Anyone like astronomy or physics?

Post Reply New Topic

"IF"

I should have said "I'll believe that IF I see his results".

- Light of higher frequencies travels faster in interstellar medium.
- Light doesn't changes it's frequency nor energy if escaping even the strongest gravitational field.
- Hypervelocity stars are most likely the result of a supernova of their nearby partner.
- Rotation impuls is transported away from the rotation center. That's the common reason of accretion.
- Magnetic fields are caused by the relativistic increase of electric forces.
- New stars in ring galaxies show quite impressive the location of a lot of the missing dark matter of galaxies.
- Supernovae are most likely the common source of high energetic particles.
- A singularity is impossible because it would lead to an infinite mass.
- Even electrons are to large to fit into black holes.
- Gravitational forces grow special relativistic as well as electric forces.
- Expansion of the room itself doesn't exist and would lead to a blue shift of light.
- The expansion of room didn't show in distance measurement within solar system
Who cares?

Yes I'm quite fond of it as long as it doesn't get too complex and time-consuming. When I was about 10 years old I was fascinated with planets for a few years, and didn't want to talk about much else. I also enjoyed a lot of aspects of the physics I was taught at school between the ages of 12 and 18. But advanced-level physics was a little too mathematical and involved for me, so I lost interest when it got too complicated like that, and although I passed the exam, I didn't get a very good grade.

I enjoyed getting to grips with the Special Theory Of Relativity later (simply out of curiosity), all those thought experiments involving lights attached to fast trains, the idea that simultaneity between distant objects was meaningless, that movement and position were meaningless without a reference to something defined as stationary, light speed being "pure" velocity, etc.

I like the power that a knowledge of basic physics gives me for the understanding of how a lot of things work. But mainly I think a lot of it stems from my interest in general science, physics doesn't especially appeal to me more than chemistry for example, except that I like the stunningly accurate measurements that can be made with physics, and the fact that proof is often possible, which isn't so much the case with most subjects. I'm continually at loggerheads with the thinking of the public and of politicians, preachers, ad-men etc. because it's often so unscientific, they never seem to respect the importance of presenting externally-verifiable information to back up assertions, everybody seems to want to just dupe and persuade each other using emotional tricks and flawed thinking. So many people don't seem to want to be objective. I love subjectivity if it's clearly labelled as art or whatever, but I hate it when it pretends to be objective.

Yeah, I like atomic physics and star science, but I love applied physics. I used grade 11 math and science to understand the world and do engineering. There was one long-running stock fraud, the "Air (powered) Car" whose brochure clearly violated even that basic level of physics, but well under 1% of my fellow graduates could see that. The world is full of things that would be much improved if even engineers made better use of mathematical models at the concept stage. Structures are often built with little attention to the forces on them which suggest appropriate, economical shapes. Even marine architects, along with most people, ignore the Froude equations, which recommend not pushing harder on a fluid that is running away from you. There are even "experts" who think that, at speed, a bicyclist holds the handlebars perfectly still and turns by leaning, apparently just by force of will.
I love physics, but trying to share it is frustrating. People are emotionally attached to their ignorance.

Reminds me to quadrocopters and related things. They often use quite tiny propellers at a very high speed even that bigger ones at lower rotation speed require far less energy to keep the vehicle in the air because the force to keep the vehicles in the air comes from the recoil of the accelerated air towards the ground. For the same recoil it costs less energy to accelerate a higher volume and for this mass of air to a lower speed.

That's one example. The Boeing 737 Max got in trouble because the original fanjets were too small for efficiency, and the bigger ones didn't fit well.
With boats and ships, the violently turbulent propwash is even visible, but propellers are still sized to avoid hitting bottom in harbour, and slip very badly as they cross the oceans.

I've viewed developments of 'Quantum Computing' with interest.
How many are interested in 'Quantum Computing?'

I follow the news and am intrigued by the possibilities, but I'd rather think of other things than how it is done. I mourn the loss of the HP development group.

It's more or less for special tasks of advantage only where you need to check an unbelievable high amount of different possibilities. It's nothing I really have to deal with and for this I never did.
May be you can use it for bitcoin mining.

i like astronomy

How many have seen the 2009 movie 'Adam' (LINK) - about an adult with Aspergers interested in Astronomy?

Astronomy is a common special interest regarding ASD - yet there have been studies of why 'trains' are a common interest with ASD - yet, very little in the way of studies on astronomy. Any specific studies?

(LINK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(2009_film)

That is not one of the very few movies I have seen.
While I'm here, I wonder if the aspie trouble with faces also affects our perception of asterisms. I can recognize the big and little dippers, but would like to find a star map that shows their relationship to the other "landmarks" up there, that I might finally get oriented.

^ you might find useful: Stikky Night Skies.

I am a map reader who does not do well with the pace of formal lessons, nor fees for ancient information.

I like the movie "Adam" very much; I can relate to Adam.

And I love astronomy and physics. I did as I child; they were my special interests. And now my career is as a theoretical physicist. I guess I've been lucky.

I'll check out of movie "Adam".

I just learned what a lambda diode is. I see that it can't be described with one equation. But this is electronics, not pure physics anyhoo.