Starship Asterisk*

Back after Christmas, and what is there to add?! Fabulous....

Neutrinos are a possibility but Harry - it is still not known whether or not they have mass. The most recent experiments seem to suggest that they could be massless - there is a very small cap placed on the possible mass - probably much less than a fifth of an electron... Orca, I agree about the spo...

Another interesting element to throw into the discussion:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/21marswater/

A core of a galaxy? Depends on the galaxy I suppose... One thing to note is that even at the centres of galaxies where the density is much greater, the ratio of the space between the stars and the stars themselves is still huge..... even when galaxies merge core on core it is still highly unlikely t...

I'll say hello if I see them

I don't think anyone knows for sure Harry, a lot of the rings are held in place by 'shepherd' moons that hold the particles in place - some of the moons are also replenishing the rings as technically, ring systems aren't that stable.

Well for a start Harry, we definitely live in a 4 dimensional world - x,y,z and time.....

The dimensions are implied by the maths.

Orca wrote:What about neutrinos...mass or no mass? If they do indeed have even the smallest amount of mass, they would account for a large chunk of dark matter.

Exactly - any of the 'inos' predicted by supersymmetry - though most of them would be stabel enough.

Due to their position and shape I would say it's just a photographic exposure effect. It's still uncertain as to whether or not the globular clusters are housing intermediate mass black holes - the velocities of the central star does suggest that a lot of them do - though their motions can be explai...

Are we ever going to get back to the original question: does dark matter exist or are we seeing the product of some other phenomenon? I think it all depends on whether supersymmetry can be proved, if it can, then there's plenty of room for all sorts of weird and wonderful types of matter such and W...

No, we view many different galaxies at many different angles, as ar as I'm aware there no relation of that sort. Worth a question though!

In proportion of their diameter.

If you scaled the rings diameter down to the length of a razor blade, the rings would be much thinner than said blade.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051218.html I noticed the greater population of stars seem to be away from the core of the galaxy. Is this the case or are the stars within the center camouflaged due to the abundant light in the core? Comments please!!! Orin The core seems like one like source be...

Well thank you harry - as do you - I've never know somebody spawn so many discussions! I currently work as a software developer but I read Astrophysics at Keele University in England, unfortunately, there's not a lot of call for astrophysicists in southwest England.... :( Still, got this board to ke...

gordhaddow wrote: Actually, there is at least one theory out there that assumes 27 dimensions

That's very true - though I was thinking more of the theories that have many followers - but indeed, whatever the number of dimensions, we are stuck in our percepted 4....

Merry Xmas to you to Harry! What I mean is that you've got your protostars and young stars, then you've got your main sequence stars and then you've got your 'dead' stars (with a few steps inbetween but that's the general line...). White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, Black Holes etc... are all 'dead' stars...

The problem is that everything we see around us and study is in the 4-dimensional world. If some of the current theories are correct, and there could be as many as 11 dimensions (not that I'm qualified at all to say if/how correct they are!), there's nothing stopping and contraction in our dimension...

harry wrote:Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you are 110% right

In four dimensions yes... but not in more.

While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon.

Not quite...but certainly very interesting 8)

Harry, you really shouldn't rely on web links for information.... Try reading some scientific papers - these contain the research, the web links contain summarys, and are often added to by the authors... There's some interesting info in the link above, but there's also a lot of assumptions and holes...

Yes but neutron stars are dead cores - there is no fusion occuring in around or near a neutron star. The star is compressed by gravity, but this isn't strong enough to overcome neutron degeneracy, if it were it would collapse into a black hole... You seems to be a little confused with regard to stel...

harry wrote:smile,again,,,,,,,,,,,,, the universe did not start from a point in space and the big bang never happened.

...in your opinion. Need to add that.

I've heard the recent theory about the sun having a solid surface - a thin layer of predominantly iron where is it cool enough to exist

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

I have to admit I'm not convinced by their arguments - but I think this is what Harry is referring to.

harry wrote:I did not say that Iron is part of the powering of the sun.
It is one of its byproducts

How can Iron be a by-product of fusion in the sun?

harry wrote:As for evidence one day I will catch up on that.

Please do!

I was looking more at the angle of the shadow - but that's something I forgot of course....