Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Cool, New Views of Andromeda Galaxy

infrared astronomy herschel andromeda galaxy messier 31 esa

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16    Hugh

Hugh

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto

  • We are much more than we seem to be. :)

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:57 AM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 01 April 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

All positive thoughts right there,but with all the problems we currently have just thinking about going to mars i can foresee a complete reset of humanity several times over before we ever will get to our next nearest star.To many problems,to many complications with space travel add that to the incredible rate at which we are destroying our own planet,i do not think we have another million years of our current rate of technology before us.I know this sounds pessimistic to some,but seems realistic to others.

There will be pockets of humanity that will likely survive anything that is to come.

The further into the future these calamaties happen, the more chance some will survive, because we will be more technologically advanced, and there are those that can see what will happen and will be prepared.

I wish I could be alive myself to see all that is to come... the realization that not only our Milky Way galaxy, and the Andromeda galaxy, are full of all kinds of other life, but the vast, whole universe including all the other billions of galaxies are full of life too. :)


#17    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,940 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 31 March 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

The analogy with puffs of smoke may be wrong.

If one 'puff of smoke' is hydrogen gas, and the other 'puff of smoke' chloride gas, you think nothing much will happen?

H2 and Cl2 have to be close together to form 2HCl, and you can bet it happens in measurable amounts.


Wow! So much wrong in one, three sentence post, I almost don't know where to begim.

You have totally failed to understand the entire point of my analogy, which has nothing to do with chemistry. It is to do with the fact that galaxies are mostly empty space. They cam pass through one another without there being any collisions of any of the stars, that was the point I was making. The same also holds true for nebulae, the chance of collisions, even when galaxies are colliding, is very small.

Next you don't seem to know something even as basic as what smoke is (although the fact that you have placed 'puff of smoke' within speech marks it is possible that you do know but are deliberately using the term incorrectly).

A cloud of hydrogen or chlorine CAN NOT be described as a "puff of smoke". The definition of smoke is:

TheFreeDictionary.com said:

1. The vaporous system made up of small particles of carbonaceous matter in the air, resulting mainly from the burning of organic material, such as wood or coal.
2. A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium.
3. A cloud of fine particles.
4. Something insubstantial, unreal, or transitory.
5.

a. The act of smoking a form of tobacco: went out for a smoke.
b. The duration of this act.

6. Informal Tobacco in a form that can be smoked, especially a cigarette: money to buy smokes.
7. A substance used in warfare to produce a smoke screen.
8. Something used to conceal or obscure.
9. A pale to grayish blue to bluish or dark gray.

Posted Image Source

None of these definitions are a valid description of a gas cloud.

When it comes to chemistry, you chose a very poor example to illustrate your (incorrect) argument. Do yo know what happens if you mix a cloud of H2 and Cl2 together in the blackness of space? Absolutely nothing is the answer. That reaction requires ultraviolet light to set it in action.

Next, where are these clouds of chlorine gas? Whilst astronomers have detected HCl molecules in space they have not detected Cl2. There do not appear to be huge clouds of chlorine floating around out there. Chlorine was not created in the Big Bang, it is generated in supernovae. It is pretty much always found in space as the chloride ion in molecules such as HCl, Kcl, Nacl, AlCl, etc. It is not found as molecular chlorine.

You don't appear to understand the nature of nebulae either. From your post you make it seem like there are densely packed clouds of molecules out there. Nothing could be further from the truth. whilst nebulae may look substantial to us that is only because of how vast they are. in fact they are, to all intents and purposes, still a vacuum. The space between molecules in a nebula is massive. Even if there were clouds of molecular hydrogen colliding with clouds of molecular chlorine in the presence of sufficient UV there won't be an explosive reaction. The two clouds are so sparse that reactions would occur slowly over millions of years.

Sorry Abramelin but if you are going to argue a point, first make sure you understand the point to begin with and then make sure the facts are on your side.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#18    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,940 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:09 PM

View PostHugh, on 01 April 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:



Think of what we thought was "impossible" a few hundred years ago.

Think of what we can now do with our new knowledge, yes, many things that were once thought to be "impossible".

Fast forward a million years worth of scientific study, then a billion... think of what will be possible...

Look at the current rate of knowledge growth and extrapolate... envision what is to be...

We're only in the extreme infancy of our studies right now.

There is much, much more to the universe to be discovered. :)
I agree with all these points but it doesn't change the fact that (to quote Montgomery Scott), "Ye cannae change the laws of physics!"

We will never be able to do what the laws of nature forbid. Those rules are hard wired into the universe.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#19    Hugh

Hugh

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto

  • We are much more than we seem to be. :)

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:00 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 01 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:


I agree with all these points but it doesn't change the fact that (to quote Montgomery Scott), "Ye cannae change the laws of physics!"

We will never be able to do what the laws of nature forbid. Those rules are hard wired into the universe.

What we now may consider as unbreakable laws of nature may be shown to not apply under certain conditions, under which other, yet undiscovered laws apply.

Scotty was right, but my point is that there are yet undiscovered laws.

The other day I looked up at a huge plane flying overhead and thought that if someone from a couple of hundred years ago would have been able to see all that heavy metal up there in the "thin air", and not crashing to the ground, that they would likely think it was magic.

Think of how scientists from a million years from now will look upon the knowledge of today's scientists. :)


#20    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,125 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:56 AM

Waspie the reason I used two gases is not that I equate gas with smoke, I used it because in those gasses the molecules are also very far apart. But the molecules do react, and yes, under the influence of UV light.

I know this is not about chemistry and also not about gasses in space.

Like you made an analogy with puffs of smoke, I made an analogy with reacting gasses.

I also did not 'attack' your analogy based on there not being 'puffs of smoke' in space, didn't I?

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 April 2013 - 08:04 AM.


#21    s33ker

s33ker

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2012
  • Location:Australia

  • Believe anything until proven otherwise, otherwise believe nothing until proven.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:42 PM

How beautiful.


#22    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,940 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:43 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 02 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Waspie the reason I used two gases is not that I equate gas with smoke,
Then why call gases smoke in the first place? If even the most basic terminology you use is wrong why should anything else in your post be taken seriously?

View PostAbramelin, on 02 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

I used it because in those gasses the molecules are also very far apart.

Your analogy is still totally false. The force of gravity is far weaker than the electromagnetic force which cause the attraction of atoms to each other. Scale up your smoke gas clouds to the same size as galaxies and they will behave very differently.

View PostAbramelin, on 02 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

But the molecules do react
Just as two nearby stars chemically react with each other except, wait a minute, THEY DON'T.

You aren't even comparing apples and oranges here, you are comparing apples with elephants.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#23    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,125 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 06 April 2013 - 11:01 PM

You're totally over the top.

Your analogy is flawed, and that's all I said.

Quote

A collision between galaxies is a bit like a collision between two puffs of smoke.

Shall we analyze your analogy like you did mine?

First: there are NO 'puffs of smoke' in space. If there are, show us please.

My analogy is flawed too, I admit it.

Now it's your turn again. I know that will be hard for you...

.

Edited by Abramelin, 06 April 2013 - 11:07 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users