*** The Official Astronomy & Universe Thread ***

Joxeon said:
Just received my brand new GSO 10" dob hopefully we'll get some clear sky later.

IMG-1506.jpg
Click to expand...
Just the right size for observing the Moon...
It just isn't that bright at proper magnification.

Couple additions could give the most usefull magnification steps, if you're still using bundled eyepieces.

For general guide books Turn Left at Orion would be good.
And for the Moon 21st Century Atlas of the Moon would have also good information chapter.
Though chart showing whole Moon like Sky&Telescope's Field Map of the Moon would be good for learning "general layout".
 
Last edited:
Rexxar said:
I'd quite like to pick up a basic telescope, say £250-300 tops, Any recommendations? I've been reading a lot that says dobsonian's are the way to go but ideally want something more portable that can be packed away in the car on say, a trip to somewhere darker. I'm not sure what i'd realistically be able to see either, is there a good resource for seeing what you should be able to see with each telescope?
Click to expand...
Problem is that basically about every tripod mounted telescopes at that price level is more or less badly undermounted and too easily shakes and wobbles like in earthquake, or is optically bad... Or both.
(like in case of many Celestrons)

Some compact Maksutov would have the most moderate mount requirements, but you'll get only limited aperture/light collecting power.
www.firstlightoptics.com

Sky-Watcher SkyMax-102S AZ Pronto

First Light Optics - Suppliers of Astronomy telescopes, binoculars and accessories from Skywatcher, Celestron, Meade, William Optics, Atik, Imaging Source, Starlight Xpress, ADM, Moonlite, Catseye, Hutech and others.
www.firstlightoptics.com
6" Dobson would collect twice the light.


Joxeon said:
I'd imagine you can pick up a decent 6inch Newtonian for that.
Click to expand...
Good mount would double the budget and some more.
(unless building Dobson mount)
 
No, a lot of these pseudoscience scientists take controversial data and create a nonsensical idea of what the cause is. Generally the actual data once reviewed ends up with a much more mundane “it’s just a matter how it looks from our perspective”. Like heliocentric vs geocentric theory etc.

My money is on the relative spin of our own Milky Way causing an illusion that some other galaxies spin the opposite way.

It’s similar to the utterly nonsensical “multiverse” BS that some pseudoscience types seem to like. Just because it can’t be proven wrong does not make it a viable theory. See “God(s)”.
 
EsaT said:
Just the right size for observing the Moon...
It just isn't that bright at proper magnification.

Couple additions could give the most usefull magnification steps, if you're still using bundled eyepieces.

For general guide books Turn Left at Orion would be good.
And for the Moon 21st Century Atlas of the Moon would have also good information chapter.
Though chart showing whole Moon like Sky&Telescope's Field Map of the Moon would be good for learning "general layout".
Click to expand...
I like the GSO Dobs as they are so well equipped with dual speed focuser and RACI. I also agree with your Turn Left at Orion recommendation but I would supplement it with copy SkySafari on a tablet.
 
Last edited:
Varys said:
What's everyone's thoughts on the findings from JWST that our universe is possibly inside a black hole ?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think there is doubt surrounding everything to do with the nature of the Universe. What it is, where it can from, where it's going to. I don't accept anything as fact and my gut feeling is that we are way off at the moment. The reason I think that is that nothing has fallen in to place despite the best minds in the world working on it for a hundred years. I think there is going to be huge breakthrough at some point in the future that might well turn everything on it's head. Could this be the start? I don't know. But if nothing else, it is showing how uncertain we are about everything, and that's surely a good thing. If we aren't sure, then we need to know that we aren't!!
 
SpellowHouse said:
Personally, I think there is doubt surrounding everything to do with the nature of the Universe. What it is, where it can from, where it's going to. I don't accept anything as fact and my gut feeling is that we are way off at the moment. The reason I think that is that nothing has fallen in to place despite the best minds in the world working on it for a hundred years. I think there is going to be huge breakthrough at some point in the future that might well turn everything on it's head. Could this be the start? I don't know. But if nothing else, it is showing how uncertain we are about everything, and that's surely a good thing. If we aren't sure, then we need to know that we aren't!!
Click to expand...
I love those ideas!
 
So if you can't see in a black hole, presumably light can't escape, and if people could travel faster than light they'd be emerging from black holes, but they aren't, so people can never travel faster than light?
 
markoboyo11 said:
How do we know they arnt?
Click to expand...

We're pretty damn sure ;)

throwaway4372 said:
So if you can't see in a black hole, presumably light can't escape, and if people could travel faster than light they'd be emerging from black holes, but they aren't, so people can never travel faster than light?
Click to expand...

As our understanding is now, nothing with invariant mass (a rest mass to be precise) can reach the speed of light, so no, it doesn't seem a person (or thing) will be able to travel at light speed.

Travelling faster than the speed of light is something else entirely, it's theoretically possible that a particle can travel faster than light, as long as its always been FTL, it just can't accelerate past that point. Thats the theoretical particle of Tachyons, which you've probably heard a lot of in Sci-Fi, but we've never detected any and they would cause a lot of issues with causality, so it's not thought they exist.

But, there may be some neat tricks that try and circumvent special relativity rules and give a pseudo-FTL like motion, like warp bubbles, which look theoretically possible.

This is why quantum entanglement is such a head scratcher, as our whole understanding of physics has been based on locality and the speed of causality (which is the speed of light) based on how information is propagated. Now QE seems to violate locality principles, even though it doesn't break FTL communication, and thus doesn't violate causality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom