Astrophysics

Cosmic Air ended in 2008.

I presume you mean a "gamma ray burst."

This is a burst of gamma ray energy, lasting from less than a second to a few minutes, that comes from outside our galaxy. Despite being from that far away, they are measurable on our planet, meaning the energy release in one second of a gamma ray burst is greater than the energy that our Sun will release in its entire ten billion year life cycle.

GRB's are now thought to be from the collapse of a massive star, but the question has not been completely settled.

If a gamma ray burst from within our galaxy were to hit our Earth, all life on our planet, even bacteria, would end within a few days.

Stephen Hawking's contributions to our understanding of black holes include the theory that they emit radiation, now known as Hawking radiation, which gradually causes them to lose mass and eventually evaporate. He also proposed the concept of black hole thermodynamics, suggesting that they have a temperature and entropy. Hawking's work has been crucial in shaping our current understanding of the behavior of black holes.

cosmic rays are everywhere. they can penetrate our bodies and even solid rock. volcanologists use sensors on the sides of volcanoes to moniter the rays that pass through, resulting in a 3-D image of the inside of the volcano. they can use this data to predict just how big a future eruption could potentially be because it also maps out how large the magma chamber is.

hope this helped!

Yes it is theorized that black holes constantly emit radiation in the form of thermal energy (Heat) also called Hawking radiation and black-body radiation.

Sounds like you may have parasitic wasp ; saw something about them on discovery channel. They can be beneficial , but if you really want to get rid of them try sprikling cayanne pepper around and down the holes or you can get plenty of herbal pesticides on the market

Black holes are invisible to the visible light spectrum and many others because their gravity is so strong it pulls in even light. So in theory yes. But a human body is FAR too light to ever form a black hole.

However, if you define visibility as human perception of it, while we never see light from a black hole, we would notice the absence of light in an area, so even if it were possible to turn your body into a black hole, no one would see you, but the would see a black gap in space where you should be...

At the core of M87 is a supermassive black hole with about 6.4×109 times the mass of the Sun (See related question)

Motion parallax.

Yes, you can pursue a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree in Astrophysics at certain universities. This program typically covers topics such as astronomy, astrophysics, and physics related to the study of celestial bodies and the universe. Students may also have the opportunity to engage in research projects and internships in this field.

Because of the inverse square law of gravity, an object close to the Earth's surface feels a greater pull than an object further away. This would mean an artificial satelite in an orbit near Earth would have to travel faster to remain in orbit. One further away would travel slower. Close to the earth, a satelite might complete an orbit in, for example, 90 minutes; but the earth rotates once on its axis in 24 hours. This would mean the satelite would always have to travel faster than the Earth spins. Too far away, and the satelite would take longer than a day to orbit the Earth - so the planet would spin faster than the satelite's orbit. For a geostationary satelite, it would need to be at just the right distance, in an orbit that keeps it at the same place as seen from the rotating Earth - orbiting as fast as the Earth is spinning.

Geostationary satelites get parked a little over 22,200 miles above the Earth's surface and in orbits the same direction as the Earth spins - and are thus useful for communication and weather functions.

I'm going to jump in and perhaps contiversially answer this one.

Yes.

They cannot be destroyed in the traditional sense, ie blown apart, melted, frozen or even annihilated with antimatter but they can 'die' and, indeed, must all eventually disappear. Black holes were once thought to emit nothing of any kind, hence the 'black' part of black holes but, recently, this has been proven false. To completely understand how, a little background on the vacuum of space is needed.

Like the black hole, recent theories have changed how we look at the vacuum. It is no longer considered a void of nothingness, it is a sea of particles that spring into existence in negative and positive pairs, exist for a tiny fraction of a second, then annihilate one another. They are called virtual particles and, despite throwing the nature of the universe almost on its head (and just about breaking the first law of thermodynamics), they have been proven to exist and are now a part of mainstream quantum physics.

Now, these particles exist as pairs of one positive energy particle, and one negative energy particle. They pop in, are attracted to each other, meet and annihiate. And everyone is happy; they could just about be ignored. But when they come into being near a black hole, it can grab the negative particle before it can destroy itself, pulling it into the event horizon from which there is no escape. The positive particle, counting its blessings and graduating from virtual particle to real particle, escapes the black hole as part of what we call Hawking radiation. And it gives the 'black' hole a healthy little glow.

But the negative particle isn't so lucky. the process is extremely complitcated but, with its partner gone and its destruction inside the black hole inevitable, the negative particle also becomes 'real' in a sense. And that sense is its ability to act upon the universe, specifically the black hole. Though there is virtually nothing that can affect a black hole, except to make it larger, the negative energy particle can and it strikes the singularity, disappearing and taking a tiny amount of energy with it.

In large black holes, this process is next to negligable. It would take far longer than the lifetime of the universe to destroy even a small black hole. But for the micro ones, this process can be much quicker, and if they can't find a constant stream of matter to replenish their lost energy they will quickly shrink and evaporate. Even in the large ones their fate is sealed; though it will take incredible peroids of time all black holes are destined to evaporate in this manner.

That is why I said it was possible to destroy a black hole. The trick is not to attack it, but rather to ignore it. You cant kill a black hole by shoving stuff in, you'lll just make it larger and stronger. But you can destroy a black hole by starving it and, if it was possible to artificially produce these negative energy particles, they might be an effective weapon against an object that was, until recently, thought impervious.

There is no known way to destroy a black hole.

Stephen Hawking beleives that Black holes will "evaporate" over time, losing mass until there is not enough gravity to maintain the black hole.

x rays - Dondi follow me on instagram @ idmorgann

Cosmic Egg was created on -20-05-04.

Because any border of the universe it not observable, the reality of it remains a theoretical pursuit; but generally, cosmologists agree that current data would tend to indicate the universe is infinite and "flat". One popular model (FLRW) posits that the universe is without boundaries.

Research and mathematical models postulate both a bounded and unbounded universe, and some even purport that the universe might be bounded in some directions (or dimensions) but not in others; often models are speculative and hampered by inherent limits in experimental method. In particular, recent efforts have shown that we might not ever be able to distinguish between a flat, open or closed universe if the cosmological curvature parameter is sufficiently small.

178.9 Celsius is 354 Fahrenheit. Multiply by nine fifths and add thirty-two.

more holes

The angle between the orbital plane and equatorial plane of the earth (i.e., the angle of axial tilt) is about 23.4 degrees. This gives rise to the earth's seasons.

4.6 billion is the closest.

The scattered disk beyond the orbit of Neptune doesn't contain any true planets as such, but a number of icy minor planets (like Sedna), the largest known of which is Eris (which is larger than Pluto).

In out solar system the outer four planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have significantly thick cloudy atmospheres - immense gaseous envelopes thought to surround a much smaller rocky core. Jupiter is notable for its surface entirely covered with bands of clouds; Saturn's is more uniform with a similar banded pattern, the clouds in broader bands nearer the equator, but more diffuse and with a yellow color thought to be caused by ammonia crystals. Uranus is very uniform and diffuse without easily noticeable features or cloud patterns; Neptune by comparison contrasts with evidence of easily visible cloud formations on its surface as part of visible weather patterns including the great dark spot.

So there would be at least three candidates for permanent cloud cover, Jupiter probably being the most spectacular.

Scientist believe that a black hole might/can bring us into a different universe...it has still remained a theory for a black hole stretches anything that enters it...not even light can escape...to know more about it go to youtube and search the channel vsauce.. they answer the biggest mysteries in life hope this helps (10 year old girl out!)

Because of shielding of the atmosphere and Earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays have very little effect upon us, the average person receiving less than half a millisievert, although some sources report up to 2.5 mSv annually. The recommended maximum is about 1000; which is more likely to be encountered only by an astronaut on an extended mission.

Negative effects on human tissue include DNA damage, cancer-like effects, or a kind of cataract, brain and neurological effects, and possibly acceleration of Alzheimer's.

Some astronauts in the Apollo program reported seeing light flashes, which may have been effects related to cosmic ray collision with the retina, optic nerve, or visual cortex in the brain, but no permanent damage was expected to result.

Cosmic rays are also known to adversely affect electronics causing (usually transient) malfunctions, and some manufactures add shielding as a hardening against cosmic rays, particularly for processors used in space-based applications.

Sputnik itself wasn't so much a data gathering device as it was an end in itself (proof of concept); being the first artificial satelite it was neither large (about 2 feet across) nor very sophisticated. It emitted a radio signal until the batteries ran out; without the capability of maintaining its orbit, it lost energy to atmospheric drag and burned up in re-entry about three months after it was deployed. Some information about the atmosphere could be deduced from the drag and its radio signal.

The Univeristy of St. Andrews (where I am a student) has a fantastic MSc Astrophysics program. Ian Bonnell who works with doctor Ken Rice at Edinburgh and studies the central structure of our galaxy is a second year lecturer. And st. Andrews hosts the largest optical telescope in the UK, leading the global search for exo-planets in other star systems. We are on the cutting edge of research.