Recent comments in /f/space

Negative-Fan8460 OP t1_j8vz8rt wrote

Reply to comment by PoppersOfCorn in Shouldn't the universe be a hollow sphere ? by Negative-Fan8460

No, let's take inflating a balloon for an example.you blow air to it and it expands (take that as big bang) now that it expanded it's hollow inside(there's only air in it) now mark 2 points on opposite sides of the balloon. Imagine that our Galaxy is at one point and at the point onopposite side is another Galaxy. We might be looking at that galaxy and then observe that there's lot of empty space in the middle( middle of balloon filled with air). But we don't see anything like that so big bang is fake?

−6

demanbmore t1_j8vz2tx wrote

Reply to Shouldn't the universe be a hollow sphere ? by Negative-Fan8460

It's not that we can't figure out the center of the universe, it's that there is no center of the universe. The big bang didn't explode out from a single point, it happened everywhere at the same time. It's difficult to picture intuitively, but think of it like an infinite elastic sheet with every point on the sheet one plank length away from every neighboring point (or just think of them as really, really, really, really close together). Then stretch the sheet in all directions so that the distance between the points doubles, then doubles again, then again, etc. Now imagine the sheet as a three-dimensional infinite object (or just infinite sheets one on top of the other starting a plank length apart), and now stretch that stack of infinite sheets in all directions so that the distance between any point and its neighbors doubles, then doubles again, and again, etc. This is kinda sorta what the big bang was. It happened everywhere and distances between points in the universe just kept getting bigger ad bigger and bigger (and they still are). There's no single place where that expansion started (i.e., no center). The expansion happened everywhere.

3

Aubrimethieme t1_j8vy051 wrote

Reply to comment by XueShiLong in If someone were to hypothetically put a sun next to ours as a binary system, would this increase the length of the habitable zone radius of the system? by Country_Royal

That was my first thought as well lol.

If we naturally had a binary system, then the habitable zone would be farther than it is for our system as it's technically double the solar energy bashing planets in the face.

5

EarthSolar t1_j8vxjz2 wrote

Reply to comment by Lampposthead2526 in If someone were to hypothetically put a sun next to ours as a binary system, would this increase the length of the habitable zone radius of the system? by Country_Royal

It's a little funny to hear Mercury mining now that I know it's weirdly iron-poor on the surface. Despite having the highest core fraction, its surface is really lacking in that stuff. I wonder what resources can be found on the Mercurian surface - I recall carbon is one, but not sure about other stuff aside from the usual silicates.

1

Carbidereaper t1_j8vnatv wrote

Reply to If someone were to hypothetically put a sun next to ours as a binary system, would this increase the length of the habitable zone radius of the system? by Country_Royal

Only if the sun is within 160 million miles from earth (earth to the sun is 93 million miles and mars closest approach to earth is 70 million miles) of corse putting a sun at that distance would destabilize all of the orbits of the gas giants and cause Jupiter’s orbit to to become so eccentric that it would gravitationally either kick the inner planets out of our star system or send them falling into the sun

1

TheGreatestOutdoorz t1_j8vflok wrote

Reply to comment by powerman228 in NEW JWST DEEP FIELD - Pandora's Cluster by GeoGeoGeoGeo

They are from two different diffraction effects. The shorter “rays” are from the secondary mirror in front of the main mirror, the longer ones are from the hexagonal shaped mirrors. Both produce what look like six point “stars”, but since four of the effects of each mirror are at the same angles, they overlap, making the eight point “star”

7