Jump to content

1564402927_Comet2021Banner.jpg.a8d9e102cd65f969b635e8061096d211.jpg

toml42

Members
  • Posts

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by toml42

  1. Was observing Jupiter earlier and thought there was a particularly striking 'bruise', so i took a quick snap with my webcam. The only time i remember seeing a feature like this is in pictures after impact events, could that be what it is? Or are very dark features like that more common than I realise?

    321003_10152371104805713_34032953_n.jpg

    • Like 1
  2. Between my final exams, graduation, time abroad and the APALLING weather this year, it has been some time since I've managed to get out with a scope.

    The last two nights have been a lot of fun just getting to use the equipment at long last! I'm a little rusty, but here's what I've got so far:

    gallery_7340_2000_59199.jpg

    M92, 30x60 second. A nice easy one to start off with, to make sure I still knew how to work everything!

    gallery_7340_2000_5200.jpg

    Decided to go for something a bit more challenging and tracked down stefans quintet. Apparently my dark frames weren't quite up to scratch. Only managed about 15 minutes of data before simultaneous cloud cover and misted mirrors ended the night, but I'm quite pleased with the initial results, might try this one again!

    gallery_7340_2000_13919.jpg

    Night 2: Decided to go back to an old favourite, 203 x 60 second subs in H-alpha. I was delighted to find that I'd managed to capture the faint outer shell, so I assembled a composite image. I put it down to the significantly darker skies I get at home!

    I'm glad to be back in the game, and I'm looking forward to spending more time on this forum once more!

  3. I saw a paper a while back that actually proposed a starship engine under the assumption that dark matter was its own antiparticle.

    It was a fun piece of speculation, a gigantic dark matter scoop would gather up the particles and force them together, similar in concept to the old bussard ramjet.

  4. An open journal that has only been around for 3 years and published less than 30 papers doesn't really count as an established, reputable source - it's not clear how thorough their peer review process is, or if they have a broad enough base of specialists.

    In response to crater formation

    1. Why are meteor fragments often associated with meteor craters on Earth?

    2. Can plasmas account for minerals found in impact craters caused only by high velocity shocks?

    3. Where are these lightning bolts even supposed to be coming from? Jupiter? discharges over those ranges, of that power, with no clear source require a more thorough explanation and probably entirely new physics.

    4. why, when there are clearly high velocity rocks shooting around the solar system that could quite easily account for the craters with no exotic physics do we need to propose exotic solutions? the 'problems' with conventional theory really aren't apparent.

    5. Making pictures that look a little bit like impact craters doesn't constitute strong evidence

    The real reason, from what i can gather from all this, is that the EUers cannot abide the thought that the solar system exhibits geological weathering on impact craters that points to extreme age - so have to invent alternate explanations at any cost.

  5. When i debate someone who seems very set in their ways, i usually think "I can't change their mind, no matter how hard I try" but I think it's important for me to continue because there are potential bystanders who might not have made up their minds, in this internet age especially.

    It's the 'Undecided voters' i really want to reach, and if that means conducting a drawn out (civil) discussion with someone who's mind i know i can't change, that's fine. If i make my points well enough, and avoid ridicule or childish insults, then that might be what someone else needs to see in order to help them make an informed decision.

    I am a skeptic, but i assure you, given sufficient evidence, I'd update my views on anything, and happily accept i was wrong!

  6. I think that debate, especially over things that people hold sacred, is fundamentally a good thing. Without loud arguments for heliocentrism or evolution, for example - against people who were very set in their beliefs - we'd know a lot less than we do now. individuals may not be swayed easily, but over time the pressure builds up within a society and the opinions of the next generation may be different.

  7. I'm not quite sure i follow your point, are you saying we shouldn't seriously debate the big questions because people are so entrenched in their own opinions that it makes no difference, even when presented with evidence to the contrary?

    I'd change my opinion on UFOs or gods were i shown compelling evidence, although it's true there are many who don't or won't budge

  8. Darkstar, the problem with your hypothesis is that interference still occurs even if you fire your photons or electrons one at a time - individual particles seem to posses the ability to interfere with themselves.

    For all intents and purposes we've already 'solved' the quantum weirdness, quantum theory is one of the most accurate to date - even though our brains may never be able to fully grasp why!

  9. All of the statistical evidence so far points to true randomness (look up bells inequality). It is at least conceivable that some variant of the "hidden variables" theory could exist that is true... from where we stand right now though, it looks very unlikely that it is anything but random

    edit: this is the best explanation of bells inequality and its implications i've come across, much clearer than the wikipedia article, i think

    http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.