Cosmology Discussion

[DR OSMAN]

I spoke to this lady who is psychologist and has a science degree, she was a H.D student so she seems to be a 'deep learner of concept and theory' and not a surface type learner.

I asked her about some cosmological questions even though she said astronomy isn't a big aspect but it's mostly cosmology, physics, planetary science and some other field she couldn't remember from the top of her brain.

She did confirm gravity is a field and a force. A field being similar to wireless signal covering a 'range' but the 'range' is dependent on the planet mass and it has a downward pressure behavior.

I asked her about the stars we see and how were looking backwards in the past and their technically dead. She didn't really answer properly or maybe I didn't communicate it properly. Either way my question is.

I know the distance of the stars is measured by light years converted to earthly years. I read the stars that are visible with the naked eye is alive, but apparently the stars that need a telescope have died. Is that the right understanding? is it dead becuz we cannot theoritically travel at the speed of light and reach it or is it really dead even if we do reach it? that's what I don't understand is it due to our slow travel times or are those stars dying. Even our sun looks like a star depending on the distance your in the universe, it's alive, but if your so far away distance wise, does it means it's dead to YOU only but exists?

 

[DR OSMAN]

I also asked her about the planet atmospheres being linked to their distance to the sun, closer it is to a sun, the hotter, the further it is away, the colder and the furthest a planet can get from the sun is absolutely zero freezing, the closest it can get to the sun it's the hottest a planet can be. Then it's all those in-between those two extremes and possibly earth like planets if they match our distance to sun ratio.

 

[DR OSMAN]

How can u be in the present time wise existing yet see the stars and say those stars are in the past and really do not exist. If it doesn't exist do u mean the 'sun' doesn't exist or the light? the light clearly exists. Is the star existing and we cannot reach there due to distance and thru our limitations it's dead but really is alive?

 

[Internet Nomad]

How can u be in the present time wise existing yet see the stars and say those stars are in the past and really do not exist. If it doesn't exist do u mean the 'sun' doesn't exist or the light? the light clearly exists. Is the star existing and we cannot reach there due to distance and thru our limitations it's dead but really is alive?

Think of it like a carrier pigeon. It has a slow travel time so the time it takes to deliver the message might take two or three days. In those two or three days the person who initially sent those messages die for the sake of the argument. Even if the person died, the message which was written in the past is still being sent to us in the present. Its the same concept with light.

 

[Internet Nomad]

I also asked her about the planet atmospheres being linked to their distance to the sun, closer it is to a sun, the hotter, the further it is away, the colder and the furthest a planet can get from the sun is absolutely zero freezing, the closest it can get to the sun it's the hottest a planet can be. Then it's all those in-between those two extremes and possibly earth like planets if they match our distance to sun ratio.

Its called the Goldilocks Zone the area for planets to have the right conditions for water.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Think of it like a carrier pigeon. It has a slow travel time so the time it takes to deliver the message might take two or three days. In those two or three days the person who initially sent those messages die for the sake of the argument. Even if the person died, the message which was written in the past is still being sent to us in the present. Its the same concept with light.

So technically even if we cud travel at the speed of light and we went to the most distant star in the universe, we would find no sun and no light?

 

[DR OSMAN]

Its called the Goldilocks Zone the area for planets to have the right conditions for water.

When a sun is dying it goes thru stages of death as I understand it, it won't just go from a sun to nothing and there is no zero or nothing anyways, according to the laws of energy it must convert into something, which it converts into black hole. The bigger the sun converting will obviously be larger the black hole. Interesting to see what happens to a black hole when it dies lol cuz it will need to convert to something else. Is our universe a black hole in another universe lol that converted.

 

[Internet Nomad]

So technically even if we cud travel at the speed of light and we went to the most distant star in the universe, we would find no sun and no light?

Yeah because the most distant star is most likely super old and dead and the only thing we see of it is the light thats its been sending out in the past. However if you get close enough you will no longer see the light that it was sending out.

 

[Internet Nomad]

When a sun is dying it goes thru stages of death as I understand it, it won't just go from a sun to nothing and there is no zero or nothing anyways, according to the laws of energy it must convert into something, which it converts into black hole. The bigger the sun converting will obviously be larger the black hole.

Yeah or the energy just dissipates. But energy can never be destroyed or created after the big bang.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Internet Nomad lets say there is light house at Gardafu Cape and im at furthest distance on earth and I can see it's light with a super magic telescope. Lets accept those unreal conditions to be real 4 one moment for thought experiment purpose.

Yes if I travelled slowly on boat or even swam, i wud die before i get there due to theortical speed of my travel, but if for some reason i had a jet that cud travel at the speed of light or the closest speed theoritically possible, I cud reach that light at Cape Gardafu and see the light house. Im not sure why I can't see the light house example(sun) in our cosmo or even the light if we travel as fast as possible. Ur saying u wud arrive to nothing no matter wat

 

[Internet Nomad]

If the lighthouse does not die out and is consistently illuminating the area. You would eventually reach the lighthouse with the light on. Given that you do not die or run out of fuel.

however if the light house has stopped working for 3LY(light years) and you start your travel now and it takes 5LY to reach it. For the first 2LY you will be able to see the light from the lighthouse. But as you get closer for the remaining 3LY you will not see any light coming from the light house.

Another analogy would be if you see a person in a pool jumping up and down 10 times in a pool. Each time they jump they send a wave in every direction. By the time you notice it he has finished jumping however his waves are still spreading out until they inevitable reach you and stop. Light is like the waves. The light house is the person jumping up and down to send those waves(light) towards you.

 

[DR OSMAN]

If the lighthouse does not die out and is consistently illuminating the area. You would eventually reach the lighthouse with the light on. Given that you do not die or run out of fuel.

however if the light house has stopped working for 3LY(light years) and you start your travel now and it takes 5LY to reach it. For the first 2LY you will be able to see the light from the lighthouse. But as you get closer for the remaining 3LY you will not see any light coming from the light house.

Another analogy would be if you see a person in a pool jumping up and down 10 times in a pool. Each time they jump they send a wave in every direction. By the time you notice it he has finished jumping however his waves are still spreading out until they inevitable reach you and stop. Light is like the waves. The light house is the person jumping up and down to send those waves(light) towards you.

Is the physical sun still there in terms of mass. The light house can still be there but not generating any more light due to fuel running out. Once the fuel runs out on the sun, does the physical mass remain there or does it explode away and becomes part of those asteroids we see constantly?

 

[Internet Nomad]

Is the physical sun still there in terms of mass. The light house can still be there but not generating any more light due to fuel running out. Once the fuel runs out on the sun, does the physical mass remain there or does it explode away and becomes part of those asteroids we see constantly?

When the Sun exhausts its store of nuclear fuel, some 5 billion years from now, it will evolve into a bloated red giant, gobbling up Mercury and Venus, and scorching the Earth. After ejecting its outer layers in the form of a colourful planetary nebula, the Sun will then be compressed into a tiny white dwarf star.

 

[DR OSMAN]

When the Sun exhausts its store of nuclear fuel, some 5 billion years from now, it will evolve into a bloated red giant, gobbling up Mercury and Venus, and scorching the Earth. After ejecting its outer layers in the form of a colourful planetary nebula, the Sun will then be compressed into a tiny white dwarf star.

I meant the stars that died out, now as what happened to them will obviously happen to our own sun. So the furthest star in our universe forget galaxy, I like to discuss extreme opposites before discussing in betweens.

The furthest star let's say is a light house(physical mass of the sun) and the subsequent light. Are u saying the mass is gone and only the light 'remain'? that's like saying the lighthouse isn't there and only the light remains. Or are u saying the physical mass is there and only the light isn't? kinda like lighthouse physically is there but the fuel and light isn't. Or are u saying once the energy and fuel of the sun disappears or explodes, the physical mass also goes with it? if that is the case do they contribute to our asteroids like dying normal planets do?

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Internet Nomad the way I visualize stars is with light house. The more fuel u put in light house the stronger the light coverage. Once the fuel runs out the light does but the mass is still there. So is the sun going to run out of fuel and if so shouldn't it cool down only untill the light disappears? or will it increase so much fuel it explodes, which can happen to a light house if u add to much or different type of fuel it can lead to the light dimming.

Is it a different fuel or energy source that will enter the sun that will cause it to heat up faster then it is naturally? or is it it's own native fuel source creating more energy then it can hold? energy is linked to mass, if u put too much energy into a physical object it can cause it to explode kinda like a nuclear bomb, where-as if the energy is relative to mass it may do 'work' like give out light or electricity. Kinda like the energy in a light bulb if u put in one that it cannot store or contain, it will explode.

 

[Internet Nomad]

I meant the stars that died out, now as what happened to them will obviously happen to our own sun. So the furthest star in our universe forget galaxy, I like to discuss extreme opposites before discussing in betweens.

The furthest star let's say is a light house(physical mass of the sun) and the subsequent light. Are u saying the mass is gone and only the light 'remain'? that's like saying the lighthouse isn't there and only the light remains. Or are u saying the physical mass is there and only the light isn't? kinda like lighthouse physically is there but the fuel and light isn't. Or are u saying once the energy and fuel of the sun disappears or explodes, the physical mass also goes with it? if that is the case do they contribute to our asteroids like dying normal planets do?

The furthest star let's say is a light house(physical mass of the sun) and the subsequent light. Are u saying the mass is gone and only the light 'remain'? that's like saying the lighthouse isn't there and only the light remains.

The light will only remain until the last bit of light reaches us then it will be totally unobservable with a microscope.

Or are u saying the physical mass is there and only the light isn't? kinda like lighthouse physically is there but the fuel and light isn't.

Once the chemical reaction that create light is exhausted i would assume it would blow up. The energy would dissipate through the galaxy thus it losing its mass and becoming a white dwarf. It would be a fragment of what it once was.

Or are u saying once the energy and fuel of the sun disappears or explodes, the physical mass also goes with it? if that is the case do they contribute to our asteroids like dying normal planets do?

Much of the mass would be gone thats for sure! I think they would contribute to create new planets as the energy cools down and gravitates together.

Most of the elements of our bodies were formed in stars over the course of billions of years and multiple star lifetimes. However, it's also possible that some of our hydrogen (which makes up roughly 9.5% of our bodies) and lithium, which our body contains in very tiny trace amounts, originated from the Big Bang.

 

[Internet Nomad]

@Internet Nomad the way I visualize stars is with light house. The more fuel u put in light house the stronger the light coverage. Once the fuel runs out the light does but the mass is still there. So is the sun going to run out of fuel and if so shouldn't it cool down only untill the light disappears? or will it increase so much fuel it explodes, which can happen to a light house if u add to much or different type of fuel it can lead to the light dimming.

Is it a different fuel or energy source that will enter the sun that will cause it to heat up faster then it is naturally? or is it it's own native fuel source creating more energy then it can hold? energy is linked to mass, if u put too much energy into a physical object it can cause it to explode kinda like a nuclear bomb, where-as if the energy is relative to mass it may do 'work' like give out light or electricity. Kinda like the energy in a light bulb if u put in one that it cannot store or contain, it will explode.

I believe once the fuel starts getting low it becomes unstable leading to it blowing it self up. Kinda like a nuclear reactor.

I believe if the ratio of the size of the sun to the amount of fuel it uses is right then the sun will last much longer however if the ratio is one sided too much it might become self destructive. I also believe that once it gets to the end of the life cycle of a star the ratio becomes less and less equal.

I say “I believe” a lot because to be honest i am not a professional or Highly educated on this topic. I just have a interest in the cosmos.

 

[DR OSMAN]

The furthest star let's say is a light house(physical mass of the sun) and the subsequent light. Are u saying the mass is gone and only the light 'remain'? that's like saying the lighthouse isn't there and only the light remains.

The light will only remain until the last bit of light reaches us then it will be totally unobservable with a microscope.

Or are u saying the physical mass is there and only the light isn't? kinda like lighthouse physically is there but the fuel and light isn't.

Once the chemical reaction that create light is exhausted i would assume it would blow up. The energy would dissipate through the galaxy thus it losing its mass and becoming a white dwarf. It would be a fragment of what it once was.

Or are u saying once the energy and fuel of the sun disappears or explodes, the physical mass also goes with it? if that is the case do they contribute to our asteroids like dying normal planets do?

Much of the mass would be gone thats for sure! I think they would contribute to create new planets as the energy cools down and gravitates together.

Most of the elements of our bodies were formed in stars over the course of billions of years and multiple star lifetimes. However, it's also possible that some of our hydrogen (which makes up roughly 9.5% of our bodies) and lithium, which our body contains in very tiny trace amounts, originated from the Big Bang.

Is it theoritically possible the sun can run out of fuel and just exist as a physical mass with rocky surfaces like the moon which is due to asteroids, but is that theoritically possible, where the light is gone not thru just a chemical reaction and subsequent explosion leading to the mass to spread out in bits and parts as asteroids, cuz asteroids are usually very hot, indicating it must come from a very hot planet possibly dying suns mass that has travelled thru the universe and cooling down that's why u see those comets showing light their is some fuel there but not high amounts to cause damage as it must of cooled down. The universe I mean the empty areas must be damn cold, kinda like a freezer type cold, cuz hot objects r cooling down thru it.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Internet Nomad the heat/light from a small fire sits on top of a 'fuel source' let's say sticks for now but their r multiple sources(fossil fuels such as thermal, coal, oil, and renewables like sun/wind/dams). Lets just use the 'sticks' as a source for a fire.

The heat-light is definitely there, heat will create a beam of light in the darkness similar to suns in a dark spaace. The further u go from the fire, it will eventually 'appear' smaller the light it beams to the point where u don't see it anymore. Can it be your reference point doesn't see it but it's still there? or does it depend on ur reference point that it only can exist? now lets say we put out the fire, the 'sticks' or fuel source is there.

What if the suns surface and all it's energy cools down and depletes like a fire, shouldn't the mass remain like it would with sticks? is there any cosmological example of that or is it theoritically possible or impossible?

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Internet Nomad do u know much about quantum mechanics the concepts and how they interconnect? as that's easy to test ur knowledge since it's observable. Everything that is 'big' will also have the same structure as the infinitely small just in different grades I am assuming.