Recent comments in /f/space

Siliskk t1_j9ngs4u wrote

Reply to comment by Delicious_Wrap4944 in Time dilation question by [deleted]

Sorry for the continued questions but would this apply to galaxies further out towards the edge of the expanding universe considering the universe is expanding so fast that galaxies are moving away from us at (cant remember the exact speed) lets say lightspeed? Appreciate your time, just a boggling thought

1

Delicious_Wrap4944 t1_j9ngjm6 wrote

Reply to comment by Siliskk in Time dilation question by [deleted]

Yes but again it’s really only noticeable towards to unimaginable extremes with things like that we are talking only a few seconds maybe different for an entire year max. You probably can’t get to or will not survive anything that’s in the extremes

1

Delicious_Wrap4944 t1_j9ng8wk wrote

Reply to Time dilation question by [deleted]

It’s relative to gravity/speed time is slower on the space station than on the earth surface. It’s only really noticeable on the extreme scales of gravity or speed such as 99% the speed of light or a blackhole.

7

Decronym t1_j9nep56 wrote

Reply to Starship greenlit for launch after static fire test by DevilsRefugee

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASAT|Anti-Satellite weapon| |BFR|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)| | |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice| |FAA|Federal Aviation Administration| |ITAR|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

^(6 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 8 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8598 for this sub, first seen 23rd Feb 2023, 05:24]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

5

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9ncf1c wrote

Reply to comment by Makhnos_Tachanka in Relativity Space on Twitter: You’ve asked, “Wen Launch?” and to that, we say...👇 Catch us live at Launch Complex 16 in Cape Canaveral, FL on March 8, 2023 to watch the world’s first 3D printed rocket fly. 🚀 #GLHF by allforspace

I dont see the economics of building rockets on moon and mars until they have a complete industrial base and then, 3D printing is unlikely matter. In fact for a long time its likely there will be a surplus of rockets on Mars. Since (almost) everything will have to be imported, but little exported.

−2

OlympusMons94 t1_j9nbq1w wrote

Reply to comment by rocketsocks in Starship greenlit for launch after static fire test by DevilsRefugee

Which shenanigans?

Following US export laws?

Wanting to be paid for services rendered?

Not servicing enemy-occupied territories?

Not being able to instantly keep up with rapid advances and the fog of war to add service to recently-deoccupied territories?

Or just Musk's naive and ignorant tweets about Crimea and referendums that have no more bearing on Starlink or anything else in the real world than him challenging Putin to a duel?

15

hatersaurusrex t1_j9nbp42 wrote

Reply to comment by HoverboardViking in Honest question, what if we accepted the assumption that God created the universe 6,000 years ago, could this explain away dark matter and galaxy rotation? by DrMilzie

>Dark Matter and dark energy are hypothetical forms of matter and energy that we assume must exist to make the universe function the way it is.

Similar to the old concept of 'phlogiston'

When early scientists created a reaction that gave off invisible CO2 (like the baking soda and vinegar volcano of our childhoods) they couldn't figure out why the resultant material weighed less than the inputs. So they formulated a working theory that there was an invisible substance called phlogiston that had negative mass, and it allowed them to continue quantitative experiments while using that as a placeholder.

I look at the concepts you outlined the same way. We don't know what they are, we can only describe some of their properties. When a new breakthrough comes along that properly accounts for them the way the discovery of CO2 accounted for mass loss in chemical reactions, the theory will rectify and we'll move forward.

But skeptics then, as now, like to point out these failures as a failure of science - but the truth is these are just placeholders for science to stick a working model until they can understand what's in the black box.

1

Egg_Custard t1_j9nahil wrote

Reply to Honest question, what if we accepted the assumption that God created the universe 6,000 years ago, could this explain away dark matter and galaxy rotation? by DrMilzie

Modern science is based on the findings is experiments conducted according to the scientific method. Observations made by science are trusted because they are the result of unbiased data that can be replicated anywhere with the right equipment. Modern science is not based on assumptions. You can assume that God exists, or that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, or that a younger universe wouldn't need dark matter to have some of the the physical characters that ours does (I think that's what your getting at?) None of these assumptions mean anything because they are not accepted as scientific fact, and at least one of your assumptions (the 6,000 year thing) has been definitely disproven dozens of times by various scientific fields. I could assume that God is real and gives us all challenges to overcome, and that He guided you to make this post because He wanted you to understand creation through a scientific lens rather than a scriptural point of view. Judging by your edit that's asking too much.

1