The background music and visuals are absolutely stunning.
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:39 am
by alex555
We can salute the artistic quality of the film, but I continue to think that we should develop more energy to save our planet rather than investing in this kind of stupidity.
Alex
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:00 am
by VictorBorun
alex555 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:39 am
We can salute the artistic quality of the film, but I continue to think that we should develop more energy to save our planet rather than investing in this kind of stupidity.
Alex
no rush to promote Saturn Ring Snow Paddle resort with the current spaceships.
More urgent is to populate Moon. It can be astronomical base and Earth surveillance base, it can be space travel hub, it can be agricultural and electronic industrial area (in undersurface halls).
Low gravity can be blessing for people with dysfunctional legs or spine; they can live happily and even compete at work market, both of manual work on Moon and of long distance online work on Earth.
At some point in the future we may lessen the fear of oppression, war and terrorism. Then it would be practical to build fusion power plants and thorium cycle vehicles including space barges
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:31 pm
by johnnydeep
VictorBorun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:36 am
I hope for some big big paddle to row through snowballs of Saturn's ring (1:07 in the posted video).
A shepherd moonlet can be used as a resort's base
Putting my skeptical hat on (which never really leaves my head!), is that seemingly densely packed field of debris at all a likely scenario, except perhaps in the immediate aftermath of large collision event?
VictorBorun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:36 am
I hope for some big big paddle to row through snowballs of Saturn's ring (1:07 in the posted video).
A shepherd moonlet can be used as a resort's base
Putting my skeptical hat on (which never really leaves my head!), is that seemingly densely packed field of debris at all a likely scenario, except perhaps in the immediate aftermath of large collision event?
why, the rings are not transparent even at edges where they are like 100 m thick. They must contain enough of optically macroscopic ice for this.
Now can there be growing snowballs as large as 10 cm or even 1 m?
They must be fragile; after a collision event peculiar velocities of debris should easily crush the large snowballs.
Even low velocity collisions like 1 cm/s should destroy a pair of snowballs.
But they must be re-growing fast enough judging be the ring's non-transparency.
And the growth process would form rather fractals than spheres, as is the way with growth limited by diffusion from media
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:50 pm
by zendae
alex555 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:39 am
We can salute the artistic quality of the film, but I continue to think that we should develop more energy to save our planet rather than investing in this kind of stupidity.
Alex
alex555 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:39 am
We can salute the artistic quality of the film, but I continue to think that we should develop more energy to save our planet rather than investing in this kind of stupidity.
Alex
What "stupidity"?
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:04 pm
by johnnydeep
MadCat-75 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:59 am
I love this video. I like that it is presented here.
In the same direction, but a lot longer, go the videos of Melodysheep:
The background music and visuals are absolutely stunning.
That first video was evocative and very well done. I have yet to watch the others. But I have a question about one thing that was mentioned at about the 21 minute mark, namely that "some believe" life could have evolved when the universe was only 15 My old, in "particularly dense areas of matter". But if the first stars only formed 70 My after the Big Bang (as stated earlier in the video), where are all the complex atoms needed for life coming from in that scenario?
MadCat-75 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:59 am
I love this video. I like that it is presented here.
In the same direction, but a lot longer, go the videos of Melodysheep:
The background music and visuals are absolutely stunning.
That first video was evocative and very well done. I have yet to watch the others. But I have a question about one thing that was mentioned at about the 21 minute mark, namely that "some believe" life could have evolved when the universe was only 15 My old, in "particularly dense areas of matter". But if the first stars only formed 70 My after the Big Bang (as stated earlier in the video), where are all the complex atoms needed for life coming from in that scenario?
Really???
Well. Some believe that red is a prettier color than blue (unbelievable, isn't it?). Others believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that the wrong team won the Super Bowl, or that their ancestors were on board the Mayflower, or that you can learn the secrets of the Universe by smoking a particular kind of weed, or that God must have created the Universe since it is so fine-tuned.
People believe all sorts of things. Some believe that life may have emerged in the Universe when the Universe was only 15 million years old. Others think it is important to hold on to the belief that there may have been life in the Universe only 15 million years after the Big Bang, even though we don't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to ever prove whether or not there was life back then.
You can believe what you want to. Its a free country.
MadCat-75 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:59 am
I love this video. I like that it is presented here.
In the same direction, but a lot longer, go the videos of Melodysheep:
The background music and visuals are absolutely stunning.
That first video was evocative and very well done. I have yet to watch the others. But I have a question about one thing that was mentioned at about the 21 minute mark, namely that "some believe" life could have evolved when the universe was only 15 My old, in "particularly dense areas of matter". But if the first stars only formed 70 My after the Big Bang (as stated earlier in the video), where are all the complex atoms needed for life coming from in that scenario?
Really???
Well. Some believe that red is a prettier color than blue (unbelievable, isn't it?). Others believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that the wrong team won the Super Bowl, or that their ancestors were on board the Mayflower, or that you can learn the secrets of the Universe by smoking a particular kind of weed, or that God must have created the Universe since it is so fine-tuned.
People believe all sorts of things. Some believe that life may have emerged in the Universe when the Universe was only 15 million years old. Others think it is important to hold on to the belief that there may have been life in the Universe only 15 million years after the Big Bang, even though we don't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to ever prove whether or not there was life back then.
You can believe what you want to. Its a free country.
Ann
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
That first video was evocative and very well done. I have yet to watch the others. But I have a question about one thing that was mentioned at about the 21 minute mark, namely that "some believe" life could have evolved when the universe was only 15 My old, in "particularly dense areas of matter". But if the first stars only formed 70 My after the Big Bang (as stated earlier in the video), where are all the complex atoms needed for life coming from in that scenario?
Really??? :shock:
Well. Some believe that red is a prettier color than blue (unbelievable, isn't it?). Others believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that the wrong team won the Super Bowl, or that their ancestors were on board the Mayflower, or that you can learn the secrets of the Universe by smoking a particular kind of weed, or that God must have created the Universe since it is so fine-tuned.
People believe all sorts of things. Some believe that life may have emerged in the Universe when the Universe was only 15 million years old. Others think it is important to hold on to the belief that there may have been life in the Universe only 15 million years after the Big Bang, even though we don't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to ever prove whether or not there was life back then.
You can believe what you want to. Its a free country.
Ann
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Well. Some believe that red is a prettier color than blue (unbelievable, isn't it?). Others believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that the wrong team won the Super Bowl, or that their ancestors were on board the Mayflower, or that you can learn the secrets of the Universe by smoking a particular kind of weed, or that God must have created the Universe since it is so fine-tuned.
People believe all sorts of things. Some believe that life may have emerged in the Universe when the Universe was only 15 million years old. Others think it is important to hold on to the belief that there may have been life in the Universe only 15 million years after the Big Bang, even though we don't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to ever prove whether or not there was life back then.
You can believe what you want to. Its a free country.
Ann
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
Again, no wild imagination involved. There was never a claim of life. The claim was that it's cool that when the Universe was only 15 million years old it went through a period with a habitable temperature... a brief interval between the time when it was as hot as stars and when it was very, very cold.
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
Again, no wild imagination involved. There was never a claim of life. The claim was that it's cool that when the Universe was only 15 million years old it went through a period with a habitable temperature... a brief interval between the time when it was as hot as stars and when it was very, very cold.
Well, it did say that - starting at 20:04 - "In theory, stars and planets could have formed this early on, in hypothesized ultra-dense regions of space." followed by "If such regions existed, liquid water could have flowed abundantly, even on rogue planets far from any star." and then "Could this have been the dawn of life? Alien beings feeding off the heat of the Big Bang?". I took that as (someone's) claim that life could have arisen in that environment. Though the apparent impossibility of there being planets as we know them, or even water at all is left unexplained.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
Again, no wild imagination involved. There was never a claim of life. The claim was that it's cool that when the Universe was only 15 million years old it went through a period with a habitable temperature... a brief interval between the time when it was as hot as stars and when it was very, very cold.
Well, it did say that - starting at 20:04 - "In theory, stars and planets could have formed this early on, in hypothesized ultra-dense regions of space." followed by "If such regions existed, liquid water could have flowed abundantly, even on rogue planets far from any star." and then "Could this have been the dawn of life? Alien beings feeding off the heat of the Big Bang?". I took that as (someone's) claim that life could have arisen in that environment. Though the apparent impossibility of there being planets as we know them, or even water at all is left unexplained.
As I noted, the actual, original claim is misstated here.
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:48 pm
Again, no wild imagination involved. There was never a claim of life. The claim was that it's cool that when the Universe was only 15 million years old it went through a period with a habitable temperature... a brief interval between the time when it was as hot as stars and when it was very, very cold.
Well, it did say that - starting at 20:04 - "In theory, stars and planets could have formed this early on, in hypothesized ultra-dense regions of space." followed by "If such regions existed, liquid water could have flowed abundantly, even on rogue planets far from any star." and then "Could this have been the dawn of life? Alien beings feeding off the heat of the Big Bang?". I took that as (someone's) claim that life could have arisen in that environment. Though the apparent impossibility of there being planets as we know them, or even water at all is left unexplained.
As I noted, the actual, original claim is misstated here.
Ok. Then the only thing known for sure at 15 My old, is the temperature, and possibly a few "areas of ultra-dense matter". All else that might have happened to foster life given that is pure speculation. Still a pretty good video otherwise though.
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:51 am
by orin stepanek
Always like listening to stories told by Carl Sagan!
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
We can't be sure that there were no early kilonovas to fill some areas with all elements.
Most forming stars struggle to drop the energy and the spin, but if the forming cloud happens to be symmetrical and massive, the gravity may prevail over the hot gas pressure and the spin may be tiny from the start
Why, even some supermassive BHs may form before any hosting galaxies, just so, out of the dark matter clusterings
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
We can't be sure that there were no early kilonovas to fill some areas with all elements.
Most forming stars struggle to drop the energy and the spin, but if the forming cloud happens to be symmetrical and massive, the gravity may prevail over the hot gas pressure and the spin may be tiny from the start
Why, even some supermassive BHs may form before any hosting galaxies, just so, out of the dark matter clusterings
I suppose there might even be simulations that have been run to determine just how early after the Big Bang any stars formed.
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:06 pm
by johnnydeep
And I'll close with this classic from Dion:
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Re: APOD: Wanderers (2023 Mar 26)
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:56 pm
by andyg
It's nice to fantasize, but I get plenty of adventure exploring amazing places on Earth. And I don't need massive, energy- and material-intensive infrastructure to do it.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
We can't be sure that there were no early kilonovas to fill some areas with all elements.
Most forming stars struggle to drop the energy and the spin, but if the forming cloud happens to be symmetrical and massive, the gravity may prevail over the hot gas pressure and the spin may be tiny from the start
Why, even some supermassive BHs may form before any hosting galaxies, just so, out of the dark matter clusterings
I suppose there might even be simulations that have been run to determine just how early after the Big Bang any stars formed.
We can't be sure that there were no early kilonovas to fill some areas with all elements.
Most forming stars struggle to drop the energy and the spin, but if the forming cloud happens to be symmetrical and massive, the gravity may prevail over the hot gas pressure and the spin may be tiny from the start
Why, even some supermassive BHs may form before any hosting galaxies, just so, out of the dark matter clusterings
I suppose there might even be simulations that have been run to determine just how early after the Big Bang any stars formed.
Wanderers
