Slashdot Mirror

Naively, maybe. But until we know whether a binary system is more hostile to life or not it would be tough to say. I recall that stable planetary orbits around binary systems are predicted to be more difficult. There will be more three-body interactions which could lead to the ejection of the planets.

One scenario with stable orbits would be where the two stars orbit closely to each other while the planet is a significant distance further out, since too close to the binaries the orbits wouldn't necessarily be stable. You could also have stable planetary orbits with binaries where the stars are sufficiently far apart and the planet orbits just one of the stars.

IIRC, this AstronomyCast episode covers this subject well.

Astrophysics moved beyond this over a century ago. If you knew anything about astrophysics or astronomy you would have known this. Granted, this kind of thinking predates even this event but this is probably the best known tale in astronomy of someone knowing something existed without direct observance.
 
And I must also point out that it's great that you show some level of interest in this kind of thing. While I don't think you should need to have a PhD in astrophysics to discuss it you should still get some base knowledge of what you're talking about before making grand statements of this nature or making assumptions that are plainly false. You really should take the time to sit down and study up a bit before coming off like a jackass. I recommend AstronomyCast for starters.
 
And I'm really not trying to be a smartass but the resources to have a basic understanding of these types of things is so easy to get to and most of them are free. It's a shame to go around looking like a fool for it.

This This Astronomy Cast podcast episode does a great job of explaining why infrared astronomy is important, and the role that the JWST will (would have?) played in discovery.

The best place to get a better understand of why this is possible due to the expansion of the universe is Episode 79 of Astronomy Cast, they do the topic much better than I feel I could ever do here. http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/

Well that's just it there really isn't a diameter to the universe as far as most thinking goes for the shape of the universe. At least not in any dimension we can measure or perceive or what have you. The age (and shape too) of the universe is mostly (from my limited understanding of it all) based on measurements from the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and from observations such as this (measuring the redshift in them, typically of the hydrogen alpha line [and others like it that we expect to find everywhere]). Both of these according to current theories predict that the farthest we should be able to see into the universe is about 14 billion years (give or take a billion, there's a lot of margin for error here...). Now what you might be alluding to (its hard to tell from such a simple/brief comment) is that those objects we see have moved far beyond the 14 billion light years away that we see them at currently and that is entirely correct. By some estimates i think its supposed that the position of the things we can see today are nearly 70 billion light years away due to their own velocity and the added energy from the expansion of the universe itself (this last bit is what can allow them to appear to move much faster than the speed of light, because the universe itself is enlarging equally in all directions in all points at all times).

for more information i'd suggest consulting astronomy cast episodes,

http://www.astronomycast.com/listeners/questions-shows/questions-show-multiple-big-bangs-satellite-collisions-and-the-size-of-the-universe/
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-81-questions-on-the-shape-size-and-centre-of-the-universe/

Well that's just it there really isn't a diameter to the universe as far as most thinking goes for the shape of the universe. At least not in any dimension we can measure or perceive or what have you. The age (and shape too) of the universe is mostly (from my limited understanding of it all) based on measurements from the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and from observations such as this (measuring the redshift in them, typically of the hydrogen alpha line [and others like it that we expect to find everywhere]). Both of these according to current theories predict that the farthest we should be able to see into the universe is about 14 billion years (give or take a billion, there's a lot of margin for error here...). Now what you might be alluding to (its hard to tell from such a simple/brief comment) is that those objects we see have moved far beyond the 14 billion light years away that we see them at currently and that is entirely correct. By some estimates i think its supposed that the position of the things we can see today are nearly 70 billion light years away due to their own velocity and the added energy from the expansion of the universe itself (this last bit is what can allow them to appear to move much faster than the speed of light, because the universe itself is enlarging equally in all directions in all points at all times).

for more information i'd suggest consulting astronomy cast episodes,

http://www.astronomycast.com/listeners/questions-shows/questions-show-multiple-big-bangs-satellite-collisions-and-the-size-of-the-universe/
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-81-questions-on-the-shape-size-and-centre-of-the-universe/

A great podcast on most of the same topics.

Astronomy Cast

AstronomyCast doesnt quite hit it with me. Its hosted by two people who do the question and answer routine on a topic each week and I'd rather just hear one of them talk about the subject instead of one of them pretending to know nothing about the subject and asking questions. Its all a matter of taste but I find it a bit too packaged and distracting. Like it was trying to be a conversation but came out awkwardly like a script. The information is always top notch and interesting stuff but the style of the show is not my cup of tea. The Jodcast recently asked its listeners whether they wanted the "objects in the sky for the upcoming month" to be read as a question and answer thing and they voted for one person to talk about it. As I say its a matter of taste so I pointed out a couple of other shows, in case the one I wasn't so keen on, put people off podcasts - theres a big sky out there and there's lots of different podcasts too.

I could mention a few more in addition to
AstronomyCast http://www.astronomycast.com/ top quality show with different subjects explored in depth with a teaching mission that will leave you much better informed than anything on tv ever will. The pedogogic style doesnt suit me but thats just my taste.

"Slacker Astronomy" http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/ Practising astronomers interviewed and in-depth subjects discussed by enthusiastic experts, they crack abysmal jokes about technical things which might seem a little silly (or incomprehensible) but the unscripted enthusiasm appeals to me.

The "Jodcast" http://www.jodcast.net/ Science staff from Manchester Universities Joderal Bank radio telescope bring us astronomy news, a themed mini drama, the night sky this month, topical discussion and an oft repeated desire for their theme tune to be redone in a heavy metal version. Well connected on Facebook et al, join in the fun.

there are

NASA Blueshift http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/podcast/wordpress/ A bit slick the last time I listened, with soundbite interviews instead of a bit more detail from a single person. Most NASA stuff is a bit "wow look at that" without too much depth so I only come back to it infrequently. However it is probably perfect for the younger listener and they will probably be hooked by its friendliness.

"Astronomy a Go Go" http://astronomy.libsyn.com/ is the best observing podcast on the net bar none with Alice Few. It may prove a little intimidating to newcomers but the website is also the best general resource for amateur astronomers who want to do observing IMHO. Alice is so thorough and easy on the ear that you could easily play this one three or four times to get yourself fully up to speed on what might be worth doing in the coming month with your observing time. Solid gold this one.

Planetary Radio http://www.planetary.org/radio/ from the Planetary Society is great if you are into rockets and the exploration of the solar system as opposed to deep space. Always an interesting listen with news features, an opinion spot from the self styled "Bill Nye the planetary guy" and loads of enthusiasm for exploring.

365 days of astronomy http://365daysofastronomy.org/ has a few days left to run with a choice of 365 short programs from this The year of Astronomy - The ones from this year best heard now by browsing through the programs to find ones on subjects you are interested in, but the good news is that they are set to carry on with their volunteer generated 5 to 10 minute programs in 2010. Head on over and make a program for them yourself!

The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures http://www.astroso

And for extra podcast enjoyment look out for "Slacker Astronomy" http://www.slackerastronomy.org/wordpress/ and The "Jodcast" http://www.jodcast.net/ with added astronomer humor. I find AstronomyCast http://www.astronomycast.com/ a little bit too greasy and slick myself, but all three podcasts are chock full of interesting information.

Depending on what the scope is you might just be best off with the normal jazz; the moon, planets, galaxies in the local group.

6, 4 and 3 are kind of young but if you're interested in this as well you might want to consider joining your local amateur astronomy association. You'd get a lot more input as to what's good to find for the backyard astronomer, some access to better scopes and you'd probably learn a great deal about astronomy with it. Space.com's NightSky is also a good resource for things that people can see without hardcore equipment and it's kept up to date. I also recommend people with a basic interest in astronomy to subscribe to the AstronomyCast podcast. It's highly informative and a step above any of the crap you find on Discovery or The Science Channel.

The nice thing about astronomy is that there are a ton of resources for all levels of interest, resources and abilities. It's probably the cheapest science you can learn on your own because of the vast number of resources available. Not to mention that it touches on so many other areas of science. It's really a great intersection of scientific disciplines that just about everyone can appreciate. There aren't many other fields of science you can say that for.

My current science heroes are all grass-roots enthusiasts like Brian Dunning, Phil Plait, Pamela Gay & Fraser Cain, The Skeptical Rogues, Derek & Swoopy and the like.

Listening to all those podcasts and recommending them to all my friends has brought an interest in science out from purely occuring inside my own head into being a regular dialogue with people I know. It also makes you feel like the human race is actually going somewhere, instead of the general impression you get from the mainstream media that we are perpetually circling a gory hate-filled drain.

And, of course my original inspiration that started me listening to all these podcasts, Micheal Shermer, whose book "Why People Believe Weird Things" should be given to every 13 year old as part of their school education.

If I had 500 quid to get to Las Vegas I would love to have gone to this. Defniately doing it next year.

I'll take the second point first. And believe me I'm no expert, I mearly take an interest in Astronomy and I've read quite a lot on the subject.

If you 'look' behind you as you enter a black hole you see the light that was entering immediately behind you so you see the static universe as you normally would. But as with a lot of complicated maths and physics, human language and common experience can't really serve as a metaphor for what is going on. It's an unfortunate answer to a great many questions.

Your first question I'm not too sure about, it is a very insightful question. After a black hole is formed then yeah, time slows down to a crawl *if* there was any way to look in (past the event horizon). But I don't really know how to explain the fact that as it creates a sigularity time should slow down. I think an important concept to understand is that there is no universal clock. Imagine everyone in different gravity wells running along different percieved time-scales and you be along the right tracks. Really I'm in over my head though!

Try here for an excellent podcast on black holes and the notes page has a ton of links. This is were I get most of my Astronomy info. The podcast really will stretch your immagination!

http://www.astronomycast.com/black-holes/episode-18-black-holes-big-and-small/

Doesn't stability of a LaGrange point - keeping something in it - depend on the point in question? I think you have to fight drift more in L1 through L3, but not so much in L4 and L5.

Wikipedia has some good info on stability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point#Stability. Or listen to the AstronomyCast episode on LaGrange points: http://www.astronomycast.com/physics/ep-76-lagrange-points/. They describe L1 through L3 as trying to keep a marble on a saddle, but L4 and L5 as keeping a marble in a volcano - hard to get it up there, but somewhat stable once it's there.

It'd be neat if we could keep something in L4 or L5 of the Earth/Moon system, but I agree the costs to and from Earth or Moon are probably still too politically big...

I know others have said this as well, but I have a 7 year old boy and he's been absolutely loves watching The Universe on The History Channel with me. After having watched almost all of the episodes over the past two seasons, he can converse far more intelligently about cosmology than most adults can.

When in the car, we also listen to the Astronomy Cast podcast. Dr. Pamela Gay does a great job of getting the science across in an informative and entertaining way without dumbing it down too much for us non professional physicists and astronomers.

Yes, a lot of it is over his head (heck, a lot of it is over my head), but he asks very intelligent questions about time, space, where everything came from, and where it's all headed, so I highly recommend those two sources.

We've tried watching reruns of Cosmos. It was an absolutely groundbreaking and stunning show 28 years ago. But by today's standards, the graphics are weak and some of the science is dated. It's amazing how much we as a species have learned about the universe we live in in that short amount of time.

-S

Unfortunately, in 50 million years, the Sun will heat up enough to literally boil the oceans and everyone had better have left by then.

This is according to Dr. Pamela Gay of Astronomy Cast (the coolest astronomer EVER). See her correction at

http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-30-the-sun-spots-and-all/

I don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere on the astronomy podcast. At any rate, it's a great show for anyone who is interested in astronomy. I'd especially recommend listening to their series on the objects of the solar system.
Astronomy Cast

I heartily recommend listening to all the other episodes too.

Or... have a listen to episode 33 of AstronomyCast. All about buying and using a telescope.