Hey guys, I'm in O'levels and I wanted to know what path I should take and what things must I focus on if I want to have a career in astronomy/astrophysics/space research (I'm 15 and in 9th grade) Any and all help will be appreciated thanks

Data scientist want to work in astronomy or astrophysics stream.

Hi everyone,I am based in India and currently working as a data scientist. I have done my masters in physics and during my grad and post grad I was always into astrophysics and cosmology. Due to some constraints have to get into corporate, though the transition so far has been smooth, but everyday I feel I am not the same person that I used to be, have stopped reading all the blogs and book for the past 1 year. I just want to know in future is there a way I can use my DS skills and work as close to astronomy and physics as it can be. And what is the way and what and how are the opportunities for such. Maybe like work in a astronomical laboratory.

any suggestion is welcome. Thanks

so what is the composition of a black hole

I've primarily used Wikipedia, textbooks and online sources like brilliant, so what could i use to get more knowledge and strengthen my passion.

So let's say a yellow sun like ours became a red giant, but had planets in an orbit that would be within the red giants body(?), would those planets still orbit within the sun or would the planet be destroyed or flung outwards?

I read a star collasping to a singularity can collaspe faster than light. Does that also hold true for the event horizon? If it did, could black holes passing close at near the speed of light force the horizon to bulge and receed. Bulging over a probe between the trasit and back down faster than light? This would make the holes do the work, as the probe cannot travel faster than light.

if someone where to go into a wormhole, and to go back to the specific point in time they came from, go into another wormhole.

if they themselves left that dimension, for the short time they were gone, they didn’t exist in that timeline for that time being, so them returning to a time which they haven’t existed in yet, doesn’t make as much sense as them returning to the point before they went into the wormhole, but wouldn’t that result in two versions of them existing?

Can gravity be related to the speed of the planets? I suppose yes, but enough to generate what we call dark matter?

I'm writing a sci fi novel and looking for the most plausible wormhole concept according to current science. Specifically traversable wormholes, preferably in both directions, that could be created with a device. I'm thinking Morris-Thorne Wormholes, Lorentzian Wormholes or Vissal's Polyhedral Wormholes, or suggest yours. I'd appreciate any clarifications or if you could point me in the right direction, thank you.

This might be the wrong place, but I have a question. Theoretically, if humans were able to create new planets, what would the maximum number of (habitable) planets be that could exist in our solar system.

I’m not a AP student and i’m not relative to the domain, but a general idea that i have in my mind which is: Lets imagine a rope or a wire stretched through out the visual universe from edge to edge so we can assume that the wire length is 93 billion light years based on what we have. The main idea is if we pull one edge of the wire 1 meter ( not counting the weight off course ) logically the entire rope will be pulled 1 meter too , if that is true then the force on the wire passed faster than light which we cannot assume that because nothing can travel faster than light. If this is not the case so any explanation of it ?

How come redshift does not violate the law of conservation of energy?

As part of my interest in cosmology, I was led to explore courses on YouTube to find out if I was able to understand the topics covered. As you will certainly know, I learned about some characteristics of dark matter, as well as dark energy.

I must admit that I don't have an academic scientific training so I can't stop at the question before looking for an answer, so my thinking as an engineer led me to ask myself: to what extent barionic matter would suffice to show the properties of dark matter and dark energy without having to invoke the latter two.

My thinking is: what if the gravity of ordinary matter is the cause of the expansion of the universe?

From what I think about it, I have the impression that the curvature of space-time observed during the presence of a mass is in fact, rather than a contraction of space-time, the symptom of a trace of the mass collapsing on itself which creates hollows which end up attracting the neighboring masses, exactly as suggested by the two-dimensional representation of the phenomenon.

What if dark matter is nothing but the residue of the presence at one time of matter that had a gravitational effect at that location?

One could imagine, in the continuity of the above, that gravity is not completely erasable as an object which exerted it in a place moves away, and that wherever there has been a gravitational effect, a residue remains, attesting to the passage of a mass. From this fact, one could imagine that early in the history of the universe, the masses present being without influence of external objects would move in rectilinear trajectories, the residue of their passage leaving the filaments of "dark matter" until paths cross and masses attract to form the first cluster nodes that will give rise to galaxies, the circular motion leaving a trail, explaining the condensation of dark matter around galaxies and justifying the trajectories observed, as well as the gravitational lensing effect.

What if the dark energy expansion was actually the result of gravity?

As said before, I think gravity is the result of a massive object collapsing on its center of gravity, hollowing out space. And so, according to this idea, it would be natural that the objects close to this hollow would be carried away by it, causing the force effect that we attribute to gravity, but, we could also notice that in this case, gravity alone is enough to enlarge the universe, since it is the collapse of the mass on itself which creates a "surplus" of space. Therefore, there is no question of worrying about how the initial mass of the universe did not prevent it from expanding, since it is the effect of the mass hollowing out space that ends by causing the extension of the latter.

I hope my thoughts make sense and would be happy to read your comments.

If a hypothetical earth-like planet is roughly 1.5x the size of the earth and has 3 moons that are comparable to Europa, Oberon, and Triton, AND the the highest ocean tides on the planet (the spring tides) were never more than 2x that of Earth's spring tides, what would the orbits of the moons look like (path and speed)? How would I map that, and how would I plot the moons' various phases? I know this requires multiple calculations, but what I'm not sure of is which calculations and in what order.

In this episode we are talking about “the greatest story ever told” – the story of stardust with Dr. Christopher Impey, an astronomer and professor at Arizona State University. Dr. Impey has spent his career studying the universe, from the Milky Way to the most distant galaxies, and he’s here to share his insights with us. With Dr. Impey’s we dive into the research on the formation and evolution of galaxies, as well as his work on the search for extraterrestrial life. We also discuss the latest discoveries in astronomy, including the recent observation of gravitational waves and the potential implications for our understanding of the universe, and can how our fundamental knowledge of the universe and physics may be challenged. Dr. Impey also shares his thoughts on the future of space exploration, including the possibilities and challenges of human missions to the nearest exoplanets and beyond. Dr. Impey explains how much we know about dark matter and dark energy, the general conception of what they are, Black Holes’ information paradox, how we may detect life on distant planets, and many more.

Listen to the podcast here

Does this make sense to an astrophysicist?

​

The singularity of an event horizon is faster than the speed of light which cannot escape due to the repulsive pressure pushing light away from Gravity itself , (dark energy). Correct me if I'm wrong.

What if two blackholes of two different singularities collide? Would everything pulled into the singularity over the entire distance that blackhole has travelled through spacetime from the beginning be released like a big bang?

Have we smashed two small blackholes together here on Earth to see what happens at the quantum level?