|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2017 1:52:59 GMT
Astronomers have announced the section of 7 earth sized planets orbiting the low mass star named Trappist-1. 3 of these are in the Stars Goldilocks zone, with the potential for liquid water to exist. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39034050And traveling at the fastest speed we can, it would take us something like 10 million years to get there. If there is life, hopefully they are post warp. if they aren't, we don't have to worry too much over whether they are friendly or not. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 23, 2017 2:27:18 GMT
And traveling at the fastest speed we can, it would take us something like 10 million years to get there. If there is life, hopefully they are post warp. if they aren't, we don't have to worry too much over whether they are friendly or not. Not unless they headed for Earth 10 million years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2017 2:57:33 GMT
if they aren't, we don't have to worry too much over whether they are friendly or not. Not unless they headed for Earth 10 million years ago. if they're that old a race, then whether they are friendly or not is probably moot. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 23, 2017 9:39:00 GMT
Not unless they headed for Earth 10 million years ago. if they're that old a race, then whether they are friendly or not is probably moot. IT may not even matter of they were friendly or not, on this planet when one civilisation has met another and meant no harm problems have often occurred. I actually prefer that we are more advanced than they are in this hyperthetical situation. But even knowing that there was life, even microbial life out there in the Universe even if we could never practically meet it would be significant. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 23, 2017 14:35:16 GMT
if they're that old a race, then whether they are friendly or not is probably moot. IT may not even matter of they were friendly or not, on this planet when one civilisation has met another and meant no harm problems have often occurred. I actually prefer that we are more advanced than they are in this hyperthetical situation. But even knowing that there was life, even microbial life out there in the Universe even if we could never practically meet it would be significant. Unless they are green and show up in a round spacecraft, most people won't believe it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 24, 2017 4:59:03 GMT
I really want to see if Europa has something going on in that possible ocean.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 24, 2017 18:38:37 GMT
I really want to see if Europa has something going on in that possible ocean. Yes if we can solve the problem of piercing the crust somehow that would be amazing to see what's there. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 24, 2017 19:07:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 4, 2017 18:37:22 GMT
Not necessarily news, but still kind of interesting. Here's a gif comparing escape velocities:  |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 10, 2017 15:44:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2017 0:12:31 GMT
"so THAT's where we put that thing" |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 11, 2017 8:49:45 GMT
Going to the next question straight away here, "<Now what?>" Can they plan to re-establish contact with either of them?. Can they plan on catching them?.. Is their any possibility of repair?. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 11, 2017 9:13:46 GMT
I think it was more of "Well, as a test, we found the tiny little box orbiting Mars. Let's see what else we can find out there!"
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 11, 2017 9:27:51 GMT
I think it was more of "Well, as a test, we found the tiny little box orbiting Mars. Let's see what else we can find out there!" ...If it was orbiting mars, no wonder they lost it?.. It was supposed to be a LUNAR observer, and last I checked, that still meant the moon?.. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 11, 2017 15:18:06 GMT
I think it was more of "Well, as a test, we found the tiny little box orbiting Mars. Let's see what else we can find out there!" ...If it was orbiting mars, no wonder they lost it?.. It was supposed to be a LUNAR observer, and last I checked, that still meant the moon?.. That's what I get for posting at 2 am. Let me write this one down in my "Plans for Global Domination" notebook: Mars =/= Moon. There. I fixed it.  (Actually, I had just finished an article on the difficulty of getting to Mars, and this must have been stuck in my mind when I replied. Sorry about that. Oh, and here's the article I was reading when I goofed: Everything About Mars Is The Worst ) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 12, 2017 7:35:32 GMT
...If it was orbiting mars, no wonder they lost it?.. It was supposed to be a LUNAR observer, and last I checked, that still meant the moon?.. That's what I get for posting at 2 am. Let me write this one down in my "Plans for Global Domination" notebook: Mars =/= Moon. There. I fixed it. (Actually, I had just finished an article on the difficulty of getting to Mars, and this must have been stuck in my mind when I replied. Sorry about that. Oh, and here's the article I was reading when I goofed: Everything About Mars Is The Worst ) "We all duck up sometimes", I gathered you missed something there, and having the red planet orbiting earth would make sense anyway. It was at this point, he realised,
He'd Ducked up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 14, 2017 8:14:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 14, 2017 13:55:24 GMT
is that to say gravity does not attenuate with distance at all? this would seem to mean the moon exerts as much gravity on me where I sit as if I was on the surface of the moon, and I would think that would be easy to verify or disprove. or do local gravity wells cancel out distant gravity wells? - but that would leave the tides in question. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 15, 2017 8:15:52 GMT
My own explanation of "Dark matter" is just the stuff we didnt know about yet. Take a look at the periodic table, from the 80's, and the post 2000... Up to date, over a 30 yrs spread, there are almost half-again the number of items on that table. Some of them are a lot heavier than the others in mass. How can you predict the mass of existing matter in the universe until you know how the body is composed, how many elements of heavy matter, and how dense it is in the first place. As in, the single quote that answers it all, "There are more things we dont know we dont know than there are things we know we dont know", as in, there is an awful lot we dont know. Therefore, there are things out there that maybe dont adhere to the visible light spectrum or even are dark to radio telescopy, that we aint seen yet. As for missing matter, we only JUST discovered to use the drop in light from distant stars to work out there are planets revolving around it. May I ask, what is the length in years it takes for the outer planets of our own universe to revolve around the sun?.. Unless you are watching every single sun for well over 10 yrs, you cant even be sure you have spotted every single planet revolving around that star. And thats something we only JUST got started on. I dont hold with "Missing matter" much other than there is a LOT we dont know we dont know, and time will tell, and I suggest that we will spot all of it eventually How long you got?.. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2017 19:01:24 GMT
My own explanation of "Dark matter" is just the stuff we didnt know about yet. Take a look at the periodic table, from the 80's, and the post 2000... Up to date, over a 30 yrs spread, there are almost half-again the number of items on that table. Some of them are a lot heavier than the others in mass. How can you predict the mass of existing matter in the universe until you know how the body is composed, how many elements of heavy matter, and how dense it is in the first place. As in, the single quote that answers it all, "There are more things we dont know we dont know than there are things we know we dont know", as in, there is an awful lot we dont know. Therefore, there are things out there that maybe dont adhere to the visible light spectrum or even are dark to radio telescopy, that we aint seen yet. As for missing matter, we only JUST discovered to use the drop in light from distant stars to work out there are planets revolving around it. May I ask, what is the length in years it takes for the outer planets of our own universe to revolve around the sun?.. Unless you are watching every single sun for well over 10 yrs, you cant even be sure you have spotted every single planet revolving around that star. And thats something we only JUST got started on. I dont hold with "Missing matter" much other than there is a LOT we dont know we dont know, and time will tell, and I suggest that we will spot all of it eventually How long you got?.. The problem with many of those newer elements on the periodic table is that they don't naturally occur in nature. They are man made by slamming a bunch of parts of atoms together at high speed and then they only last a few millionths of a second, if even that long. Of course, you never know what may be lurking where the sun doesn't shine. |
|
