Stargazing LIVE BBC2 8pm

I would recommend the skywatcher Dobsonian telescope, it's good for a beginner of all ages and gets you to learn the sky, go for 8-10' anything higher would be a lot heavier to carry around. the bigger the refractor size the more light you can gather to get better views, these go for about £200 +. A-Z / equitorial mounts would be better for intermediate users (astro-imaging) also a pain in the bum to set-up as you have to align it with something with the sky before use, so the the mount can be used properly, these can be around £600 +.
 
I thought it was pretty good considering the kind of viewers its aimed at.

There was one bit i didn't quite understand, why do the planets orbit the way they do due to gravity?
 
I thought it was pretty good considering the kind of viewers its aimed at.

There was one bit i didn't quite understand, why do the planets orbit the way they do due to gravity?

Yes, the impression was, gravity=elliptical orbit... Which I don't quite see either!
 
if people spent that hour researching/reading about the same subject matter they could potentially learn a lot more on the subject. everyone has time, its a poor mans excuse to say they have none.

Everybody may have time but there are 3 VAK learning styles which are Visual, Audio & Kinaesthetic and it is a fact that at the top of the learning triangle, at around 88%, is being shown how to do it.
With my little teaching experience I know that people learn better when they are shown and watch videos.
My wife has never shown an interest in Astronomy but has watched all 3 programmes and found it interesting.

What school did you go to learn everything that was on those programmes?
 
Yes, the impression was, gravity=elliptical orbit... Which I don't quite see either!

As usual, Wiki is your friend :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

Elliptical orbits are going to be the most common as the setup that determines that shape of path is probably also the most common that we have seen. have a read of the above (and of course don't assume it's all perfectly technically correct!)
 
As usual, Wiki is your friend :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

Elliptical orbits are going to be the most common as the setup that determines that shape of path is probably also the most common that we have seen. have a read of the above (and of course don't assume it's all perfectly technically correct!)

I understand the mechanics - I wrote a gravity simulation program for computer science , streamlining all the formula for performance too :)

But if I guess what they didn't say is - and correct me if I'm wrong - is the reason why elliptical orbits are the norm, is because a perfect orbit would take perfect conditions... And the universe is rather chaotic :)
 
That's fascinating. So they can take different images at different wavelengths and assign arbritary colours to maximise the detail. Sometimes the colours assigned are natural as we would see them, other times they are shifted to provide more detail.

So I guess unless the photographer person states how the photo was made, one will never know whether it's natural or enhanced.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWG1XQWinzI

:)
 
I thought they were talking about doing a "Wonders of the Universe"?
that's correct, last night i watched the wonders of the solar system "the empire sun" it's quite interesting that the corona is hotter than the suns surface, the sun is about 15,000 Degrees where the Sun's Corona reaches up to a whooping 1 million Degrees.
 
This just blows my mind


hubble-ultradeep-desk-1024.jpg


if you look closely you notice 98% of this picture shows you early birth of galaxies with nearly all of them having over a trillion stars and potentially have earth like planets.

this was taken from the hubble ultra deep view, so were looking at about 13 billion light years
 
This image should blow your mind, does anyone else consider just how much is going on at any moment in the universe?

With the numbers and possibility involved, other life in the universe is a statistical certainty, not only that but highly advanced life and lots of it, i wonder what amazing things are going on right now and what horrible messed up things there must be, both the kinds of life forms there are and the things they are getting up to.
 
This image should blow your mind, does anyone else consider just how much is going on at any moment in the universe?

With the numbers and possibility involved, other life in the universe is a statistical certainty, not only that but highly advanced life and lots of it, i wonder what amazing things are going on right now and what horrible messed up things there must be, both the kinds of life forms there are and the things they are getting up to.

The problem is, it may be rare enough, and therefore generally so spread out, it may as well not exist as far as we're concerned...
 
I meant to post this a month ago but this thread seems the best place -

The "Big Bang" May Not Have Been the Beginning



Radiation ripples show that the "Big Bang" that science has referred to as the beginning of the universe, may not have been the real beginning. The "Big Bang" may only have been a step in a range of many and more are maybe yet to come.

Scientists have found rings of radiation in the cosmos that may be older than the "Big Bang".

"What would normally be regarded as a probable entire history of our universe, starting with its Big Bang... is taken to be but one aeon in a (perhaps unending) succession of such aeons (sic)," the scientists said.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/r...er/story-e6frfrnr-1225963294939#ixzz17FKQLU6m

Now that's mind blowing
 
I saw the visitors page but it looks like most of it is undergoing redevelopment and won't be ready until the summer. I think I will leave it for now and go when it is all up and running.
 
I meant to post this a month ago but this thread seems the best place -

The "Big Bang" May Not Have Been the Beginning



Radiation ripples show that the "Big Bang" that science has referred to as the beginning of the universe, may not have been the real beginning. The "Big Bang" may only have been a step in a range of many and more are maybe yet to come.

Scientists have found rings of radiation in the cosmos that may be older than the "Big Bang".

"What would normally be regarded as a probable entire history of our universe, starting with its Big Bang... is taken to be but one aeon in a (perhaps unending) succession of such aeons (sic)," the scientists said.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/r...er/story-e6frfrnr-1225963294939#ixzz17FKQLU6m

Now that's mind blowing

Yeah interesting stuff, there was a bit on horizon recently to do with the big bang and all the theory's it has, they talked about this idea but i don't think there was any evidence at the time.

Skip to around 6:45...


I think an infinite universe makes more sense as it means you don't have to worry about how energy can come from nothing, otherwise we must accept free energy is a real possibility which breaks some laws and science doesn't like that.
 
Last edited:
That's fascinating. So they can take different images at different wavelengths and assign arbritary colours to maximise the detail. Sometimes the colours assigned are natural as we would see them, other times they are shifted to provide more detail.

So I guess unless the photographer person states how the photo was made, one will never know whether it's natural or enhanced.

This video has just come out and it shows how a Hubble Galaxy is "made":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5c1XoL1KFs
 
Back
Top Bottom