EPT
Now how do we get over there :/
also... why "Super Earth"? lol
Planets that can potentially support life... - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
Now how do we get over there :/ also... why "Super Earth"? lol | ||
|
KainiT
Austria392 Posts
| ||
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
On September 13 2011 15:22 Skew wrote: I was born too early fuq This. Gif space travel now! Though I am quite pleased to have lived in the 90´s. Best decade of humanity ever! | ||
|
LayZRR
Germany449 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
But lets just continue to kill each other over oil, religion and other petty differences. That's a way better destination for our money for sure! | ||
|
Boblhead
United States2577 Posts
gonna be frozen and woken up when in like 500 years when light speed is actually achievable, but 500 years might be too long considering the resources on earth will be depleted by like 2200 and at the rate the popluation is growing bb earth bb human race bb space travel and bb other planets that can support life. Im with skew on this one On September 13 2011 15:22 Skew wrote: I was born too early fuq | ||
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On September 13 2011 17:49 DaCruise wrote: This. Gif space travel now! Though I am quite pleased to have lived in the 90´s. Best decade of humanity ever! Agree with Skew. Kinda agree with DaCruise, 90's were awesome but you can't know what 2020, 2030, 2040 etc will be like, so you can't really claim it to be the best one either.  | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
Honest question. EDIT: Nevermind I found the answer, apparently space is created during the time the oldest light travels so that the actual distance that this light travels is actually greater than that. Or something. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On September 13 2011 18:52 Crushinator wrote: How is it possible that we can see 42 billion lightyears while the universe is only +- 14 billion years old? Honest question. EDIT: Nevermind I found the answer, apparently space is created during the time the oldest light travels so that the actual distance that this light travels is actually greater than that. Or something. Wait what? Where or who says we can see 42 billion lightyears away? And your answer to your own question doesn't even make sense lol. And we can't see farther than the age of the universe, because even the first born light never can only have that much of a light span to travel, so we can't see where there is no light. | ||
|
Hassybaby
United Kingdom10823 Posts
WE CAN CALL IT KORHAL | ||
|
zeMoose
Finland51 Posts
On September 13 2011 15:32 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Probability of aliens = probability of anything which you can't prove. Tell me how you can prove existence of aliens without reproducible observations / interactions. You can't. So until the moment we find aliens, they don't exist. Same argument is used against any kind of afterlife - just because you don't know what happens after you die, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does and there will be judgement. Yes, we have no proof of there being aliens so we can't know if there are any or not. Considering the size of the universe though, I would simply guess that it's likely that there is life to be found elsewhere as well. Possibly even intelligent life. And your logic is twisted. The philosophic burden of proof lies upon the person making claims that can't be verified with observation or other scientific methods, such as the existence of gods or afterlife. It is simply impossible to prove a negative and therefore you can not claim that afterlife exists because I can't prove it doesn't (well... you can but you can't expect anyone with a critical approach to your claim to believe you). With the same logic I could claim that there's a tiny little pink unicorn orbiting around Saturn. You couldn't prove that I'm wrong so therefore the unicorn must be there? You can read more about the argument from wikipedia if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On September 13 2011 19:04 Fubi wrote: Wait what? Where or who says we can see 42 billion lightyears away? And your answer to your own question doesn't even make sense lol. And we can't see farther than the age of the universe, because even the first born light never can only have that much of a light span to travel, so we can't see where there is no light. Someone in this thread said this. And yes, yes we can. I'm sure my answer isn't entirely accurate but it is what my tiny brain made of this: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506987. So yeah, you are pretty wrong sir, enjoy the read. | ||
|
Mithriel
Netherlands2969 Posts
Its just a matter of time! | ||
|
dementrio
678 Posts
Nuclear-propelled as in, actual atomic bombs explode and haul the ship's ass forward. There are to this date unsolved technological problems in building such a ship but no theoretical impossibility. However, since it would have to be built in space, we can't even start funding such a project until we have a shipyard out there. Very unlikely we'd see even the beginning of such a project in our lifetimes. It was called project orion if you want to look it up. | ||
|
Hittomogasin
Finland80 Posts
In space, there is mostly nothing that slows you down, so any speed you manage to gather wont end like on earth. High speed is more of an issue of how much time and how much fuel it takes to actually gather such speeds that the travel wouldnt take immense amounts of time. How ever, untill we know how to prolong humans life, nobody of our generations probaply can get to see these planets from surface. | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On September 13 2011 19:20 dementrio wrote: Regarding feasible technology for interstellar travel, there was a cold-war era concept for a nuclear-propelled megaship that would achieve speeds up to (iirc) 0.2c, which would make it possible to reach nearby solar system over the course of 1 or 2 generations. Nuclear-propelled as in, actual atomic bombs explode and haul the ship's ass forward. There are to this date unsolved technological problems in building such a ship but no theoretical impossibility. However, since it would have to be built in space, we can't even start funding such a project until we have a shipyard out there. Very unlikely we'd see even the beginning of such a project in our lifetimes. It was called project orion if you want to look it up. Provided you have enough fuel to keep the engine going, you can (in principle) accelerate your ship to speeds arbitrarily close to the speed of light. Since there is no friction force in the vacuum of space, there's nothing to counteract the thrust from the engines. The principle behind efficient space travel is that you want to shoot stuff out of the rear end of your spacecraft. Conservation of momentum then causes the spacecraft to feel a force pushing it forward. The challenge lies in propelling matter with low mass at high momentum. You want low mass, because for a 35 LY journey, it's a lot of fuel you have to bring. The combination of low mass and high momentum for the propellant means that it has to be accelerated to high energies. (Explosive) combustion is one way of going about this, it's what current spacecraft use. The problem is that you want to focus the propellant to be expelled in a straight line, while blowing stuff up generally has it going in all kinds of directions. There are some developments in plasma physics that aim at providing a thruster system based on propelling ions at high energies, focussed in a straight beam by electric and magnetic fields. The concept is not new, the "ion thruster" or "ion drive" is a common concept in sci-fi stories, but the technological realization is only now within our grasp. Regardless, these are all conventional means of propulsion, which means no FTL. Nevertheless, if a journey to another solar system with an earth-like planet took 100 years, then a generation ship with efficient ion-drive propulsion seems like a fantastic endeavour. Unfortunately, I fear that it will require us to actually meet aliens before we can put aside our petty differences and materialistic needs and start focussing on improving ourselves and our understanding of the universe (just like the scenario described in Star Trek, where humanity slowly unites after a bitter third world war after first contact with an alien race). | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
On September 13 2011 19:26 Hittomogasin wrote: We actually do possess technology that can reach us into speeds that would allow us to travel there in 1 human lifetime. Engineers have plenty of ideas from using solarwinds to highly controlled nuclear explosions( small scale obviously >_> ) to speed spacescraft into massive speeds. In space, there is mostly nothing that slows you down, so any speed you manage to gather wont end like on earth. High speed is more of an issue of how much time and how much fuel it takes to actually gather such speeds that the travel wouldnt take immense amounts of time. How ever, untill we know how to prolong humans life, nobody of our generations probaply can get to see these planets from surface. Don't forget that you also have to slow down at the end. I would personally hate to crash into a planet at speeds close to the speed of light. If we manage to get to high enough speeds, the trip duration won't be a problem for the people inside the spacecraft. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Though obviously, your family and everyone you know that you left on Earth will be dead as you reach your destination. Is it worthwhile? | ||
|
UKISS
United States29 Posts
| ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On September 13 2011 19:36 scFoX wrote: Is it worthwhile? Hell yes. I'd sign up in a heartbeat. | ||
|
nShade
Bulgaria296 Posts
| ||
| ||
