taocosta wrote:

Source of the post Celestia (if anyone still remembers those)

Celestia is my back-up SE.

taocosta wrote:

Source of the post I was wondering what the requirements for making a new thread is; I've read over the rules but couldn't seem to find anything; maybe I'm just being blind.

You need to make a minimum of 10 posts on the forum (Chat doesn't count) in order to use the BB codes in your comment that include posting pictures, videos, hyperlinks and making threads. This is a question that gets asked by EVERY newb and it really should be outlined in the Forum Rules. Don't spam posts or comments just to get to the 10 count, and nor should you make new threads willy-nilly. Carefully consider existing threads and whether they'll be suitable for what you want to post before making a new one.

taocosta wrote:

Source of the post  was wondering what the requirements for making a new thread is; I've read over the rules but couldn't seem to find anything; maybe I'm just being blind.

Welcome.
It's at the 8th line of forum rules, in the "Useful Links and Quick Tips" part. I guess the title leads the eye to skip directly to the next part, but really important rules are indeed outlined, in red or green color.

Yea, thanks for that. I looked again at the rules and it was indeed on the 8th line. It's not very eye catching, and if every new user keeps asking, maybe put this in as a message somewhere when you first create the account? Maybe an info box the first time you log in or something. Just my suggestion.

taocosta wrote:

Source of the post maybe put this in as a message somewhere when you first create the account? Maybe an info box the first time you log in or something.

That's what I was thinking as well.

Hi guys! Interested in space too?

Hello, discovered the "SpaceEngine" utube video "Serenity" this morning and was blown away. When it gets on steam I will definitely buy it. Not a fan of worm-holes or black-holes, as I don't believe in the theory, so I hope they are kept to a minimum. Not completely convinced of "the big bang" theory either, but that is what's great about science - everything is a theory until it is proven wrong.

This simulation is very real looking - makes you feel like you are seeing what future generations will see. Fantastic. Some of the images look like they are real, not simulated. Very impressed and hope to see more. After years of buying fantastic looking simulators for the PC which offer amazing views but give the user very little challenge or things to do, I have become wary of beautiful simulations which can be boring, but in the case of SpaceEngine I will relax my rule - it looks too fantastic to not have. Its potential to inspire and educate outweigh this. Maybe the developer can create a purpose for the sim? Like the player has to trade, discover, collect and sell resources and use the money to buy new spaceships? Just an idea. My fav part of what I have seen is that stars really look like stars. Blindingly bright and dangerous.

HKATER wrote:

Source of the post Not completely convinced of "the big bang" theory either, but that is what's great about science - everything is a theory until it is proven wrong.

What exactly is unconvincing about it? Of all cosmological origin theories, the Big Bang is the one backed by the most observation-based evidence and models. Any reasonable alternatives would be variations to the idea, rendering the basic concept sound. If you want to argue about it, then I urge you to do so in the Science and Astronomy Questions topic. That is, if you are comfortable with having your views challenged.

Welcome to the club, mate.

OK thankyou for the welcome. I will post my problems with the big bang as you suggest. I haven't thought out my arguments too much but the older I get the less I believe this theory about the origin of the universe.

HKATER wrote:

Source of the post Not a fan of worm-holes or black-holes, as I don't believe in the theory,

Wormholes don't exist in nature, and most likely cannot be formed artificially either.  But the existence of black holes in nature is pretty much indisputable now.  There are many places on the sky that I can point to and say "there is a black hole there, this is how much it weighs, and here is how we know."  

Some of the best evidence for black holes are measurements of their masses based on how quickly other objects are orbiting around them, and how compact the region that mass is contained within.  For example, Sagittarius A* at the center of our galaxy has about 4 million times the mass of the Sun, and it lies within a space smaller than the orbit of Mercury.  This is a black hole.  If we proposed that it was a cluster of neutron stars instead, they would immediately collapse into a black hole anyway.  And if it was some other exotic object with a solid surface rather than a black hole, then we would see radiation emitted from matter hitting that surface.  But we don't -- it is vanishing through an event horizon.  

Another piece of evidence comes from gravitational waves detected from pairs of them merging together.  The frequency of the waves tells us how quickly they were orbiting each other before merging. The more massive and compact the objects, the closer and more quickly they can orbit before colliding, and the higher the peak frequency of gravitational waves they emit.  Events have been detected where the peak frequency requires the objects be even more compact than neutron stars, and can only be black holes.  The way the waves die down in amplitude after the merger is also exactly consistent with what general relativity predicts for merging black holes and how the resulting event horizon "rings" as it settles down into its final smooth shape.

Sometime very soon we also anticipate the first images to be released from the Event Horizon Telescope, which will be the first direct images of a black hole with enough resolution to show the shadow of its event horizon.