- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
That's the thing about stars... they're bright. If there was something in the way, we'd be able to see it. Anything dark won't be massive enough to deflect it. Also, space is very very empty. So "everything" is actually "nothing".
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
Didn't we go over this light speed business enough in this thread?
I would have thought that you'd have this figured out by now
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=297048
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
If a star goes supernova, and there is a star close enough to be in the wake of all that energy, can the orbit/trajectory of that star be changed? In this instance, the star feeling the impact may, or may not, be effected by the gravity well of the star that is now gone.
If it was effected by the gravity well, that gravity well disappearing alone will change the orbit. But would the blast of energy provide an additional change in trajectory?
And if it wasn't under the spell of that star's gravity, could the force be strong enough to reach the nearby star and change it's trajectory?
[I thought of this after that massive wall of text, but it's fairly unrelated to the wall of text, and I don't want it being ignored like the likely outcome of the wall of text below]
What about a really big butterfly?
And maybe in space, it's the gravity-well effect?
I mean, things are a little more predictable since we see most of what is out there in the universe, combined with massive objects surrounded by an insane amount of nothing, we can use the maths and sciencey stuff to calculate trajectories, and thus concluding what events will happen where and how that will effect trajectories elsewhere.
But there are things that allude us in space. Like low-magnitude stars with peculiar (to us) orbits that, well, if you aren't looking for, you don't see. We don't really know how much we aren't seeing out there, we just know what we see. And then there's the fun shit like dark matter, of which we can use the sciences to kind of indirectly observe, but without a knowledge, I don't know if there is any decent description out there of behavior and anything that can be used to really do much with what we can say we kind of know about the stuff. That might have an impact on more far-ranging calculations of millions and millions of years, or it might not have an impact on calculations until you start playing into a length of time in excess of a billion years.
Because that's all our calculations really do, and why certain calculations are more accurate than others. Predictions in space aren't necessarily any more accurate than the calculated predictions for weather... just, the range of time where predictions are accurate are far different. But the impact at the micro level is far more critical for observations at that level, and events on a macro scale are quite easily predicted as well.
We have very detailed knowledge of Earth and the impacts on life at the macro level, they just have less meaning.
There is a lot we are missing at a more micro level in space that could have impacts on other things at a similar level, but in the end don't have a significant impact on the macro. And for the events we focus on in space, something in calculations that is so lifeless and with little impact on us, well... the predictions will be accurate.
Our predictions on Earth for long term are quite accurate as well, but it is at the micro level where we reside, and in terms of individual life in which we apply great bias, the micro level is ultimately held more important, and that is a beast that is quite fickle. If we ignored the impacts of events at the micro level, our calculations would be quite accurate. We can calculate weather patterns in terms of thousands of years very well.
Just like we know at some point, around... what was it, 4 or 5 billion years(?) the sun will, well, do something. The exact event nobody is entirely certain, supernova seems to have less favor, with red giant and then white dwarf and then fizzle being the more common prediction. Will it be 4.42billion years, versus 4.813by.. we can't say that.
There's a star somewhat close by that common consensus states will be going supernova soon. It may have already blew and we won't witness it for 20 years, 200 years, or 200,000 years. It might not have even gone out with a bang yet, which means we won't know for an even longer time.
Solar weather, we can watch the trends, and the smart people calculate that a major storm could happen sometime soon, or hundreds of years from now. That's the micro level I was discussing earlier.
Ultimately, the butterfly effect, more beautifully described as chaos theory, holds very very true for space as well. It is what, after all, led to what we have now. Crowded, chaotic, massive orbits or no orbits, was quite rampant in the early years. One thing happens, a million things completely "unpredictable" will happen in chain-reaction over the long term. Predictions basically rely on not only a fundamental understanding of everything involved in the calculation, but also chaos theory never coming into play, unless you ignore the micro level. The smart people can say "well this star is going to continue on it's trajectory here, and that one over there, it will come close to that first one mentioned," but ultimately, turning the knob to look at a bigger picture, things will always be a little fuzzy. Predictions basically rely on chaos theory never coming into play. At the micro level, it happens all the time, unless something is just not understood. At the macro level, it happens all the time, but in more ordered systems (which the macro tends to be more ordered anyhow), it happens far less. But chiefly, what I'm saying is our predictions for the macro basically rely on us knowing what will happen immediately following any event. We can predict locations all we want, but if we cannot perfectly describe what happens when any two things reach a point where they can interact, predictions following that become less precise. On a sweeping macro level, those little differences in precision won't make as big of a deal, because we can get a bigger picture of "no matter what exactly happens, this should go over here, this should go over there, and let's make a few ideas of what might happen if something new pops up right there", and thus you get predictions that have multiple outcomes. Further out, those multiple outcomes mean less, closer in, it's immediately fuzzy.
That was a seriously long-winded layman's discussion on chaos theory by a layman. Consider it completely useless for just about anything, but I hope someone enjoyed it.
If it was effected by the gravity well, that gravity well disappearing alone will change the orbit. But would the blast of energy provide an additional change in trajectory?
And if it wasn't under the spell of that star's gravity, could the force be strong enough to reach the nearby star and change it's trajectory?
[I thought of this after that massive wall of text, but it's fairly unrelated to the wall of text, and I don't want it being ignored like the likely outcome of the wall of text below]
What about a really big butterfly?
And maybe in space, it's the gravity-well effect?
I mean, things are a little more predictable since we see most of what is out there in the universe, combined with massive objects surrounded by an insane amount of nothing, we can use the maths and sciencey stuff to calculate trajectories, and thus concluding what events will happen where and how that will effect trajectories elsewhere.
But there are things that allude us in space. Like low-magnitude stars with peculiar (to us) orbits that, well, if you aren't looking for, you don't see. We don't really know how much we aren't seeing out there, we just know what we see. And then there's the fun shit like dark matter, of which we can use the sciences to kind of indirectly observe, but without a knowledge, I don't know if there is any decent description out there of behavior and anything that can be used to really do much with what we can say we kind of know about the stuff. That might have an impact on more far-ranging calculations of millions and millions of years, or it might not have an impact on calculations until you start playing into a length of time in excess of a billion years.
Because that's all our calculations really do, and why certain calculations are more accurate than others. Predictions in space aren't necessarily any more accurate than the calculated predictions for weather... just, the range of time where predictions are accurate are far different. But the impact at the micro level is far more critical for observations at that level, and events on a macro scale are quite easily predicted as well.
We have very detailed knowledge of Earth and the impacts on life at the macro level, they just have less meaning.
There is a lot we are missing at a more micro level in space that could have impacts on other things at a similar level, but in the end don't have a significant impact on the macro. And for the events we focus on in space, something in calculations that is so lifeless and with little impact on us, well... the predictions will be accurate.
Our predictions on Earth for long term are quite accurate as well, but it is at the micro level where we reside, and in terms of individual life in which we apply great bias, the micro level is ultimately held more important, and that is a beast that is quite fickle. If we ignored the impacts of events at the micro level, our calculations would be quite accurate. We can calculate weather patterns in terms of thousands of years very well.
Just like we know at some point, around... what was it, 4 or 5 billion years(?) the sun will, well, do something. The exact event nobody is entirely certain, supernova seems to have less favor, with red giant and then white dwarf and then fizzle being the more common prediction. Will it be 4.42billion years, versus 4.813by.. we can't say that.
There's a star somewhat close by that common consensus states will be going supernova soon. It may have already blew and we won't witness it for 20 years, 200 years, or 200,000 years. It might not have even gone out with a bang yet, which means we won't know for an even longer time.
Solar weather, we can watch the trends, and the smart people calculate that a major storm could happen sometime soon, or hundreds of years from now. That's the micro level I was discussing earlier.
Ultimately, the butterfly effect, more beautifully described as chaos theory, holds very very true for space as well. It is what, after all, led to what we have now. Crowded, chaotic, massive orbits or no orbits, was quite rampant in the early years. One thing happens, a million things completely "unpredictable" will happen in chain-reaction over the long term. Predictions basically rely on not only a fundamental understanding of everything involved in the calculation, but also chaos theory never coming into play, unless you ignore the micro level. The smart people can say "well this star is going to continue on it's trajectory here, and that one over there, it will come close to that first one mentioned," but ultimately, turning the knob to look at a bigger picture, things will always be a little fuzzy. Predictions basically rely on chaos theory never coming into play. At the micro level, it happens all the time, unless something is just not understood. At the macro level, it happens all the time, but in more ordered systems (which the macro tends to be more ordered anyhow), it happens far less. But chiefly, what I'm saying is our predictions for the macro basically rely on us knowing what will happen immediately following any event. We can predict locations all we want, but if we cannot perfectly describe what happens when any two things reach a point where they can interact, predictions following that become less precise. On a sweeping macro level, those little differences in precision won't make as big of a deal, because we can get a bigger picture of "no matter what exactly happens, this should go over here, this should go over there, and let's make a few ideas of what might happen if something new pops up right there", and thus you get predictions that have multiple outcomes. Further out, those multiple outcomes mean less, closer in, it's immediately fuzzy.
That was a seriously long-winded layman's discussion on chaos theory by a layman. Consider it completely useless for just about anything, but I hope someone enjoyed it.
Rubycon
Madame President
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Didn't we go over this light speed business enough in this thread?
I would have thought that you'd have this figured out by now
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=297048
You 'spect me to read 10 pages of sciencey stuff?
... maybe another day.
Didn't we go over this light speed business enough in this thread?
I would have thought that you'd have this figured out by now
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=297048
Linking to that thread could cause the universe to explode.
Even worse people could start making idiotic posts there again.
Not really dealing in those distances which are to small for dark matter or energy to have a large effect, just boils it down to a n-body problem. Baring the odd supernovae nudging it a bit, of course.
Last edited:
Whether that star collides with us or not, it's really a matter of time until something significantly affects our planet to the point where it's no longer habitable. It's only sheer luck that we haven't been pulverized yet.
Of course, "time" in this case could mean hundreds of millions of years...or some unforeseen catastrophic event could kill us all tomorrow. Not much you can do about it.
Of course, "time" in this case could mean hundreds of millions of years...or some unforeseen catastrophic event could kill us all tomorrow. Not much you can do about it.
Last edited:
Rubycon
Madame President
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
Exactly! Worrying about it makes your life experience far worse than other oddities that can affect us too! Life is already far too short and precious to worry about stuff like that.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
You 'spect me to read 10 pages of sciencey stuff?
... maybe another day.
Turn your posts per page up, it's only 3 pages for me :awe:
My point was darkxshade made an earlier thread where it was discussed in depth about mass not accelerating to light speed (a grain of sand specifically). Then in this thread, his statement only would make sense if a whole star was traveling at light speed toward us.
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
Two things that can kill us all and we'll never see them coming- a gamma ray burst, and a super volcano eruption.
A gamma ray burst comes from a huge exploding star, and if it's axis is pointed at us, a gamma ray beam will hit the Earth, causing our atmosphere to ionize, cloud up, block out the sun, destroy the ozone layer, and we'll all fry or die from starvation as the food supply is cut off. Since we won't know about this event until it's light actually hits the Earth, we will have no warning and no way to prepare.
A super volcano MAY give some more warning, but it may not. Imagine a volcano the size of a small state popping it's top---like the one under Yellow Stone Park. It would shoot hot debris and ash for 100's---even 1000's of miles around, and block out the sun for up to a decade. Acid rain and other toxic gases would wipe out and straglers from the blast.
Sleep well kiddies!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter