Nuclear blast sends star hurtling across galaxy
bbc.com
bbc.com
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
[0] https://watermark.silverchair.com/staa1761.pdf?token=AQECAHi...
We are in a milky way, it is reasonable to look at the speed relative to the galactic nucleus, which is what I did. Kind of how we talk about speed of earth/comets/etc around the sun.
If you search for high speed differences, you just look for far enough target.
It is much more impressive for any body to generate its own delta V than to follow an orbit.
This is the reason why you discuss cars moving at tens of meters per second forgetting that they are already moving at over 200km/s around our Galaxy. Because some reference frames just aren't interesting.
> Books from fifty years ago are difficult to read now, mostly due to a blatant sexism.
Fifty years ago was 1970. I don't think anyone has a problem reading Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret, Johnathan Livingston Seagull, or Ringworld due to blatant sexism.
"Finis" is a short story and was first published over 100 years ago.
> An example from the first page of this text: “Probably she had brains...”
"Probably she had brains..." is not evidence of sexism. It's not even evidence of a bias that people generally don't have brains, much less women. It's literally a character's (Eastwood's) conclusion based on observation of another character's (Mrs. Davis') behaviors and habits. Eastwood doesn't show surprise that a woman could be smart. He doesn't deny that she is smart in spite of the evidence. And even if he had done so, a character being sexist wouldn't ipso facto make the work as a whole sexist.
It would be slowly getting closer and closer over centuries.
The warning doesn't really change how the story ends though...
You definitely don’t want to be on a planet that gets flung out of both systems. Even if you somehow had millions of years of fuel, your civilization would probably never be close to any other body in space again.
What's the difference between a tiny spot on the Hubble, or any material for that matter, turning colder and darker always when pointed into that direction? Voltage spikes up at that sensor and it sees a hot spot because it caves in on itself instead of being hit with a beam of energy in motion for billions of years.
Weak force parity violation?
Is that just some higher abstraction on top of pair production and spontaneous particle creation?
Electromagnetism is the emission of photons and the absorption through the photovoltaic effect. Matter decay is mass decreasing and releasing energy without EM. Or EM plus negating the effect by messing with that EM counterbalance. Or gravity, the heat transfer through the medium of time, interaction so fine it looks like you are broadcasting to everything at once if something else tries to trace it.
That's what I'm thinking. Eventually spontaneous particle creation is the basis of all interaction. Not EM or photons. I think humans get to it, that we do it already. Massive celestial objects pop into existence because highly accurate sensors here on Earth say they must. Particles here pop into existence and they give the data of everything out there for no other reason than they must. Instead of being loss in a vast sea of stuff, the universe is a very complex filter to a massive energy source.
When they talk of causality violation, backwards time travel, I think of hitting the big bang itself, or original energy source. Throwing dynamite into the wave you're surfing on.
Forget worrying about a star crashing through Earth. Earth is the source of all destructive acts in the universe for the most trivial of reasons, and we have soverign access to all that out there to make our lives the slightest bit better for any reason.
Just some thoughts I get when I read these things. Thanks for that article.