| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| That is super cool! Makes me wish I could have been born 1,000 years in the future. |
Instead of being born yesterday?
That article is a huge heap of conjecture and supposition glammed up with imaginative and pretty paintings. A bit like the average evolutionary theory. Another tantalising fairy tale, irresistibly sparking the imagination and thus, belief of the masses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Second Earth FOUND |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is difficult to speculate what - if any - life there is on the planet. If there is life there it would have to cope with the higher gravity and solar radiation from its sun. |
Uninhabitable for humans then. |
Depends on the thickness of the atmosphere and whether it has a magnetic field or not. Gravity's not really a problem - the average person can handle up to 5 g and this planet has maybe 2. Living there for a few years would make you super strong when you come back. |
Isn't this why Superman is so strong -Krypton was a high-gravity planet? And wasn't Krypton's sun a red star? Sometimes Lex Luthor or Brainiac would take away Superman's powers by building a red sun simulator.
(  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maserial
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Location: The Web
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Second Earth FOUND |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is difficult to speculate what - if any - life there is on the planet. If there is life there it would have to cope with the higher gravity and solar radiation from its sun. |
Uninhabitable for humans then. |
Depends on the thickness of the atmosphere and whether it has a magnetic field or not. Gravity's not really a problem - the average person can handle up to 5 g and this planet has maybe 2. Living there for a few years would make you super strong when you come back. |
Awesome. Now all I need is the ability to perform the Kamehameha, and I'm good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
Much too long. One theoretical project to go to Barnard's Star would have taken 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
Way too expensive of course, but that's about the limit of what we could do if we really decided to. This star is over four times as far away.
The next breakthrough we should see in propulsive technology is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Second Earth FOUND |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
The theory of evolution is not about how life began.
It is a theory about what happened to that life after it began..
|
So most evolutionists believe God made everything, it just changed a little after he made it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Second Earth FOUND |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
The theory of evolution is not about how life began.
It is a theory about what happened to that life after it began..
|
So most evolutionists believe God made everything, it just changed a little after he made it? |
Most Christians say "He" vs "he", but whatever. You've demonstrated your poor Christian credentials. Anyway, your question has no meaningful answer. Many evolutionists believe, like big bang and the process of human fetal development, it's god's subtle way of making people and living things. Many don't believe in god and don't care how the theory is applied to questions of the supernatural. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: Re: Second Earth FOUND |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
The theory of evolution is not about how life began.
It is a theory about what happened to that life after it began..
|
So most evolutionists believe God made everything, it just changed a little after he made it? |
Most Christians say "He" vs "he", but whatever. You've demonstrated your poor Christian credentials. Anyway, your question has no meaningful answer. Many evolutionists believe, like big bang and the process of human fetal development, it's god's subtle way of making people and living things. Many don't believe in god and don't care how the theory is applied to questions of the supernatural. |
Your statement is jumbled, incoherent.
My point is...Evolutionists are not usually believers in God. Troll bait was trying to suggest that evolutionists have no interest in how life began. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: Second Earth FOUND |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
My point is...Evolutionists are not usually believers in God. Troll bait was trying to suggest that evolutionists have no interest in how life began. |
Have you done a survey of evolutionists and their religious beliefs? The other poster was not making that claim. Strawman. He was simply saying evolution is not a theory of the origins of life. Get a grip, rapier, and learn how to honor your god in pronoun form. Why does a non-believer again have to instruct you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
Much too long. One theoretical project to go to Barnard's Star would have taken 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus |
We'd be half way there if we'd done that.
Right, screw war and poverty we need to pump billions of dollars in this and get out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
Much too long. One theoretical project to go to Barnard's Star would have taken 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus |
We'd be half way there if we'd done that.
Right, screw war and poverty we need to pump billions of dollars in this and get out there. |
We could get a project like that done simply with the money countries spend on their massive debts:
That's why I always laugh whenever someone makes the absurd claim that funds spent on the space program keep people in poverty, deny them universal education, etc. You can barely see the money there in the graph. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
Much too long. One theoretical project to go to Barnard's Star would have taken 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus |
We'd be half way there if we'd done that.
Right, screw war and poverty we need to pump billions of dollars in this and get out there. |
We could get a project like that done simply with the money countries spend on their massive debts:
That's why I always laugh whenever someone makes the absurd claim that funds spent on the space program keep people in poverty, deny them universal education, etc. You can barely see the money there in the graph. |
Democracies generally have terrible spending habits. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the US is doing 'so well' under tax cuts and special war funding.
Mith, how likely do you think it is that we'll find more planets in the 'Goldilocks zone' in the near future?
I get the impression that this planet was one of the smallest planets we have been able to find yet, since a majority of the exoplanets are gas giants. Could it be that we just don't have the capability to find many 'Goldilocks' type planets, but many are out there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
That's why I always laugh whenever someone makes the absurd claim that funds spent on the space program keep people in poverty, deny them universal education, etc. You can barely see the money there in the graph. |
Indeed. The thing is in a country as rich as the USA there should be money for both space exploration and fighting poverty. The money America saved post-Cold War didn't exactly go to helping the poor, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kurva anjad
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
Much too long. One theoretical project to go to Barnard's Star would have taken 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus |
We'd be half way there if we'd done that.
Right, screw war and poverty we need to pump billions of dollars in this and get out there. |
We could get a project like that done simply with the money countries spend on their massive debts:
That's why I always laugh whenever someone makes the absurd claim that funds spent on the space program keep people in poverty, deny them universal education, etc. You can barely see the money there in the graph. |
Is there a pie chart for Canada's Space Program spending? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| So with current technology how long would it take to send a probe there? |
Much too long. One theoretical project to go to Barnard's Star would have taken 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus |
We'd be half way there if we'd done that.
Right, screw war and poverty we need to pump billions of dollars in this and get out there. |
We could get a project like that done simply with the money countries spend on their massive debts:
That's why I always laugh whenever someone makes the absurd claim that funds spent on the space program keep people in poverty, deny them universal education, etc. You can barely see the money there in the graph. |
Democracies generally have terrible spending habits. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the US is doing 'so well' under tax cuts and special war funding.
Mith, how likely do you think it is that we'll find more planets in the 'Goldilocks zone' in the near future?
I get the impression that this planet was one of the smallest planets we have been able to find yet, since a majority of the exoplanets are gas giants. Could it be that we just don't have the capability to find many 'Goldilocks' type planets, but many are out there? |
Yes, there will be tons more. The majority of the stars in the universe are red dwarfs which used to be a bad thing until they realized that they should be just as capable as other types of stars of supporting planets with life, and actually perhaps even better because of how long they last compared to other stars that use up their fuel much quicker and also have much more radiation, making it difficult for planets to retain their atmospheres, life to form, and survive unaffected once it has. Here's the article that changed our thinking on them back in 2001:
http://www.kencroswell.com/reddwarflife.html
The other reason we'll find so many around red dwarfs of course is that they're so small so the effects on their movement by the planets that orbit them is much greater. It'll be a bit harder to find a planet closer to us than this one, but of course it'll be easier to notice as well because it's closer. There are quite a few to check that fall within 20 ly though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearest_stars
What's really exciting is that COROT should be showing us it's first results soon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COROT
Not only should it be able to find dozens of planets of a similar size, it uses actual imaging of the target start so that'll enable us to compare actual images to the results we've had up till now, which will also help refine both methods. The US is launching an even better probe than COROT next year too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_Space_Observatory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
