EPTPossible new habitable planet - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Myles
United States5162 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
On May 17 2010 14:52 WarChimp wrote: It may not be long till we start colonizing these planets now  , now im just thinking, would they use our time zone? or would they use theres? cause they would be like old while there still young? if that made any sense Like 13 days for a year? so in a normal year there going to be 28 years old? interesting How we would manage time on an alien world is a rather fun thing to think about. I think the Earth year would be acceptable for years on such worlds, but concepts like weeks and months could be problematic, as each world could have wildly different length days. What good is a seven day week when one day is 57 hours long? | ||
|
eXNewB
Canada291 Posts
| ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
On May 17 2010 15:42 On_Slaught wrote: Watch them name it Korhal or Char or even Aiur! God please! Hopefully there is a competition for naming rights. One of us could win! It will be named Planet Starbucks or Planet McDonalds. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On May 17 2010 14:43 orgolove wrote: So if a kid is 10 years old, and boards a spaceship that can go 50% of lightspeed, even then he will become 50yo by the time he reaches that planet? :/ Fat chance any of us will make there during our lifetime. Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives. In special relativity t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years. Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no  | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Besides the point in which i'm like dam science how the hell did you pull that kind of information from there. I gg at the 20.5 light years away by the time we master a form a travel that can do that i would guess we probably learned how to Terra-form a planet. | ||
|
waxypants
United States479 Posts
On May 17 2010 15:22 cursor wrote: There is a book by Micheal Corey called "The God Hypothesis". It basically goes over in detail the countless huge coincidences that make this universe able to produce a planet like ours. And, in doing so in the time frame it did, seems to make it look like a universe almost designed to produce planets, in a hugely random fashion, that could sustain life. 2 planets, that we know of so far, most anyone should know- probably means there are tons and tons of them out there. And out of these, a good few could possibly sustain life. I'll briefly list some of the very unlikely things that he observes are happening in "our" universe. + Show Spoiler + The universe is theorized to be about 15 billion years old, with the earth forming at 4.5 billion years ago. That gave 10 billion years from the bang, to allow the universe to create all the "heavier" elements that make up our bodies (Carbon, iron, potassium, etc). From the cauldron of the big bang, to producing stars big enough to create these elements, then to them collapsing to produce the elements- then exploding to redistribute them back to the universe to be sucked in to the creation of a solar system as ours- in theory- could happen no SOONER than 10 billion years. Because- all the materials had to be there when our solar system started forming. This means that our planet formed as SOON as it could have given the length of time needed to create it. If it were truly a "random" event- you would expect it to take some time to actually produce. But- as unlikely as it was, it happened almost immediately. The odds against making just 1 cell. Given all the materials needed to make a cell, in the exact proportions, in a contained environment, is still an amazingly improbable occurrence. With all the exact molecules needed, it would still take Trillions of Trillions of permutations to create a cell. Some theories to the underlying order of atomic structure are presented as possible catalysts to hasten the production of cells. The possible occurrences from a Big-Bang like event. An explosion of that size, to distribute itself as it did, into ordered atoms and particles- at the perfect speed to not collapse back in on itself, but to continue to expand apparently indefinitely is obviously an amazing orchestra of occurrences and values such as the Universal Constant (a number Einstein discovered on accident) the Strong and Weak nuclear force, and Electromagnetism. Assuming all of these forces could have assumed any number at all given a "random" generation... the perfect harmony they appear to exist in is staggering. He theorizes some about the results of changing the Universal Constant by .0000001... and explains that the most likely result of an occurrence as mind numbingly large as the Big Bang would be either something that would immediately collapse again.... or spit out a bunch of clustered Di-Protons or Black Holes that would be useless for producing planets and suns and the like. The balance needed to create the diversity in structures we see- seems to have been very unlikely to say the least. Lastly, he theorizes that the Purpose- had their been a creator- is to create epistemic distance. This distance, is need to implement Free Will. The free will argument permeates religion as much as it does Atheism, for are we living in a perfect Clockwork Universe (Newton) or a totally random universe (Plank)... neither would afford us any real "Free Will". Theoretically, if God just created you- right in front of him... you could be said to have no Free Will at all- because you can too easily trace all of your behaviors and feelings right to the beginning. Though, given the format of this universe- God has essentially insulated himself from life, and its creation, to effectively remove his own influence somehow- through Quantum Mechanics or actual epistemic separation- to give the life created actual- certifiable free will. Completely and totally independent of its creator. I myself am agnostic, neither believer or non, I don't claim to know anything. But this was by far one of the most interesting books I've read. This line of reasoning is so flawed. You've got no other universe to compare to. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On May 17 2010 16:34 waxypants wrote: This line of reasoning is so flawed. You've got no other universe to compare to. Also let's say that only 1 out of 10 billion possible combinations of the universe result in an expanding universe sufficient to support life. The other 9,999,999,999 times it collapses in on itself after an indefinite period of time, but there's nobody around to record it. It randomly explodes again. It collapses again. It explodes again. It collapses again. It explodes, but this time it doesn't collapse. Life either forms or it doesn't. If it does, that's us. If it doesn't, then what? It has forever to make life. In all likelihood it will collapse again. Then it starts over. Who's to say that we're in the first universe at all? | ||
|
Tufas
Austria2259 Posts
On May 17 2010 16:32 semantics wrote: I gg at the 20.5 light years away by the time we master a form a travel that can do that i would guess we probably learned how to Terra-form a planet. To a certain extent, we can allready to that. | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
| ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
On May 17 2010 14:29 Grobyc wrote: I want to live to be old enough where we are able to "move" to this planet. Earth is getting pretty boring yo Indeed, I wanna be there as well. TAKE me to that right now PLZ  | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
On May 17 2010 16:31 Robstickle wrote: Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives. In special relativity t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years. Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no It is impressive when you consider that he would be 51 Earth years old when he gets there. 41-34.6=6.4 years, which is around 15-17% not bad when considering that you'd need a LOT more speed and/or distance to be even getting to 30% or so. | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2982 Posts
Litterally a stone-throw away xD. I'm grabbing my bike ..., so long suckers ! | ||
|
Setz3R
United States455 Posts
On May 17 2010 15:40 Weasel- wrote: That is really cool. But being 20.5 light years away I fail to see how we would ever manage to get there. Communication would be really difficult as well. Haha no kidding man, my cell has bad reception in my own home calling across the block, light years just seems like I would get a busy signal each time you know ;D | ||
|
KingofHearts
Japan562 Posts
| ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
On May 17 2010 16:31 Robstickle wrote: Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives. In special relativity t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years. Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no I'm really confused by all of this theory of relativity... So let's say we've already habitated this distant planet. Now let's say we have a communication method which would also go 50% of lightspeed. So if I try to communicate with the distant planet It gets 40 years to send signal to the otherside and 40 years to return the answer. I'll be 80 years older. But.. if I travel by myself and return back I'll be only 68 years older? Could someone explain how and most importantly why it works as it does? | ||
|
wurm
Philippines2296 Posts
On May 17 2010 18:46 KingofHearts wrote: 20 light years is pretty far away. instead of looking for new planets why dont people take care of their existence planet. lol... i like this post. man is already looking for the next planet to wreck. I love the mention of the Goldilocks Zone. This is definitely proof that our planet is not one of a kind like a lot of (mostly religious) people say. 1 in a billion to find a planet in the Goldilocks Zone, you say? Found one 20 light years away. | ||
|
~ava
Canada378 Posts
| ||
| ||
