Hi, I'm new here, I've heard that the 55 Cancri system is a binary system, which consists of two stars, then i saw that the planets in the system only orbit 1 star, which is the primary star called 55 Cancri A of the two stars, i tried searching up some system models only seeing a system with only 1 star, then where is the other binary star called 55 Cancri B? (i'm talking about a star called 55 Cnc B, not the planet 55 Cnc b)

Absolute nothingness(as far as my knowledge goes) is technically impossible in our universe. There will always be an atom, particle, neutron or whatever it may be. So here is my question- Imagine I was to take a 1cmx1cmx1cm of the vacuum of space, is it possible to remove the particles or whatever matter is in that space? And a follow up question, if this is possible, how can there not be absolute nothingness? This also makes me question what was there before the Big Bang. Absolute nothingness is impossible, so what was there before the big expansion? If the universe is constantly expanding, what space is the universe expanding into? Anyone who is smarter than me (a 17yr old with 0 qualifications) please comment, I would love to discuss and gain knowledge on this and similar topics.

(Second time trying to post here) Hello, im from Brazil so my english is not so good. I always had a question, "what originate or ignite the big bang", and what i saw on the internet was the quantum fluctuations. For my little understanding, for that to happen, it needs an empty space, or vacuum im not sure. The thing is, I know that we cannot have Proof of this type of things, but, in the very beginning, before the quantum fluctuations could have happened, WAS THERE EMPTY SPACE OR SPACE DIDN'T EXIST? Because for me with little knowlegde, to something happen, i would be necessary at least a space even if it's empty, right? And how would empty space was there for from the beginning then? Thank you guys

It was known that Mileva Einstein was subjectively a better physics student than Albert, but may have suffered from the discrimination against women in science that was widespread at the time.

Albert published “his” work regarding General Relativity in November 1915.

The first observational evidence confirming his predictions came in 2019.

Albert and Mileva separated in 1914, and officially divorced in 1919. Albert agreed to give Mileva his Nobel Prize money in 1921.

Albert would go on to have an illustrious career, but engage in numerous OBVIOUS brain farts like when contemplating the legitimacy of quantum mechanics, to paraphrase some nonsense “I can’t believe G_d plays dice with The Universe” as well as disagreeing with the concept of quantum entanglement calling it “spooky action at a distance” and additionally telling Feynman with respect to his prediction of the enormous amount of energy that constitutes the “zero point energy” to again paraphrase “if there were that much energy, it would warp space-time”.

It is not that I don’t believe that Albert was capable of conceiving of and constructing the theory of General Relativity…what I take issue with is that anyone who demonstrates the type of intellectual hubris he displayed in poo-pooing others well conceived notions betrays him as the genius we have all assumed him to be.

Because he did ALL of his monumental work while married to Mileva, and because NO ONE who displays this level of intellectual hubris would ever give up the prize awarded for “THEIR” genius without good cause, it is therefore my conclusion that until proven otherwise, Mileva Einstein was the one who communicated to Albert all that he would come to be acclaimed for. And, had he still had her as a consulting confidant…instead of pursuing other “lady parts”, we would have long ago had a resolution for quantum gravity provided by Mileva herself (of course by way of Albert).

If I understand correctly, we estimate the universe to be 13.7 billion years old. But what does that mean to an ever-expanding universe that can only be observed as far as our current tools can collect data?

If the universe is ever-expanding and our observation tools become more advanced, will we estimate the universe to be 28 billion years old in 2124? 50 billion years old in 2224?

At what point do we acknowledge that the universe is truly infinite? What’s the likelihood of us actually ever observing a “big bang” that gets older and older as the universe expands?

I was reading some parts of the universe there is no time or it stands still but what would happen ifca person was in one of those areas, would they cease to grow old with no time?

Okay so before i get started i want you all to know that in no way what so ever do i have any knowledge in philosphy or anything but i was having a discussion with my professer today over the concept of infinity and its place in the world of science specifically space and the universe.

so i have recently been researching the Poincaré recurrence theory and apart of this theory relates to the idea of infinity, however it struck me, that infinity is not an objective concept, as it cannot be proven to exist within our universe. So therefore it essentially becomes a subjective concept.

For example we used to belive that mathamatic equations like Pi were infinite however, the view of a constructionist breaks that down instantly, because in constructivism the view holds that mathamatical objects are only to be considered to exist if they can be EXPLICITLY constructed or demonstrated. however infinity cannot be fully constructed or demonstrating, literally rulling out its possibility of existance.

so if it cannot mathamatically exist then how on earth can it exist externally from earth?

Through the Big Bang Theory it states that all matter came from a finite amount of energy that became so large in mass that it became unstable etc and exploded, wich means these models of how our universe was created do not require an infinite universe to explain there phenomena, to add onto this the idea that the universe has an age also blantantly rules out that we live in an infinite universe, the age of the universe automatically implies a temporal boundary on its existance. it basically outlines The idea that our universe has boundaries and is finite. (with our universe being around 93 billion light years in diameter)

The issue is that a goal of science is to turn theories into objective facts, and with infinity being a majority subjective theory, thats when i ask if it is even possible for it to exist, i mean with the lack of concrete interpretation, consistancy and proof, how can we say that it even exists.

So i ask, can this extreme inconsistancy with reality and objectivism rule out its possibility

I apologize if this post isn't a perfect fit for this subreddit, but I wanted to share something fascinating I came across in the book "Frequently Asked Questions About The Universe."

The concept of an infinite universe really blew my mind. Imagine a universe that stretches endlessly in every direction. This implies the possibility of another version of me existing somewhere out there.

In a thought experiment, if I could travel forever, I'd eventually start encountering similar patterns and perhaps even another version of myself—or maybe an evil version!

I'm really enjoying this book and wanted to share my excitement with you all and also wanted to know your thoughts on it.

If mass is energy E=MC2, than energy is what causes gravity since mass is another type of energy? This concept aligns with the law of energy conservation that says E=E and never loses energy as it’s converted to another energy or mass, which is a property of energy. Wouldn’t we also have to count mass plus all the energy from the planet ie: nuclear, electrical, chemical, mechanical, gravitational, ionization, magnetic, elastic, radiant, thermal and kinetic energy since all of it is energies? So can one say Gravitational Force = Mass times total object energy/TIME? I appreciate any thoughts......

We’re living the same pattern. We born, live for some years and die. We have such a small knowledge about the universe and eventually we’ll be wiped out. Then may be start over again as a new species. Why this keeps happening?

Are there any elliptical galaxies that catch the eye or do they all look like uniform white blobs by design? Lol.

I found this one that looks really cool but it's not classified as a true elliptical galaxy (mixed elliptical & spiral).

https://preview.redd.it/xyqdjg6m5c5d1.jpg?width=753&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=263732147cfdc14df5806c46b7934e1b4ca299fb

Was just looking around for interesting photos of them. Random I know. Thanks

https://preview.redd.it/n6hh8o3dgz4d1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3b8aa772bcb8eafac6fec32adf0c4aa7426270a

Elon Musk's SpaceX launched Starship this morning. In its fourth attempt, the company managed to carry out the most successful flight of the largest spacecraft in the world. VIDEO shows takeoff.

https://www.ovniologia.com.br/2024/06/starship-4-o-maior-foguete-ja-criado-pela-humanidade-realiza-seu-voo-mais-bem-sucedido.html?m=1

Ok so today I asked Universe if im on right path to manifest i will find 4 leaves clover and a few mins ago I was searching for 4 leaves clover and then I saw one,then anorher one and I found about 7 clover with 4 leaves and one feather. Can someone explain ✨

Once upon a time Bob met an oracle who explained to Bob that humans on earth were misinterpreting data that led them to believe the universe was expanding.

“The universe is actually a fixed size,” said the oracle.

Bob, conjuring his basic understanding of the relevant scientific literature, asked “then why do we observe other galaxies as red-shifted?”

The oracle responded simply “because they are.” After a pause the oracle continued: “in addition, it is correct that those galaxies are receding into the distance and that, over time, the universe takes more space.”

Bob was puzzled. “How can something take more space and not expand?”

The oracle knew this would be tough for Bob to grasp. “Think of it this way: are those galaxies actually red?”

Bob, still lost, answered the question. “No, they just appear that way from our perspective.”

“Right. So too with the expanding universe.”

“Ok, but I know why galaxies appear red. Can I know how the universe takes more space without expanding?” Bob, knowing the oracle was correct, feared it was beyond the human mind to understand.

“You can,” said the oracle calmly. “And that is all I will say.”

The oracle was gone and Bob was left to his own wits. He felt gratitude. For him, knowing there’s a solution to a puzzle is better than knowing the solution.

He imagined the universe as a sphere of fixed size, about the size of a snow globe, brimming with galaxies. The galaxies are moving apart from one another. The sphere wants to expand but it cannot. He sensed outward pressure mounting, feared the sphere might explode. He felt desperate to relieve the pressure.

And then he did. It was a simple tweak. Inside the sphere he allowed an inch to be smaller than an inch. The atoms inside the sphere became a bit smaller too. This kept happening. Soon an inch outside the sphere measured a mile inside the sphere, then a lightyear.

Before long that small sphere contained vastness of space. He could no longer make out the individual galaxies. The sphere felt cold in his hand.

People propose the quandary about if you time travel you will have to account for the velocity and our position in space. We don't exactly have coordinates for our position at any given moment. Hypothetically could all(known) matter be stationary and we are at rest ,but the universe "dark energy" is moving at 68 km/s.

In quantum mechanics, quarks can't be pulled or isolated (aka color confinement), because the energy used to pull apart the quark will simply create a new quark to replace the old one (because E=mc²). We also know that the universe is currently expanding at an every greater speed, and stretching the space-time fabric and this the things on it. So now, combining those two theories, what would happen when the universe will try to isolate the quarks, but fails to do so due to the color confinement. Will this be the limit of the universe's pull? Will it lead to a conflict in the universe's laws and perhaps lead to the big crunch? Or maybe this point will never reach, because the universe will die before it, or perhaps the stretch force will never overcome the strong force between the quarks?

Im a 15 year old, and just curious about it since I can't seem to find any answers online. I may have misinterpreted something, so correct me anywhere I may have gone wrong! Thanks