Svenito

This is a great overview of dark matter

Seems to work for me. Trued it from tapatalk. Will double check when I get to a desktop

But maybe it's a bit big? No problem http://i.imgur.com/JjmObaa.jpg

Absolutely magnificent. As much as I wish for dark skies to be able to see this, I can imagine it makes finding constellations with the naked eye a little trickier.

I just found this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ZOgKIsqEA which gives a brief overview of why people believe it to exist. The rest of the videos are very interesting too, both the astronomy and thought experiments... worth trawling through

I just found this and it looks pretty neat, so I thought I would share. Ideal for any astronomer skilled with woodworking. Folds down fairly compact and, correct me if I am wrong, is an equatorial mount http://thadlabs.com/MAPUG/AstroDesigns/TrpdSled/portable_scope_stand/Portable_Telescope_Stand.html

Yup, our galaxy is indeed a beauty. A different experience looking at a galaxy from the inside than it is from looking at one from the outside. Image what it'll be like when we merge with Andromeda.

As far as I understand it dark matter isn't in a place, so it's not where to look, but how to look. Given that they know it's there mathematically to make the motion of the universe work, it's clear it doesn't interact with anything. It doesn't interact with radio waves, light, or any other matter (so far) and thus it's not possible to be detected right know. So they need to work on how to detect/measure it. Neutrinos were undetectable for a long time because of how weakly they interact with matter, yet scientists believed them to exist and eventually built a device that could detect them. What possible use will it have? Right now no one knows because they don't know what it is. What use are neutrinos, quarks and particles of that ilk, if not only to help us (as a race) to understand how stuff works and from that be able to create new things. Until they figure out what dark matter really is, we won't know if it's any use or if we can make any use out of the knowledge of dark matter. I still have trouble grasping the concept of something not interacting with anything, as it's a pretty unusual concept when you're used to being able to touch a lot of things or feel the effects of them at least.

LA has had a large portion of their streetlights swapped for LEDs and they seem to have made a vast difference. Although it's hard to tell if these photos have been "enhanced" or not, but still, people are sounding positive about them http://cleantechla.international.ucla.edu/projects/article.asp?parentid=1308 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/los-angeles-has-swapped-out-140-000-street-lights-for-highly-efficient-leds.html

"You will be able to see the rings around Saturn in all their pixelated splendor" Or perhaps "Product image similar to the quality of resulting photos when enlarged to sufficient viewing size"

ronin: Yes, perhaps evolve was not the best word to use to convey what I meant. I meant for life to form in different, or what we would deem, unsuitable environments. But reading what James read got me thinking that perhaps the life we have here is how it is because it's the easiest way to exist. Specifically the properties of the various compounds life on this planet metabolises. But then, if there's nothing else available, then whatever there is, ammonia or other, would be come the simplest thing to break down. I find the whole matter of what could be very interesting, and I totally accept that it's very speculative, as we cannot be certain what tricks nature has up its sleeve, but with a good knowledge of chemistry and physics, we must be able to get an idea what kinds of chemicals can be used by organisms and which cannot, or at least what combination of compounds must exist for the possibility of life. But then it's also a matter of other factors I guess, temperature, pressure, gravity etc, as I imagine everything will behave differently. So many variables.... By salt I think they meant the traditional NaCl btw As for Mars, it's entirely possible that some rudimentary life form had a brief existence there before it couldn't manage to survive the conditions. I would assume it's entirely possible for planets to temporarily become hosts to a simple life form which may or may not make it through the next stages of evolution, or am I talking cobblers now? Enjoying reading your thoughts

I think it was a local body they had probed, but I cannot recall from memory, I am sorry. Clearly the level of salt will be a factor, but the question I was wondering about is whether it is ever wise to say "this cannot support life" but yes, then we need to discuss what "life" is. Cath: I am pretty sure there is life out there somewhere. I know us being here is a huge coincidence and required a lot of things to happen by chance, and yet here we are. So given the number of other bodies out there, statistically something similar could have happened elsewhere. I was just a bit taken aback by the blanket statement of "this cannot support life because of these conditions", when the only life we know is the life we have here, which has evolved based on its environment as it is here on Earth. I just got to wondering if there really are conditions that mean there cannot categorically be any life.

I've heard this on a science podcast (naked astronomy if I'm not mistaken) where it was said that planet X does not have the right conditions for life as its water contains too much salt. I understand what they mean, but surely that's only the case for life as we know it. Is it not possible that an organism can evolve to survive in salty conditions, or conditions we currently think are unsuitable? I am aware that there are certain limited number of building blocks for life across the entire universe, so I am sure there are conditions that are entirely unsuitable for all life, but I was just a bit surprised by the statement being so matter-of-fact. The arsenic based lifeform that was discovered not too long ago would be one example, or did was that something that was deemed possible, just not yet discovered? Or perhaps I am wrong in assuming that life can evolve so diverse given that we all share the same laws of physics and the same set of chemical building blocks for life.

Interestingly it's the apparently dark sky friendly LED lamps that will cause him issue. I started a thread about LED lights a while back and in there there is some good info on how effective they are in reducing the night sky glare. But the draw back is that they cannot be so easily filtered. Although in that same thread there's also talk that the sodium lamps also have a fairly broad spectrum. Thread here: http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/202474-led-streetlamps-do-you-have-them/ Still, a very nice setup he has there.

A lot of valid points have been said, and I totally understand how you feel. I used to go diving a fair bit, but now my kit has been sitting in its box for over 2 years. Mostly because the amount of effort required to pack up, drive to the coast for two 1 hour dives is quite a lot. The same goes for lugging out a big scope. I haven't had my scope (compact mak) out because we have two small kids and I don't want them to damage it. But I am looking forward to teaching them how to use it when they are older. Much in the same way I hope one of them might take an interest in diving some day - that's quite a few years away. I also had quite a long period where I had no urge to go star gazing, but recently I have re-discovered the joy of the night sky and I you will too one day. Keep hold of the gear, you never know when you wish you had it again, or perhaps, invest in something smaller if you don't think you will use it a lot, or like someone else said, try indoor AP. Going to a local club to meet with other like minded people will also boost your interest again, I am sure. I hope your spirits will lift soon.