Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Luvoir

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,022 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Rep Power
    1163
    Reputation
    43534

    Default Luvoir

    Oh you're all excited about the James Webb telescope being launched this year.
    Hubble is 2.4m diameter. James Webb is 6.5m with a 22m sunshield.

    So what will the next generator of space telescope be?
    Luvoir will have a 15 metre diameter primary mirror and a 60m sunshield.

    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trash For This Useful Post:

    efab (28-04-21),OSIRUS (10-05-21),william10 (28-04-21)



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,888
    Thanked 3,730 Times in 2,123 Posts
    Rep Power
    1708
    Reputation
    68098

    Default

    They(somebody with a huge amount of money not available yet) want to make a liquid telescope with a 100m 'mirror' on the moon:


    so we can see Pop III stars:


    Personally I would rather want to see details of planets orbiting more recent stars.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • The Following User Says Thank You to Uncle Fester For This Useful Post:

    william10 (01-05-21)

  • #3
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,022 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Rep Power
    1163
    Reputation
    43534

    Default

    Yeah, I'd rather see a population III stars.
    There's a few questions that could be answered. I've seen enough planets, good place to live but you don't get planets without Pop III stars

    If you can't find pop III stars then that begs the question, Where did the planets come from?
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to trash For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (01-05-21),william10 (01-05-21)

  • #4
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,888
    Thanked 3,730 Times in 2,123 Posts
    Rep Power
    1708
    Reputation
    68098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    Yeah, I'd rather see a population III stars.
    There's a few questions that could be answered. I've seen enough planets, good place to live but you don't get planets without Pop III stars

    If you can't find pop III stars then that begs the question, Where did the planets come from?
    Pop III is just a theory and I don't see their connection with planets other than what any other type of star can do: fusion and supernova.
    Proving their existence doesn't change much.

    Our solar system has a Pop I star with lots of elements (useful for life on planets) that came from supernovae of older (Pop II) stars.
    If we could ever get a hopeful spectral analysis of an actual planet around another Pop I star then we know where to directly point our SETI radios.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 03-05-21 at 12:54 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #5
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,022 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Rep Power
    1163
    Reputation
    43534

    Default

    Their connection with planets......

    Lets see. In the beginning we have Hydrogen, Helium a pinch of Lithium and ............. nothing to build planets from.

    When the gas is cool enough and gravity has enough effect we get fusion and at the end of its life...... all the stuff we need to make a planet. Hence the connection.

    Now you could say... but Population II stars can do that too. Yes they can. But by definition population II stars already have metals in them, so what created those metals?
    Not the star itself, it's not capable of it. It's a self excluding statement. There had to be a preceding supernova or some other source of the metals.

    Find pop3 stars and you have an answer. Don't find them and you have a bigger mystery.

    And it may be that we find something interesting on the way to looking for Pop3 stars like how quasars got so big so quickly.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #6
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,888
    Thanked 3,730 Times in 2,123 Posts
    Rep Power
    1708
    Reputation
    68098

    Default

    Considering the Big Bang came from zero volume I find it hard to believe that shortly after, all the matter of the Universe consisted suddenly out of the least dense elements.
    A massive glob of something with insane density beyond Neutron Stars first expanded with space, filling up that space until the density dropped so much that atoms could occur
    From that state any atom could have occurred with a certain degree of randomness just with Hydrogen being the most likely.
    I don't see why it would have to be exclusively H.
    You say yourself that He and Li also occurred, why would it have stopped exactly there?
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #7
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,022 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Rep Power
    1163
    Reputation
    43534

    Default

    That implies that supermassive black holes are also primordial black holes.
    The current thinking is that they are not.

    I'm not sure if you understand what is wrong with your statement of why formation would stop at lithium?
    There is no reason to think SMBH's are primordial so the premise that they formed in the big bang does not support the logic either forward or backwards for the heavy elements.

    As for "A massive glob of something with insane density". We need to define your terms.
    Is Massive meaning "a lot of mass" or as Tytower would use it, "a lot of volume".
    This then leads us to insane density. If you're referring to the singularity then the density is infinite.
    If you're referring to the black hole in terms of the event horizon, then the density is quite low.

    You've heard the saying the the density of Saturn is low enough that the planet would float on water. Well the same is true of Black Holes.
    As they get bigger their density with respect to the black hole drops. They too are sparse enough to float on water.

    Anyhow, that is THE reason for searching for Pop3 stars. To answer this very question. Is it true on not.
    We don't just assume whatever theory we think is cool. The rational sequence of events leads us to make a good guess as to what happened before.
    We then can look for evidence to support or disprove that.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #8
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    61
    Posts
    6,244
    Thanks
    10,621
    Thanked 5,203 Times in 2,573 Posts
    Rep Power
    2022
    Reputation
    84397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Considering the Big Bang came from zero volume I find it hard to believe that shortly after, all the matter of the Universe consisted suddenly out of the least dense elements.
    You mean theoretically, right.

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    That implies that supermassive black holes are also primordial black holes.
    The current thinking is that they are not.........................

    Anyhow, that is THE reason for searching for Pop3 stars. To answer this very question. Is it true on not.
    We don't just assume whatever theory we think is cool. The rational sequence of events leads us to make a good guess as to what happened before.
    We then can look for evidence to support or disprove that.
    I agree & the operative word is & always has been "guess", almost anything in theory can be proven as fact, until it is disproved by a new theory.
    I just love science at it's extreme. The edges are & always will be blurry, that's the fun part, trying to clear it up.
    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."

  • #9
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 3,022 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Rep Power
    1163
    Reputation
    43534

    Default

    I'm comfortable with "guess" even though there is just a bit more solid evidence to support those guesses.

    There's plenty of good examples but the one specific to this post is the expansion of the universe.
    Red shift is pretty good evidence for expansion and a starting point in time and space. aka big bang.
    Of course there is a lot of other supporting evidence to back that up. It's pretty solid.

    But it could also be an illusion. But for the time being the big bang / inflation / dark energy model is the best fit.
    Any new improved theory needs to account for these.

    I hear plenty of quack theories to try to counter or explain the red shift without a big bang.
    One particular friend who is a smart guy but an A grade crank is convinced that the universal red shift is caused by dust.
    Most high school physics students could shoot his quackery down in flames.
    Science is about changing your mind with new evidence, that does not happen with this guy.

    There are still plenty of mysteries yet to be answered and I'm always looking or a new angle. I like to hear crank theories. They're fun to explore and check but when the messenger doesn't realise his theory is crap and can't improve on it then they might get upset when the universe doesn't agree with them.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #10
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,888
    Thanked 3,730 Times in 2,123 Posts
    Rep Power
    1708
    Reputation
    68098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
    You mean theoretically, right.

    I agree & the operative word is & always has been "guess", almost anything in theory can be proven as fact, until it is disproved by a new theory.
    I just love science at it's extreme. The edges are & always will be blurry, that's the fun part, trying to clear it up.
    Well yes, it is all just a theory and a singularity is for me just an error, or laziness in the maths for something that can't be fathomed with our current view of the things we see around us.

    So we just postulate that it all started with zero, zero volume - infinite density!
    I would like to disagree and claim that singularities can not exist and there was something before the Big Bang.

    This would require extreme thinking outside the box and our models of standard physics.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-05-21 at 12:46 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #11
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,888
    Thanked 3,730 Times in 2,123 Posts
    Rep Power
    1708
    Reputation
    68098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    That implies that supermassive black holes are also primordial black holes.
    The current thinking is that they are not.

    I'm not sure if you understand what is wrong with your statement of why formation would stop at lithium?
    There is no reason to think SMBH's are primordial so the premise that they formed in the big bang does not support the logic either forward or backwards for the heavy elements.

    As for "A massive glob of something with insane density". We need to define your terms.
    Is Massive meaning "a lot of mass" or as Tytower would use it, "a lot of volume".
    This then leads us to insane density. If you're referring to the singularity then the density is infinite.
    If you're referring to the black hole in terms of the event horizon, then the density is quite low.
    No SMBH here, at least not in the beginning.

    What do you think was there 1 picosecond after this so called singularity?
    All the fabric of the universe contained to less than the size of a pea maybe?

    That is the 'glob of mass' I am talking about, insane density of something that has no individual particles whatsoever.
    There was no free space surrounding it, unlike a SMBH.
    We can't simply apply our standard physic models here and there was nothing and nowhere yet for gravity to pull.
    There can't be any gravitational effects without at least two individual particles.

    That came later when space expanded so far that actual particles could form but still extremely dense, randomly colliding violently, forming fusion products or even tiny black holes if you like, but still without stars. Not enough space for them yet.
    Stars happened a lot later but some heavier fusion products were already there from direct interaction of the high density particle stage.

    We will only know if I am right when we can see a through mirror over 100m diameter(according to that paper I referred to above) and still only detect Pop II.

    I really can't see how our world will change if we find this intermediate Pop III stage, in the end all the elements we need were created.
    You are excited to prove Pop III, I am more excited to find ET intelligent life, which I do think could change a lot and maybe they are constantly transmitting to us that they discovered Pop III
    I hope we can agree on some time sharing and use the telescope for both
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-05-21 at 02:05 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • #12
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    9,441
    Thanks
    10,249
    Thanked 6,176 Times in 2,910 Posts
    Rep Power
    2724
    Reputation
    114780

    Default

    Now let me get this right... in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing went bang, and then we got something from nothing? That sounds like a popular scam. give me all your money and I'll make you rich.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • The Following User Says Thank You to lsemmens For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (12-05-21)

  • #13
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,888
    Thanked 3,730 Times in 2,123 Posts
    Rep Power
    1708
    Reputation
    68098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    Now let me get this right... in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing went bang, and then we got something from nothing? That sounds like a popular scam. give me all your money and I'll make you rich.

    Ha, ha, that's kinda what they say but if you read carefully there was NOT nothing but EVERYTHING compressed to nothing.

    Singularities are as I tried to say just a flaw in our thinking and viewing things.

    They are just mathematics, but in the world and open universe as we experience it, absurd !!!
    Just like a divide by zero on the other end of the scale, when a particle with mass would reach the speed of light for example.

    ...but maybe, just far out maybe, that is how our Universe was created when the particles of an old Universe finally accelerated to the speed of light and disintegrated though a 'Singularity"into the start of new Universe.
    Not more absurd than the existence of singularity itself.

    ...and yes I know you are religious and will ask how/who created the first (primordial) Universe?
    I will just say for now with a lazy mind, where is the beginning of a circle?
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-05-21 at 12:42 PM.
    This era of thoughtless consumption must end so we can encourage a world of creative geniuses rather than consumer idiots,
    while ensuring that we get don't get wiped out by our creations .


  • The Following User Says Thank You to Uncle Fester For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (12-05-21)

  • #14
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    9,441
    Thanks
    10,249
    Thanked 6,176 Times in 2,910 Posts
    Rep Power
    2724
    Reputation
    114780

    Default

    Thanks mate! It was meant as a snide remark not really expecting a response other than an LOL.
    You are correct, where is the beginning of a circle.

    This is not meant as a religious discussion, so, please let's not go down that rabbit hole. MY thinking is that a) God has always existed (beginning of a circle thinking) b) He, being God, can create anything from nothing, AND also create it to have a certain age AND create it to have had a "history" i.e it could have come from..... He did all this to give us something to think about.

    As we were NOT there when things happened, we have NO REAL idea as to what really happened all we can do is make a guess (albeit educated). Anyway, lets get back to Luvoir!
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •