EPTPlanets that can potentially support life... - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4927 Posts
On December 06 2011 17:23 Reborn8u wrote: Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but if you went back 100 years and tried to convince anyone that a man would set foot on the moon, you'd be committed to an asylum. No, you could even be a successful author more than a 100 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon Claims of our past backwardness are often exaggerated. Sure there were some dogmatic people, but every age had its freethinkers. That said, extrapolations in the future are difficult, that is true. But we know a lot more about the universe now than a hundred years ago. Astrophysicists observe phenomena that are at the edge of the observable universe, and the laws of physics as we measure them on Earth seem to permeate everything. It is this knowledge that allows us to put some constraints on the development of future technology, and you can't get rid of these constraints as easily as you can get rid of some dogmatic thoughts. | ||
|
Meself
Estonia552 Posts
| ||
|
Nenyim
France110 Posts
The fact that nothing can live long enough for just 1 lightyear, (76,526 years) with a NASA spaceshuttle traveling 17,500 miles per hour. That a bad way of thinking. You have to remember that they have budgets and that this budgets tend to go down rather than up, therefore they need to considere the cost of when building something and if there is no need for him to go faster, and there is obviously none, they won't make it go faster. If we ever (when?) give a shot to extra-solar travel, we will need something faster, and we have already the technologie to do it, probably wouldn't be fast enough though and there is so many other problems to slove first. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4927 Posts
On December 06 2011 20:01 Meself wrote: Just a reminder. There is a difference between philosophy and science. The scientific method ensures progress. And no, Newton was not wrong, he was almost right. edit: I'll give you an often cited example of past backwardness and dogma: The New York Times famously criticized Goddard in an editorial, and ridiculed his idea of a rocket reaching space: "[A]fter the rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey it will neither be accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left." Which means Goddard wasn't attacked because of current scientific knowledge but because of someone failing to understand basic Newtonian physics. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
I think you confuse realism with pessimism. The fact that nothing can live long enough for just 1 lightyear, (76,526 years) with a NASA spaceshuttle traveling 17,500 miles per hour. One can only hope that it will happen in out lifetime, but thats just lying to yourself. Even with an unmanned spacecraft traveling faster, it will still take thousands of years. Its not pessimism, just being real. Yes, but obviously we wouldn't be sending a space shuttle. We're probably capable of designing unmanned probes that go so fast that it makes a space shuttle look like a snail. The problem, as always, is money.Well, let's just hope nuclear fusion comes around soon (commercial prototype should be ready in 20 years iirc) so energy is not a factor anymore on Earth. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
|
lundell100
Sweden232 Posts
On September 13 2011 05:39 zimz wrote: i always knew there were thousand if not millions of planets like earth out there like over 10 years ago. i thought it was quite close minded for many people to assume earth is exceptionally rare and maybe the only one etc. Tell me exactly who assumed that? | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
One could argue that the Bible, and many religions in general, assumes this. + Show Spoiler + *I'm not making cheap shots on the Bible or any religion at all - just saying. As for the topic at hand; I would be thrilled beyond explanation if we actually found a planet completely capable of supporting life within almost-reasonable distance. This planet seems promising; we "just" need FTL (read up on CERN - they accelerated neutrinos to faster-than-light velocities a couple of months ago). | ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
Cool - yes Potentially inhabitable by humans?- no way | ||
|
Mr.Brightside
Australia317 Posts
| ||
|
Bollo
England7 Posts
| ||
|
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
On December 06 2011 21:11 Zealously wrote: As for the topic at hand; I would be thrilled beyond explanation if we actually found a planet completely capable of supporting life within almost-reasonable distance. This planet seems promising; we "just" need FTL (read up on CERN - they accelerated neutrinos to faster-than-light velocities a couple of months ago). No, they don't. It was debunked. We can't say that Nothing is faster than light... at least yet. But, if we could travel to almost the speed of light due to a constant acceleration, any human could travel faaaaaar into the space. "How far can one travel from the Earth? Since one might not travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel further from the earth than 40 light years if the traveler is active between the age of 20 and 60. A traveler would then never be able to reach more than the very few star systems which exist within the limit of 20-40 light years from the Earth. This is a mistaken conclusion; due to time dilation, the traveler can travel thousands of light years during their 40 active years. If the spaceship accelerates at a constant 1G, they will, after 354 days, reach speeds a little under the speed of light, and time dilation will increase their lifespan to thousands of years, seen from the reference system of the Solar System, but the traveler's subjective lifespan will not thereby change. If the traveler returns to the Earth, they will land thousands of years into the future. Their speed will not be seen as higher than the speed of light by observers on Earth, and the traveler will not measure their speed as being higher than the speed of light, but will see a length contraction of the universe in their direction of travel. And as the traveler turns around to return, the Earth will seem to experience much more time than the traveler does. So, although their (ordinary) speed cannot exceed c, the four-velocity (distance as seen by Earth divided by his proper (i.e. subjective) time) can be much greater than c. This is similar to the fact that a muon can travel much further than c times its half-life (at rest), if it is traveling close to c." (Wikipedia quote) On December 06 2011 21:54 Bollo wrote: Unfortunately a manned expedition to a planet 600 light years away is far beyond what we can achieve, and will be for a long time. If we were to explore the Universe it would be with unmanned probes which we do have the technology to accelerate to a small percentage of the speed of light. Also given that the faster it goes, the slower time passes, it would take significantly less than 600 years for humanity to send a probe to Kepler 22-b. Technologically sending a probe out wouldn't be impossible if we really put our minds to it, but it would never get funded. No, you are absolutly wrong. For us, it will take 600 years to send a probe at the speed of light. Time will not go slower for us just because we sended a probe into the space. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
On December 06 2011 22:00 nihlon wrote: Eh, the cern experiment hasn't been debunked... They are still trying to figure it out. That's the point. Those neutrinos "could" possibly be FTL... but their old experiment were debunked. They have to find a new way to calculate it. They are pretty much back to the new theory status, there is absolutly no more proof of this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15830844 http://www.theargus.ca/articles/news/2011/11/neutrinos-faster-than-the-speed-of-light | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 06 2011 22:24 nihlon wrote: I've read that article before, so? It still haven't been debunked. I'm of the opinion they made some mistake myself but it annoys me when people state things that aren't true. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by linking those articles. Thank you. I was about to rage at people for not knowing what they are talking about (has happened like ten times in this thread.) The Neutrinos have NOT YET BEEN DEBUNKED. They are in the process of reconducting the experiments using a variety of different calculation methods and instruments, and if they find their results to be consistent, other respected members of the scientific community will try to reproduce the results. We likely wont know for sure whether or not the neutrinos are moving faster than light, but that's how the scientific method works. | ||
|
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
On December 06 2011 22:45 ryanAnger wrote: Thank you. I was about to rage at people for not knowing what they are talking about (has happened like ten times in this thread.) The Neutrinos have NOT YET BEEN DEBUNKED. They are in the process of reconducting the experiments using a variety of different calculation methods and instruments, and if they find their results to be consistent, other respected members of the scientific community will try to reproduce the results. We likely wont know for sure whether or not the neutrinos are moving faster than light, but that's how the scientific method works. On December 06 2011 22:24 nihlon wrote: I've read that article before, so? It still haven't been debunked. I'm of the opinion they made some mistake myself but it annoys me when people state things that aren't true. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by linking those articles. ??? They can't prove yet that those neutrinos are FTL... what in "We can't tell that it goes faster than light...yet" don't you understand? "YET", wich mean, that we can't say that they are right nor that they are wrong. There is basically so many sources of error and other actual proof that those neutrinos are not going FTL, that I don't see it being proven before 10 years, EVEN if it is actually true. Have you see that I was answering someone that was saying that CERN had accelerated neutrinos to faster than light. And that is completly wrong. CERN is not even believing in those result themself, OPERA are those that are working on that, not CERN. How is that not debunked? IT IS NOT CERN, IT IS NOT YET PROVEN. The exact opposite of what most peoples are saying. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
| ||
|
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
On December 06 2011 23:02 ryanAnger wrote: Your use of the term "debunked" implies that it has been proven false. This is not true. Its neither true or false. Thus, not debunked. The term "debunked" imply that : "To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims" | ||
| ||
