Q&A 25: Is It Wrong to Dismantle Planets and More...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- In this week’s Q&A, Fraser talks about how spacecraft deal with orbital debris, the ethics of dismantling planets, the age of life in the Universe. With special guest answerer, Dr. Paul Matt Sutter.
Support us at: / universetoday
More stories at: www.universetoday.com/
Follow us on Twitter: @universetoday
Follow us on Tumblr: / universetoday
Like us on Facebook: / universetoday
Google+ - plus.google.com/+universetoday/
Instagram - / universetoday 
Наука
There was always something awkward about the back and forth between the two of you, but having him answer a question at the end is perfect. Keep up the great work!
Hey Fraser! Forgot to congratulate you on getting the play button from youtube! This channel is my favourite places on youtube (along with Isaac Arthur, whom I discovered through your colonisation collab, so thx for that!). You certainly deserve all the popularity and love!
Thanks a lot, I've got it proudly displayed on my shelf now.
7:45 "You want a good mount. That's the most important thing." -Fraser Cain
And I stand by that advice. In all things.
Therizinosaur is a pretty good mount ;)
You can still defend against a mount.
No one can resist The Cain.
This definitely looked like a green screen! Fraser, I think to prove that you are not in front of a green screen, you should go around those trees while talking :D
Love your videos. :)
I've walked back into the forest, and we've turned the camera to show you that it's not a green screen. Again, we shoot in the forest because it's easy.
If you watch youtube on a TV or larger screen you can see insects, and hummingbirds fly near and around his face.
Some of the best content on space you got here Fraser, thank you for it.
Also, could you make a full video on the "habitable epoch of the universe" that you were talking about at 5:30 in this video? That would be really awesome.
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels!
Hey thanks! Make sure you subscribe if you haven't already.
I have shot video for 30 years. And I can tell you that it is NOT green screen.Who ever is doing the lighting is very good. It is perfect. The V under Fraser's chin shows the care that was put into the lighting. I have put the video though a vector-scope and there is yellow light in the spec-tom. It is perfect.
My wife appreciates your kind words. You should check out her RUclips channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCEItkORQYd4Wf0TpgYI_1fwvideos
We're definitely shooting in an actual forest. :-)
I didnt know it was your wife. She should talk to Pamela Gay. If we broadcast Pamela's video; we would get find.
omg their setup is so good it fools even professionals! ( oДo)
You sound resentful.
Congratulations on 100k subscribers. Big fan
Absolutely the best explanation of interferometry I've ever heard
Love these Q&A videos!
research usually DOES turn into usefull stuff, so the "well we tried" moments are rare. Even if the technology lies dormant for decades, it may be picked up in the most surprising sphere. This is about the "going and doing" attitude.
Great point, it just takes time for the true use of the technology to be fully revealed.
Do not forget it took over 2000 years for someone to figure out that the Steam engine could be used to move machines.
I have a question. Has anybody considered a possibility that mass extinctions are necessity for intelligent life to evolve? Not complete extinctions obviously, just something that allows next best thing to evolve. Observing the only example we know, us, that doesn't seem too far fetched.
Life is essentially an optimization algorithm that moves along the "surface" of the "survivability domain" searching for the best "ways" to survive in its environment. These kind of algorithms quite often fall in what's mathematically known as local minima/maxima which are "places" of good survivability but not the best (like say, crocodiles that barely evolve anymore, compared to hominids that continued evolving into humans). Sometimes, "random" changes in the "survivability space", like catastrophic natural events, can kick the board and bring new better chances of survival to struggling species and remove completely others that were well adapted. But, if there is no puppeteer controlling reality, these random events occur randomly and can very well not be helpful at all and destroy the chances of survival entirely. But then again, maybe in aeons, the remains of some sad destruction could help making life flourishing somewhere else. Maybe some of the atoms in our bodies are actually from the corpses of better beings that passed away long time ago in a galaxy far far away. ^_^
There is an explosion of life that follows mass extinction events, so this has definitely been considered.
+Fraser Cain thanks:)
+Damian Reloaded thanks for the extensive reply. You can amuse yourself by thinking of an only way for life to evolve so specific that our apparent loneliness in this part of the universe wouldn't be strange at all.
I entertain the idea that we are currently experiencing the first wave of complex life across the entire universe. That it wasn't until most of the elements and cosmic radiation got to this point of distribution that complex life and intelligence was possible. If this is not the case, then we most definitely live in a simulation. ^_^
Great video. I have 2 issues.
1. Black holes don't suck. Any nearby galaxies would be in orbit.
2. Not enough gas pressure for liquid water to exist at room temperature any where in space. Except on a planet with an atmosphere or maybe within a collapsing gas cloud - but then the temperature would be well above room temp.
1. Gravitationally attracted, just like galaxies are pulled into galaxy clusters.
2. Hey, it's Avi Loeb's theory, not mine. Here's his paper: www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/habitable.pdf
Fraser Cain Interesting paper, thanks for the reference. While he does mention cmb at 272K, he only refers to liquid water on rocky planets. It is not possible to have liquid water "everywhere " in the universe when the universe is at room temperature. This is because the triple point of water is at .006atm (611 pascals) and at any pressure below that liquid water cannot exist regardless of the temperature.
With regard to life (as we know it) in the early universe several things are required: Temperature and pressure for liquid water and a thermal gradient and the necessary elements. Rocky planets with an atmosphere could supply the pressure, thermal gradient and elements.
The paper discusses the theory that rocky planets could have formed during the time that the cmb was at room temperature. However, if life took several hundred millions years to form (as on Earth) then the temperature would be below the freezing point of water - except on those planets in the habitable zone of their star.
I wonder what the Universal pressure would be back then.
Fraser Cain I like the way you think. I also like the way you can say so much in so few words. I can't do that so please excuse my lengthy reply. Loeb's paper implies that the average matter density was a million times bigger than the current density. Since the current baryonic density is approx 4E-28 kg/m3 then the average density when the universe was at 300K would be about 4E-22 kg/m3. Using the ideal gas law (P=density.R.T) this equates to 3E-17 pascals. Still well below the triple point of water. At an earlier time in the universe when the pressure was greater than the triple point, the temperature was too high for liquid water. I cannot see any way that liquid water could exist anywhere in the universe except on planets/moons
This answered one of my questions about interferometry I asked on your most recent video.
just because you actually care about your fans and people who want to learn I support your on patron now @ The Heroes Bane keep making amazing content! cheers!
Thanks, I just saw the notification! Get ready to hear your name next week. :-)
Congrats on 100k
For Q&A.
Fraser please help. Can't stop thinking (for few years now) what is wrong with this theory.
I had an idea about why universe is expanding in all directions.
English is my second language so please forgive if I make no sense.
I have basic silence knowledge.
So...farther we look, more distance pass we see. In all directions.
That means at the end of of our (for every observer, for every place) visible universe in all directions is Big Bang Singularity. This Singularity has mass of universe. It's like a sphere made of points. Every point on this sphere is Singularity.
Gravity of this sphere could make universe expand.
Now why expansion is accelerating?
When universe is getting bigger, sphere is getting bigger. So there's more points on this sphere. So there's more singularity's surrounding every point in space. So there's more mass stretching space in all directions. So in time expansion accelerate.
Would it make sens that mass of this sphere is stretching all space-time fabric in all directions for every point in space?
Love your videos! cheers from Uruguay
If the planet is not habitable, full of resources, and we can make use of said resources; Do it, dismantle away!
Yeah, that's how I feel. We should keep the Earth, but everything else can go.
"The amount of money spent on basic scientific research, in the United States and other countries, is a fraction, of the money that's spent on everything else! On military, on take out pizza, lawn care maintenance.." So basically Mr. Cain just described the annual expenditures of the U.S. DoD.
So much lawn care.
The expansion of the universe is not so equally distributed. There are things like "the great attractor". The gist of what fraser said about that is right, but even over decently big distances you can have galaxies moving towards each other.
Sure, but in general, things are moving away from us, especially once you get away from our local area.
There's also this weird frame insert somewhere inside the 17:14 mark, Fight Club style lol! It's you on your cell with a giant wstockall in purple on the screen. It took a while, but I caught it.
I noticed that. Something that Chad did, either on purpose or by accident.
I don't think we will ever get to the point where we feel the need to dismantle planets. You would do that if your species physically, demographically, grew to a point where you had no other source of material to build more living space. Yet we already see loss of demographic momentum almost immediately after a culture reaches a high level of affluence and urbanization. I can easily imagine a miniature Dyson swarm in cislunar space to accommodate all the population in a high living standard without it impacting negatively the planet's biosphere, but as soon as this is achieved, I'd expect an onset of a steady decline in population, and habitats going spare, rather than scarce. Another solution to Fermi Paradox, advanced technological civilization is not compatible with the stimuli required by a naturally evolved species, leading them to either abandon civilization, or abandon procreation.
But imagine if it's some kind of robotic intelligence which is looking to turn as much of the galaxy into intelligent matter as possible. Possibly because it's racing against others doing the same.
My idea for the Fermi filter is definitely not unassailable, none of them seem to be. However, why would the robot be interested in racing against other robots? Unless of course it was programmed to do so by it's creators, which is entirely plausible, people often do stupid things. But otherwise, without all the squishy bits pumping chemical motivation through it's system, it would lack the drive to compete or even fight for it's own survival. As soon as it figures out entropy, it'll just throw in the towel. I once read a short story where writers were employed to create steady supply of narratives for AI's to digest and internalise, in a race to stop them committing suicide. A much better explanation, btw, for why machines need humans in 'Matrix'.
18:25 The big exception is satellites launched by Israel, they launch out over the Mediterranean to avoid launching over their eastern neighbors (some of which they don't get along with...). This means they get significantly less payload to orbit for a given size rocket since they need somewhere between 500 and 1000 m/s extra delta-v to get to orbit going the "wrong" way.
Oh, interesting point, thanks!
Fraser, on the sun turning into a red giant in the distant future.... 1) Will the sun's mass, or more pointedly, the sun's gravitational pull, change during its transformation? And 2) If it takes a bajillion years for a light molecule to move a mere meter (or so) and even longer for atoms to move deeper within the body of the sun, then wouldn't it also take say, a bajillion bajillion years for our star to transform into a red giant, instead of a 'mere' one to seven billion years?
The Sun will blow off its outer layers into space, so yes, it'll lose mass. Regarding the time it takes photons to escape, the growth into a red giant is caused by the buildup of helium in the core, so everything is happening down in the core anyway.
Q: Let's imagine we roll back spacetime back to the moment CMB still in the visible light spectrum - if you sat on a planet (please ignore the fact that most probably there are no heavy element to make 'you') - what would you see? Would the whole sky be perpetually filled with light? Or has the CMB red-shifted out of visible spectrum so long time ago that there were no planet to sit on or even stars, so the question is meaningless?
Yes, it would be whatever color the temperature matches. So, it would be blue, or red, or whatever.
Fraser Cain thanks! ...man, that view would be so psychedelically awesome
I think we should hold off on devouring all the planets until we are getting towards the end of the stars, when we are making stuff to survive in the post-star universe. But the time with planets and stars and such is really rather brief, and if we are lasting that long, I think we can take a "moment" as it were, to appreciate them. But when the time comes, we should turn every resource we can into post-star infrastructure as it were.
On dismantling lifeless planets, the morality of it, in my opinion, depends on what we do with that planet or those materials. If we terraform, colonize, or dismantle a lifeless planet in an effort to expand our understanding of the universe or ensure the survival of life as we know it, then it's okay. If it's just to increase inefficient and useless consumption, or if it is necessitated simply by our inability to maintain our own planet because of irresponsible behavior, then it's less okay (much, much less in the former case, somewhat less in the latter case - although they are related).
Of course, we'll end up doing both. Noble things and worthless things. That's humans for you. :-)
Watched your eclipse video. Question for you, is it safe to view Bailey's Beads or the Diamond Ring unfiltered? Or are those events not part of totality? Thanks
I have two questions:
If we were on, say, Mars with 1/2 of Earth's gravity, could we give astronauts clothing lined with a heavier substance like Lead so that their clothing can simulate the gravity on Earth? Is that even possible?
2. As Andromeda is moving towards us, is any of the light from Andromeda being blueshifted? If so, are we in danger of being hit with UV/Xray/Gamma radiation?
I have no problems whatsoever with dismantling planets, even planets with life, to obtain the raw materials needed to build mega structures. If you are building a Dyson sphere, or swarm, you can dedicate a small fraction of it, a millionth or so, to preserving those life forms and still provide them with hundreds of times the habitat space available to them on their home worlds. I don't even see why that would be a debate, except for the sentimental value we place on those planets.
I have a question about the expansion of our universe. How big is our current "accessible" universe? AKA, if we learned lightspeed travel today and started going to every place possible to reach, how much of our observable galaxy would we need to send ships to?
Question: if I was irresponsibly piloting my spacecraft and crashed into a random planet in our galaxy, how would I be able to locate where I am in relation to the earth?
If you can't recognize any stellar patterns, then you'd be looking for known pulsars that give off very specific frequency pulses. If you couldn't even find them, you'd probably have to navigate based on the positions of various dwarf galaxies surrounding the Milky Way. Great question.
Alternatively, if you're on a known route or your ship computer traces your path, with data on the "local" area being mapped out, you could probably just reroute your path back along with all potential movement of mapped objects and then determine where that path would take you.
+Fraiser Cain - If space in the distant universe is expanding faster than light why isn't it doing so, or apparently as fast, near by? The whole idea makes it feel like the Earth is the center of the universe. Why is it that the expansion only seems to get faster the farther you go?
Did you see Paul's answer in this very video? The apparent speed increases with the distance. Every time you double the distance, the speed doubles too.
The LISA mission was actually just approved for the 2030s :)
Yup, I'm really excited. :-)
so you used to be a tech entrepreneur, did you build a script for pulling through all the questions for your show from your socials? awesome videos btw, this channels fantastic!
Yep, we have a really cool system behind the scenes that pulls in questions and organizes them.
Question:
If a photon is emitted somewhere just outside the event horizon of a black hole, pointing away from the black hole, obviously it would "escape" the black hole, but would it be "slowed down" at all by its pull?
(I feel the answer should be no, because the speed of light is supposed to be constant for all observers, but I can't figure out why, just outside the event horizon it would escape at the speed of light, and just inside it would fall in.)
No, but it gets its wavelength stretched out.
Ahh, hadn't thought of that! Thanks a million for enlightening (haha) me!
Question: I just watched this video and in it you say at one point the temperature everywhere (the CMB) was merely warm so forgetting the slight problem of the vacuum could I go back in time and just float about in space in my shorts and t-shirt?
You'd need a pressure suit, but you wouldn't need to be kept warm.
A propulsion question: From watching Isaac Arthur's videos, particularly the Skyhook one, I understand you could apply thrust by generating a current and interacting with Earth's magnetic field. Could this mechanism allow for a sort of shuttle craft that simply moves between different orbital installations without ever needing reaction mass?
Ok, Fraser. Hello again. This time I have a Physics question. The graviton has been theorized, but it hasn't been demonstrated. Yet. Because gravity is universal and everything is moved by gravity. Could we ever learn to control gravity? Of course, one of the first uses would be artificial gravity for spaceships and space stations, but could we develop it as a propulsion system? Is research been done on those fields?
As always, stay cool and take care.
conquering the universe is never wrong, its humanities reason for being
Especially if the Universe is totally empty of life.
ESPECIALLY if the universe isn't empty of life :)
Could we get like a buyer's guide to astronomy? What to buy and where. I don't know what I should buy, where I should buy it, even looking it up is kinda messy since it's hard to know who to trust. I trust you.
Sure, at some point I'll do a guide on what kind of telescope to get.
You are wonderful.
Question: Is the expansion rate is the same at any part of the universe or some place expand faster, some place expand slower?
I really enjoy these Q&A videos. Now I have a question. How bad of a problem is space junk now when navigating above our planet, and wouldn't the chance for accidental impacts only increase unless humanity does something about it?
Here you go, we did a video about the space junk: ruclips.net/video/ISbs-XdW76k/видео.html
If objects moving towards us, from the far side of a "great attractor", they should "blue shift". But, with expansion of the universe, such objects, at such extreme ranges, should be so far away that unless they were coming towards us and near light speed, would not their light waves be red shifted by the expansion of space, and then add their light passing through or around a region of gravity strong enough to attract them.
The Universe could be fooling us it to thinking things are much simpler than they are.
wouldn't destroying those planet's affect how gravity pulls on the earth, Sun , and most importantly, asteroids, couldn't destroying our fellow planets cause asteroid orbits to be thrown into wack and possibly harm earth more?
No, if anything it would make the orbits more stable. Jupiter is actually a distablizing object in the Solar System and has probably kicked other planets out in the past.
Fraser Cain just trying too see if there are unintended consequences we haven't thought of... seems that we humans are good at that...
Oh, I'm sure there are lots of unintended consequences. :-)
Fraser Cain wouldn't a kardashev 2 civilization have to be able to predict those unintended consequences... otherwise they may have reached the great filter and you couldn't assume anything in y'alls compilation video?
If they have the ability to disassemble planets, moving asteroids into safer orbits would be trivial.
Question: Should we be worried about the recently announced solar minimum? A lot of fear mongering channels have been saying for months that it's coming and we will head into an ice age globally. But others say it happens every 11 years. Keep up the great content!
Q: How big should a telescope on the orbit of the sun be if you want to see the surface of TRAPPIST-1 planets?
Ali_Army107 I don't know exactly but to get a good picture with detail we would need something as wide as Jupiter I guess,I could do the math but I'm too lazy to
I'll do an episode on what it would take to see out in the Universe. Bottom line... really really big telescopes.
Why Awesome stuff has to be expensive and sometimes too huge to maintain/control????? DX
How big telescopes would a T1, 2 and 3 civilization or a matrioshka brain be likely to make?
junoguten a T1 civilization aught to be able to make a telescope the size of a dyson-object. rather a dyson swarm could have dual purpose as such a telescope. i suppose you could have a galactic swarm eventually but the bandwidth would be slow as balls. that'd be the more limiting thing, the bigger you get the more you better have quantum communications down pat i guess. then maybe.
I have a question that I've been wondering about for a while: when we start dismantling planets like Mercury, Mars, Saturn, or Neptune (for examples) for resources; how will the Earth and other heavenly bodies be affected by the loss of those gravity wells?
Of course we should never dismantle a planet with life on it. You never know, maybe they will develop into a delicious species! =P
Mmm, keep those Europan space shrimp around, just in case we find out they're tasty?
We are the humans
Your species will adapt to service our biological needs
Resistance is futile
Deep Space Fishing.
Have you not see predator ? When they hunt humans , get ready I’m sure it happens
Q&A: Fraser: Why do people want to go to Mars (eg SpaceX)? Why not go to the Moon first, setup a base there - perhaps a staging post for a subsequent expedition to Mars. A massive ship for a Mars voyage could be built there and it wouldn't have the gravity well issues of Earth. A research station could be created on the Moon for new materials/systems/etc for a Mars trip. If something goes tits-up it's only a few days away from Earth/rescue/help and not months and months that Mars is. Thanks.
I actually talk about this in two episodes, so stay tuned.
Thanks. :-)
So, with the speed of light ( really being x ) then everything we are looking at is x years old the further away the older it is, so do we calculate for this.
If we found life in our solar system (such as Mars) would it prevent us from ever going ther due to the contamination issue?
That's a really good question. I think scientists would want to keep it pristine forever, and colonists would want to move there. You'd definitely have a conflict.
Hi Fraser
What level of life would need to be found for us to reasonably assume there could be complex intelligent life like ourselves? I know it would have to be something higher than bacterisl level, but how high? Plants? If plants can evolve, does that mean animals would necessarily come soon after?
I think if we found multi-cellular organisms, that would be an indication there's probably more complex life out there.
Huh... okay.
This will be my first question here. One of the questions presented in this video sparked this idea in my mind. The question about whether there could be a black hole pulling everything in the universe.
For some reason this made me think of a visual diagram of a possible model for how universal expansion could be working on a sort of 'bungee' model. Expanding until the force of expansion weakens and gravity somehow takes over and pulls everything back in for a 'big crunch'.
My question is, could our universe actually be encased 'within' a universal singularity 'bubble'? Ie. could our universe be 'expanding' into some sort of massive inverse-donut blackhole? Could there be a sort of 'edge' of the universe consisting of 'Event Horizon' belonging to a form of Blackhole/Singularity that we have considered/discovered yet??
20:41 ''EVERY galaxy is getting further away from every other galaxy''
14:50 too, Fraser.
What about Andromeda? Or should I say Milkdromeda?
All of Lakaena (or however its spelled) will merge in several trillion years. I think each super cluster will be moving away forever though.
Fine. 99.9999999999% of galaxies are moving away from us.
I know they were both referring to the intrinsic (apparent) expansion of the universe itself. But yeah I think to say every galaxy is moving *away* from one another (relative to a frame of reference) is rather confusing.
Fraser Cain what about the great Wall thingy
Ita more of "Every cluster of galaxies are moving away from us", Andromeda and the MilkyWay form a cluster of 2 main galaxies and a bunch of dwarf galaxies that will all eventually merge
When the universe was room temperature, where would there have been enough ambient pressure to keep water liquid? There might have been places where water would have accreted into liquid globs surrounded, and kept under pressure, by an atmosphere of water vapor plus miscellaneous nasty stuff (NH3, CH4, HCN, etc.), but this wouldn't be the general condition of space. And if water did accrete, it would have heat of formation that might have left the water glob and the pressure ices near the center of the glob at temperatures too high for life. So on the one hand, insufficient pressure, and on the other hand, excessively high temperature. Of course there might have been locations having a happy medium of conditions: liquid water within a reasonable temperature range. It just probably wasn't a universe-wide kind of thing.
I really need to chat with Avi Loeb about his ideas, including this one. It's fascinating, but I'd like more details.
QUESTION: with regards to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, has anyone managed to measure whether (and yes to what degree) that acceleration is itself accelerating? If not, what would it take to take that measurement?
Yes, this is what all these dark energy surveys are doing. To calculate the rate of acceleration of the Universe's expansion.
G'day Fraser, here's a question for you. What would happen if a rouge planet was to wander into our Solar system? I imagine size and trajectory would play a large roll in how much chaos it might cause but as a secondary issue, what would happen if it hit the Sun? Cheers Ritcho.
It depends on how massive it is and how slowly it moves through the Solar System. But it would cause chaos and push objects into new orbits.
@fraser cain about taking planets apart; wouldnt that destroy the laplace resonance within the solar system thus making the orbits of the planets they were in resonance with unstable?
I've heard different youtubers quote varying sizes for how large the Universe is IF it is finite. We know that space appears to be flat but there's still that margin of error. Assuming the Universe is finite, is there an accepted size?
The minimum size of the Universe is about 760 billion light years in circumference. A sphere with a radius of about 120 billion light years. So, it's either bigger than that, or infinite. As future observations pin down the flatness even further, that minimum size will get bigger. And infinity is always on the table.
Would you be willing to share where you will be viewing the eclipse? I live in north Louisiana, so I know I will have to travel maybe Missouri or Tennessee.
Any chance to shake your hand would be awesome.
Hi Fraser, I love your channel. I'm no mathematician but if we know the rate of the expansion of the universe on a large scale by dark energy, and we know that galaxies and clusters are bound by localized gravity, shouldn't we be able, knowing the age of the universe, to calculate the size of the universe outside of the observable universe?
Would there be any benefits over the Hubble telescope to have a telescope in heliocentric orbit in the Kuiper belt?
It would have a different perspective within the Solar System. Some objects would be closer to it, and provide a better view, but that's about it.
Hi.
Question: What are your thoughts on White Holes?
I first heard of them via an episode of Red Dwarf named after them.
Here's a video we did on them: ruclips.net/video/c2Y-8HWFTlo/видео.html
Thanks :-).
14:33 But if everything in the Universe is expanding apart, why is the the Milky Way, and other galaxies in the Laniakea supercluster moving towards the Great Attractor? What is the Great Attractor anyways?
We did a video about why some are coming towards us: ruclips.net/video/ghEqtVrWhnY/видео.html
Hey! Could you start link all videos you mentioning in Q&A?
Like when I mention that we talked about something in a previous video? I try to when I remember.
Yep Yep! When you say "we did full episode about it". I just never can find the "IT" episode:) Thanks for responding!
Do you have any personal theories on "the great attractor"?
We did a video on this. It's just a big galaxy cluster - ruclips.net/video/Z4nv-cP_qqg/видео.html
Hi Fraser, If the Milky Way and other galaxies have super massive black holes in the centre then why are we not seeing gravitational lensing from objects on the opposite side from us? thx
We can stave off the sun becoming a red giant by engaging in stellar husbandry through star lifting.
Yup, we did an episode about this a while ago: ruclips.net/video/uDp9oPVjJc0/видео.html
hi Fraser, do satellites take a little of momentum from earth been up there like little moons?
Almost all satellites are orbiting the Earth faster than once per day, so they're actually doing the opposite. Pulling in closer and speeding up its rotation. Of course, it's an imperceptibly small effect.
Doesn't NASA take precautions to not contaminate other worlds with earth bugs?
jackd42o they sterilize all probes,but if any extremophiles survived that and adapted to space or hid in interiors they easily could contaminate other worlds
Yes, if a spacecraft is going somewhere that might be habitable, they try to minimize the chances of contamination.
still think we should only be careful like 1/2 the time. for science.
artificial and accidental panspermia may be the most important events in the multiverse! screw u again prime directive
I've wondered why for so long! There is so much knowledge to gain from studying an uninhabited planet but the same goes for watching life unfold. We could discover entirely new metabolic pathways that aren't possible here on Earth. I'd be interested in seeing how some of Earth's hardiest microbial life handle the different environments of Mars. Same for the upper atmosphere of Venus!
I'm sure a smarter mind than mine has thought about this and knows exactly why we shouldn't do it. I can still wonder though, right? Great video, Fraser!
@Austin High yes! we need tardigrade colonies everywhere!!
well, it does run a risk of causing mass extinctions, as "invasive" species can displace current ecosystems, buuuut that does also spur evolution so.... sorry space whales, gotta clean house
Where's the link to his channel?
Hi
What will happen if we could fill the space between our planet in solar system with oxygen could we travel from plant to plant in normal plane and how much oxygen we need to do so
Follow-up to this Q&A about a black hole pulling all galaxies away... if there's no "center" of the universe, and moving infinitely in one direction would bring you back to your starting point from the opposite direction, then couldn't there be an impossibly huge black hole beyond the edge of the observable universe that would appear to pull everything away from us in all directions?
I admit that I still don't understand the not-exactly-3D topology of the universe. Makes no sense to me.
We did a video about whether the Universe is finite or infinite, which might help you wrap your brain around it. ruclips.net/video/Al9EyNoCsRI/видео.html
@Fraser Cain What is the lifespan of the neutron stars?
They might decay over vast periods of time. Here's a link to read: plus.google.com/+NasaChandra/posts/YbuyGLKxXyU
Thank you so much
Q: What elements are produced by a star the size of the sun. How much of this matter is ejected into space or are all the elements produced locked up in the eventual white dwarf.
What is the largest mass star that can end up as a white dwarf. Obviously larger than 1.4 sols since the outer layers are ejected, but my question is how much larger.
The Sun mostly produces helium, and then can produce oxygen later on in its life.
Fraser Cain What about the elements between helium and oxygen
What exactly are gravitational waves? Does it mean everything affected by the wave is pulled slightly more to the source? Wouldn't that infer the opposite amplitude of the wave would push?
hi fraser,
do you believe we will ever be able to make a technology to get faster at our destination than light? (I am not saying travelling faster than light that is impossible I know) like warp, hyper space, slip space and wormholes, and witch one of those, or an other if you know one, do you think is most likely we will get
We need to dismantle the sun and other stars through Isaac Arthur's starlifting. When stars burn out, not only will they will destroy planets, but they will have too immense gravity for flying a space ship to them later, and all the remaining material will be inaccessible. Even worse with black holes, the stuff is totally lost to another dimension/universe.
When the universe's background radiation cools to radio waves, would we be able to use that to communicate with whom ever across the universe?
Silt Strider!! I rode one of those into Balmora after I got off the boat in Seyda Neen! Right after that crazy Altmer dropped out of the sky with his scrolls of Icarian Flight....
This is a bunch of Morrowwind references?
Could black holes be part of the reason for universal expansion through a mechanism like Hawking radiation?
I do remember seeing an article about a black hole jet going faster than light, while it may be put down to an illusion, could it be down expanding space time instead?
Matter is said to get mass thanks to the Higgs Field, could moving through it faster be the reason matter would seem to gain mass when accelerating towards light speed?
What do you think the Great Attractor is? Could it be another universe pressing against ours as some of the theories say?
Juno's entire orbit around Jupiter is almost 2 months. But how much time does it spend during its closest approach when it's just above the planet, but below the radiation belt?
Hey! BIG hypothetical question, IF the alcubierre is mathematically possible (assuming infinite energy is) then given enough time to pass so we can "pass/break" the speed of light (not really by speed but by stretching space-time) , could we ever go beyond our observable universe's limits?
hi fraser how well researched is the exercise and nutrition for muscle and bone maintenance in space? do they have a high protein/calcium diet? how about the use of steroids? Also would their training regime work on earth?
I'm not sure about their exact diet or use of steroids. That training regime would be overkill on Earth, though.
It isn't very well researched at all AFAIK. We won't we able to investigate it in depth until we're putting people in Mars and the Moon unfortunately, since astronauts in the ISS usually stay there for mere months.
I would kill to be able to wear a light jacket in mid June like you. Texas gulf coast has a heat index of 109°f today.
I know, I know... in °C....
Just what I grew up learning.
It's been unseasonably cool this Spring and I've needed to wear the jacket too much. My wife is Texan, and she misses the warmer weather. But I don't think she actually remembers just how hot that is. :-)
Fraser, do all black holes form from a massive supernova? Or can they form from a massive star gathering more mass over time? And as a follow up, as a black hole loses mass due to Hawking radiation, will it ever lose enough mass to no longer be a black hole?
All the stellar mass ones do. You need that collapse of layers at 70% the speed of light to jam the material together tight enough to form a black hole.
If we were to mine or put a small colony on the moon would they build space elevators for transferring cargo/personnel to and from the lunar surface?
Sure, we could do that. Space elevators would work great on the Moon.
have we taken photo of blackhole directly (telescopes) or indirectly
What could be done if we figure out how to manipulate the Higgs field? Could that lead to control of an objects mass by putting a field around it?
Life on other planets was asked in this video.
Correct question is what was so special about early Earth?
If nothing unique, then there will be life on all planets.
Then the question will be which ones developed intelligent life?
What was so special about Earth?
Lizard form of life took hold first. Why?
The net assumption has to be that there is life, but not as life as we know it.
Can we move to those planets? Probably not, we would get eaten by native life forms
the first life was simple underwater celular life, and a billion years later some kinds of fish mudskipped, eventually some of those evolved into lizards, and so on. the air wasn't breathable for most of Earth's history.
Do you think it would be a good idea to allow countries to claim objects in space (such as planets or asteroids) to incentivise space travel?
Hey Fraser, If we started destroying planets and moons in our solar system to use their resources, wouldn't this change the orbits of the remaining planets and possibly enough to make earth uninhabitable?
Is it possible to "build" a new planet within earth's magneto sphere? Or another planet's magneto sphere, all debt aside, or would the surface gravity value be too strong in the solar system
You couldn't build anything within the magnetosphere, it would just violently merge with the Earth. There could be places that you could stick another planet, but Jupiter is actually very disruptive and could kick an extra planet out of the Solar System entirely.
if you had to chose:
would you choose to save 1 human if that would mean destroying Mercury?
I have a question that might be either stupid or compilcated due to the wave/particle duality of light but how big is a photon. It confuses me because wavelengths measure from meters to nanometers but photons are described as packets of light.
Did someone say silt strider? I need to catch a ride to Balmora.
Regarding duplicate james web style telescopes at distant lagrange points, wouldn't we at least be able to judge distance and make volumetric measurements better?? i,e depth perception?
seems to me you could have them do synchronized scan passes without insane precision using software to correct. yeah, not exactly creating a giant telescope, but a 3D telescope is useful for mapping the universe, right?
You could use it for astrometry, figuring out the distance to everything. But interferometry is the best. :-)
cool. and...well...ya of course! xD
give them more excuses to put some out there - then once they're deployed someone will figure it out lol