Space and the wonders of the universe
Facts from science.Right now, in this very moment, we are all traveling through space — and space is only some 62 miles from the surface of our planet. Earth revolves around the sun at around 66,000 miles per hour. That’s pretty quick, but it pales in comparison to the speed of the sun, which orbits the Milky Way in one galactic year (about 225 million Earth years) at about 483,000 miles per hour. Still not fast enough? Well, the Milky Way itself is traveling at an astounding 1.3 million miles per hour.
We are all, therefore, traveling through space at an incredible speed, with everything we know and love held in place by gravity. Space and the wider universe, however, largely remain a mystery. Only in recent decades have we even begun to venture beyond our own atmosphere, beginning in 1961 when cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.
Since then, space exploration has progressed rapidly, and humanity becoming a space-faring civilization — at least to other planets in our solar system — is now a real possibility. As Carl Sagan said in the 1980s, “We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.”
The concept is mind-boggling and majestic, intimidating and inspiring. It’s no surprise, then, that space has long been the subject of much wonder and speculation in the minds of people from all walks of life. Here are some quotes on the majesty of space, from philosophers, scientists, science fiction writers, astronauts, and beyond. astounding 1.3 million miles per hour.
Comments (63)
Nah Mr. Fargo? I'm not truly expecting anything positive from him really.
Thanks for commenting Merlot.
Well, that is unlikely. You are probably referring to the depth of the atmosphere which is often quoted as roughly 60 miles. Could that be it? Space, being a dimension, is conceptually infinite.
-gravity is space. It's the curvature of space.
-A body travels through space (or any other dimension) relative to some other frame of reference, so it all depends on what your reference is. Lets assume for simplicity that both you and I are stationary. Since both you and I are on the surface of the earth, then we are not travelling through space with respect to each other (or the earth), yet both of us are travelling through space with respect to the sun.
Well, that is unlikely. You are probably referring to the depth of the atmosphere which is often quoted as roughly 60 miles. Could that be it? Space, being a dimension, is conceptually infinite.
-gravity is space. It's the curvature of space.
-A body travels through space (or any other dimension) relative to some other frame of reference, so it all depends on what your reference is. Lets assume for simplicity that both you and I are stationary. Since both you and I are on the surface of the earth, then we are not travelling through space with respect to each other (or the earth), yet both of us are travelling through space with respect to the sun.
It's what's quoted.
The question of one of my students was: "why did we stop exploring more?"
Per record, it's not a feasible venture for humans (yet) to adapt in the environment.
Another thing is, the cost benefit of such a massive endeavor is not good.
Third who knows, maybe the government is up ahead but wants it to be a secret.
I've always wondered myself
Did you know that the moon is hollow?
Did you know that the moon hasn't always been here?
And also...the moon has a very negative energy.
Look at all the "lunatics" on this planet
But, as I'm sure you know, the word lunatic comes from luna = moon.
I spent 30 years of my existence dispelling such nonsense on here, and I even dared think that I convinced you. Alas, you can only lead a horse to water.
I spent 30 years of my existence dispelling such nonsense on here, and I even dared think that I convinced you. Alas, you can only lead a horse to water.
Two questions.
The photo of the "first step" appears to have been taken from outside, how did that happen?
And the photo of a footprint is too clear and perfect, for a planet with no gravity, how can that be?
Two questions.
The photo of the "first step" appears to have been taken from outside, how did that happen?
And the photo of a footprint is too clear and perfect, for a planet with no gravity, how can that be?
2. Who said that the moon don't have gravity? It do. Every mass does (including an oil tanker for example, yourself, myself etc). The moon's acceleration due to gravity is ~1.6 m/s^2 (which is about a sixth that of the earth) but that's enough to leave an imprint in the soft, dusty lunar surface.
Well, 'believing' in the lunar landing/s is not a matter of belief really. We have plenty of independently verified evidence to support that claim.
Moo landing and cows.
How hilarious it is that none of you ever want to think about the significance of the speed our earth is doing if only to be in sync of a greater, far more force and speed than the earth itself and bigger yet and most of all, the biggest entity like that of the Milky Way that we're re part of.
I get it, the simplicity of your understanding and acceptance of what we are isn't reflected in the composition of this outstanding and ever mysterious universe we're in.
As soon as I read this, it made me think, wow. After a little bit more, I simply can't think of any explanation how such a marvelous creation, how such a magnificent function has been perfectly synchronized if only I can breathe and live in harmony of it all. But wait. There's so much chaos around me. It's not perfect after all.
But who needs perfection? Ha? Who wants it?
Yes, that's not the question. The question is, why do we have a mind that doesn't get im sync with everyone?
That's a good question isn't it? Who cares about anything else?
2. Who said that the moon don't have gravity? It do. Every mass does (including an oil tanker for example, yourself, myself etc). The moon's acceleration due to gravity is ~1.6 m/s^2 (which is about a sixth that of the earth) but that's enough to leave an imprint in the soft, dusty lunar surface.
Well, 'believing' in the lunar landing/s is not a matter of belief really. We have plenty of independently verified evidence to support that claim.
F=G{\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}}
F = force
G = gravitational constant
m_1 = mass of object 1
m_2 = mass of object 2
r = distance between centers of the masses
About
In physics, gravity is a fundamental interaction which causes all things with mass or energy to be attracted toward one another.
Acceleration: 9.8 m/s/s
Ok let's discuss anything about science, physics, etc. Anyone?
2. Who said that the moon don't have gravity? It do. Every mass does (including an oil tanker for example, yourself, myself etc). The moon's acceleration due to gravity is ~1.6 m/s^2 (which is about a sixth that of the earth) but that's enough to leave an imprint in the soft, dusty lunar surface.
Well, 'believing' in the lunar landing/s is not a matter of belief really. We have plenty of independently verified evidence to support that claim.
I'll leave question 1 open for better answers.
I'll leave question 1 open for better answers.
If an electric train is going west at 80mph, with the wind behind, ie helping it, which direction will the steam be going?
If an electric train is going west at 80mph, with the wind behind, ie helping it, which direction will the steam be going?
If a tree falls in a forest and there's noone around, did it make a sound?
If a tree falls in a forest and there's noone around, did it make a sound?
If an electric train is going west at 80mph, with the wind behind, ie helping it, which direction will the steam be going?
It only made a sound to the observer, using the five sense perception.
It only made a sound to the observer, using the five sense perception.
It only made a sound to the observer, using the five sense perception.
2. If there is no observer, how do we know that there is a tree in the first place?
3. How do you define sound? Is it what you hear or is it the vibration of air molecules? Air molecules can vibrate irrespective of whether there is an observe or not.
4. If something does not affect the perceived reality in any way (as is anything which is completely unobservable), should we even be bothered with it? Lets say we should. Since it is completely unobservable (i.e., does not affect our perceived reality in any way), then we still cannot be bothered with it because we have no information whatsoever about it.
In short, this metaphysical argument is futile - and extremely irrelevant. (:
2. If there is no observer, how do we know that there is a tree in the first place?
3. How do you define sound? Is it what you hear or is it the vibration of air molecules? Air molecules can vibrate irrespective of whether there is an observe or not.
4. If something does not affect the perceived reality in any way (as is anything which is completely unobservable), should we even be bothered with it? Lets say we should. Since it is completely unobservable (i.e., does not affect our perceived reality in any way), then we still cannot be bothered with it because we have no information whatsoever about it.
In short, this metaphysical argument is futile - and extremely irrelevant. (:
And how do we know there is a forest? Is it real?
(:
My perception certainly goes beyond the five senses.
It was just an example.
But, on this site, who cares about our other senses?
My perception certainly goes beyond the five senses.
It was just an example.
But, on this site, who cares about our other senses?
As you know, for me, if something is not strictly reproducible and measurable/observable, then it's not real.
Funny how this law applies selectively to human attraction.
To think we all have mass and energy and it is proportional to size but, not to appearance or emotional attraction.
There is 14lbs per square inch pressure all around us. If not we would explode into nothingness.
We take for granted of the little things of physics we experience everyday.