

[yhokz101]

It's not an engineering issue. It's a mathematical one. If you're familiar with the rule of asymptotes, the issue is very similar, why? Read this:

SPECIAL RELATIVITY: WHY CAN'T YOU GO FASTER THAN LIGHT? — An Essay by W. Daniel Hillis [page 3]

-RODION

- Done reading it.. naaah! i believe we could go faster than light ( kidding ), thanks for the link Rods. It enlightens me on this matter.. indeed. So much to be learned.. and from that article/essay I could say that going faster than the speed of light is way too impossible. The "we can reach the stars in a quick and rapid method" is more attainable.