Members Chrisjd Posted February 17, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Joking? About what? The Moon's size and position or about it being an artificial construct created some time ago by another civilisation? The moon is smaller than earth, fyi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 The next oddity that presents a problem is that even if you traveled to some distant star, would it actually exist? Remember, we are seeing light sources that take infinite amounts of time to reach us. What we see now may have been long gone already. Some of the yellow and red giant stars that have been observed over the last 30 years are showing signs of weakening and some astronomers suggest they may no longer be there. What is being debated is the source of the energy of those giant stars are light energy that is dissipating. The reason being, most giant stars grow before their death, and what are seeing is not an expansion, yet more of radiated light moving away from us as it would after the death of these stars. Do we really know?? Not really.... but it is interesting and evidence on both sides of the arguments are compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rich Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 I just read the article and there is not enough science to prove to me anything they said other than there are other planets out there. If they are certain and have empirical evidence the caveats would not be in there. Once again, speculation thinly veiled as science. I highlighted the problems I have with it. Critical thinking skills would alert anyone to challenge this. Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms. He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago. So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System. Very few of these would be capable of supporting life, however. Most are gas giants like our Jupiter, and many orbit so close to their parent stars that any microbes would have to survive roasting temperatures. But, based on the limited numbers of planets found so far, Dr Boss has estimated that each Sun-like star has on average one "Earth-like" planet. This simple calculation means there would be huge numbers capable of supporting life. "Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited," Dr Boss told BBC News. "But I think that most likely the nearby 'Earths' are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago." That means bacterial lifeforms. Dr Boss estimates that Nasa's Kepler mission, due for launch in March, should begin finding some of these Earth-like planets within the next few years. Recent work at Edinburgh University tried to quantify how many intelligent civilisations might be out there. The research suggested there could be thousands of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SexWithRobots Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 I just read the article and there is not enough science to prove to me anything they said other than there are other planets out there. If they are certain and have empirical evidence the caveats would not be in there. Once again, speculation thinly veiled as science. I highlighted the problems I have with it. Critical thinking skills would alert anyone to challenge this. Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms. He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago. So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System. Very few of these would be capable of supporting life, however. Most are gas giants like our Jupiter, and many orbit so close to their parent stars that any microbes would have to survive roasting temperatures. But, based on the limited numbers of planets found so far, Dr Boss has estimated that each Sun-like star has on average one "Earth-like" planet. This simple calculation means there would be huge numbers capable of supporting life. " Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited," Dr Boss told BBC News. "But I think that most likely the nearby 'Earths' are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago." That means bacterial lifeforms. Dr Boss estimates that Nasa's Kepler mission, due for launch in March, should begin finding some of these Earth-like planets within the next few years. Recent work at Edinburgh University tried to quantify how many intelligent civilisations might be out there. The research suggested there could be thousands of them. It's not like the guy said, yo listen up theres other planets with people on them out there aint that {censored} cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 what if the Bible is true, and God created everything, and decided to create mankind on another planet as well, only they didn't {censored} up and eat the fruit that would lead for a very boring way of life IMO You'd never know then right? You'd never know what was intended for them either. Sin would have never existed and everyone would be naked since they would not know what naked was... Eating the apple is what made them "aware" as it is said. I once heard an interesting point. Adam ate of the apple of the tree of life (that was supposed to define the wisdom/knowledge of the universe). Since one big bite is roughly 12% of the apple and when they tested the brain activity /capacity (before stress) of the smartest brainiac people, it never exceeded 11% or so.... Once it was joked that Adam should have taken a bigger bite and we'd all be smarter or have a capacity to understand more of the universe. Just some stories that get tossed around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 I just read the article and there is not enough science to prove to me anything they said other than there are other planets out there. If they are certain and have empirical evidence the caveats would not be in there. Once again, speculation thinly veiled as science. I highlighted the problems I have with it. Critical thinking skills would alert anyone to challenge this. Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms. He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago. So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System. Very few of these would be capable of supporting life, however. Most are gas giants like our Jupiter, and many orbit so close to their parent stars that any microbes would have to survive roasting temperatures. But, based on the limited numbers of planets found so far, Dr Boss has estimated that each Sun-like star has on average one "Earth-like" planet. This simple calculation means there would be huge numbers capable of supporting life. " Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited," Dr Boss told BBC News. "But I think that most likely the nearby 'Earths' are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago." That means bacterial lifeforms. Dr Boss estimates that Nasa's Kepler mission, due for launch in March, should begin finding some of these Earth-like planets within the next few years. Recent work at Edinburgh University tried to quantify how many intelligent civilisations might be out there. The research suggested there could be thousands of them. Yes, but by time we reached them give or take a few million years to travel, they'd be evolved under the same Earthly conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Unstrung Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 I dunno. I just see all these millions of stars/planets and think why? Why would someone create all this? Surely it's just all random? It's all here because we're here to percieve it. If we weren't here it wouldn't be either. It's here for the sake of existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SnaxSlingerAns Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yes, but by time we reached them give or take a few million years to travel, they'd be evolved under the same Earthly conditions. Unless we figure out a way to travel that eliminates the time it takes to travel under our current tech constraints. -Ans- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Unless we figure out a way to travel that eliminates the time it takes to travel under our current tech constraints. -Ans- Won't be in my lifetime, but maybe 150 generations forward we could get close to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SnaxSlingerAns Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Won't be in my lifetime, but maybe 150 generations forward we could get close to it I think we may be closer to it than most people know about right now. Remember how long it took for the Stealth to come out and hell that was in the 70's when they started work on that...were cell phones even around then? Imagine what they are working on now that such a select few have any awareness of. It's a bit frightening really. -A- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Unless we figure out a way to travel that eliminates the time it takes to travel under our current tech constraints. -Ans- Time is not a constant, nor is space/distance for that matter. We just haven't yet developed the technology to manipulate these variables yet. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Unstrung Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 The moon is smaller than earth, fyi. He's referring to the fact that the combination of the moon and sun's sizes and the distance of the moon from the Earth are basically exactly matched so the moon will block out the sun, no less and no more, so all you see is the corona radiating off the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members K-Bizzle Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Unless we figure out a way to travel that eliminates the time it takes to travel under our current tech constraints. -Ans- When people rule this out it amazes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SnaxSlingerAns Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Time is not a constant, nor is space/distance for that matter. We just haven't yet developed the technology to manipulate these variables yet. -W That's what I was saying with my post...I guess it wasn't clear enough. Mah bad. -A- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members exafro Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think we may be closer to it than most people know about right now. Remember how long it took for the Stealth to come out and hell that was in the 70's when they started work on that...were cell phones even around then? Imagine what they are working on now that such a select few have any awareness of. It's a bit frightening really. -A- Its a lot easier to design an airplane that reflects radio waves in every direction but the source than it is to create an interstellar space craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SnaxSlingerAns Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Its a lot easier to design an airplane that breaks the sound barrier than it is to create a Space Shuttle to land on the moon and deliver our "Astronauts" home safely. Fixed for 1945 speak. -A- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Unstrung Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Its a lot easier to design an airplane that reflects radio waves in every direction but the source than it is to create an interstellar space craft. Don't rule it out though... we're just civilians. What do we know, and of it what is true? I'd like to add that I think our "space technology" is totally arcane, a joke. It's the same {censored} we've been doing since the fifties. We combust chemicals to force our way out of the atmosphere, and hope nothing goes wrong. Totally arcane. It's like no one has really been trying to make progress. The Space Shuttle is what, almost thirty years old now? Sometimes I wonder if NASA is just a front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members exafro Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Don't rule it out though... we're just civilians. What do we know, and of it what is true?I'd like to add that I think our "space technology" is totally arcane, a joke. It's the same {censored} we've been doing since the fifties. We combust chemicals to force our way out of the atmosphere, and hope nothing goes wrong. Totally arcane. It's like no one has really been trying to make progress. The Space Shuttle is what, almost thirty years old now?Sometimes I wonder if NASA is just a front. I totally agree about space thing. I just think that because it won't help our government stay on top of the food chain that it gets a back seat to things that are designed to kill. They have no Soviet Union to push them anymore, so they just rest on their laurels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Imagine the stresses at 30,000 ft below the sea and multiply that by over 1000 roughly. That is the stress that would have to overcome by any ship or craft traveling at just under light speed. Stealth is cool tech, so is flying 3x the speed of sound... but is terrestrial. Speed of sound- 768 mph roughly Speed of light- 186000 miles per second Huge difference- imagine the G suits needed One minute after you departed Earth, many generations of your family would have already passed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SnaxSlingerAns Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Imagine the stresses at 30,000 ft below the sea and multiply that by over 1000 roughly. That is the stress that would have to overcome by any ship or craft traveling at just under light speed.Stealth is cool tech, so is flying 3x the speed of sound... but is terrestrial. Speed of sound- 768 mph roughlySpeed of light- 186000 miles per secondHuge difference- imagine the G suits neededOne minute after you departed Earth, many generations of your family would have already passed on. Where was I talking about SPEED being the determining factor? -A- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DirtyBird Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 What's with all the pro/anti religious guff in this thread, FFS? One for conspiracy theorists: It's a funny coincidence how the Moon is the exact size and distance from Earth to perfectly hide the Sun; as witnessed during an eclipse. Solar eclipses only completely cover the sun depending on where on the earth you're sitting. If you're in the hemisphere where it's summer time and therefore relatively in line with the sun-moon-earth plane, then yes, you get a full eclipse. But it doesn't cover the the whole earth. The sun is many times bigger than the moon, and the earth is bigger than the moon also. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Given the fact we don't allocate any real money to space travel efforts, I would not expect any real leaps any time in the distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Given the fact we don't allocate any real money to space travel efforts, I would not expect any real leaps any time in the distant future. You're assuming that the future of space travel depends on public funds. You're also assuming that the concept of money will still be valid in the future. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members exafro Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 You're assuming that the future of space travel depends on public funds.You're also assuming that the concept of money will still be valid in the future.-W The private sector is definitely catching up, but they have a long way to go. And money makes the world go round, I don't really see that changing unless there is some major event that turns the world upside down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 Here's the next projected space idea http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ I'm not saying we have not invested, just saying that the investment is not and has not really been a priority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.