EPTJourney to the edge of the universe - WATCH - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PlutoNZ
New Zealand410 Posts
| ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
| ||
|
Sky
Jordan812 Posts
On July 25 2009 18:12 SearingShadow wrote: Should I watch the National Geographic or Discovery Channel version? Depends on who's voice you think is sexier. I'm really glad they took the time to make something brilliant like this. Here's to hoping they'll do the same with objects at an atomic level and smaller. | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
| ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
| ||
|
Dr. Tran
United States125 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24736 Posts
On July 26 2009 03:51 Dr. Tran wrote: Our universe is so big, that we humans literally do not have the brainpower to fathom the size of something so gargantuan. Trippy thought, eh? What is the literal relationship between brainpower, and maximum size of fathomable universe? I would have no problem with a statement like "The universe is so big that it's extremely difficult for humans to fathom it. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
 | ||
|
Dr. Tran
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24736 Posts
On July 26 2009 04:02 HuskyTheHusky wrote: To think that we're born in a time where we are stuck on our tiny planet while those born in the future will be able to travel the stars We also are born in a time where we aren't all dying of horrible diseases and/or predators... so don't be too picky. Beggars can't be choosers. Also, I wouldn't be too confident in the claim that we will be able to travel the stars. It's a nice goal but certainly no guarantee. | ||
|
Dr. Tran
United States125 Posts
[/QUOTE]We also are born in a time where we aren't all dying of horrible diseases and/or predators... so don't be too picky. Beggars can't be choosers. [/QUOTE] Since we're getting so nit-picky here, I don't think there was ever a time (save for maybe the neanderthal days) that we've ever been dying (largely) of predators. Horrible diseases I'll accept though. Very glad we have modern day health care. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
| ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On July 26 2009 04:35 iamtt1 wrote: lol did anyone pick up the part where the narrator was saying based on an equation there should be millions of advanced civilizations in our galaxy alone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png) N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[2] Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were: R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy) fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets) ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life) fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life) fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life) fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate) L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years) Obviously, I think the equation is okay, but the numbers they used are so bias'd towards proving life that its is hilarious. Right off the bat they assume that one out of 2 starts will have planets, and of those, 1 will have a planet capable of supporting life which is complete bull. | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
| ||
|
x89titan
Philippines1130 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
vik170
Norway11 Posts
Thanks for posting! | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On July 26 2009 06:27 BalliSLife wrote: how do we manage to get our satellites light years away and actually send commands from that far? and how do they manage not to melt near the sun? Who said anything about having any close to the sun? We really don't. Voyager never went that close to the sun, it was intended for outer solar system exploration | ||
|
Avius
Iraq1796 Posts
I also recommend the NG-version, the narrator speaks clearer imo. Thanks for posting this. | ||
| ||
