8
   

KEPLER FOUND A "MEGA-EARTH"

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 08:49 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You're unlikely to get that kind of probe (resembling the Martian rovers) because interstellar distances are too great. Twenty or more light years out, and, given our current technology, you'd need an enormous expenditure to get a probe out there in anything under about 30 years--then 20 years for the data to come back. I don't see, in our present geo-political state, anyone making that kind of expenditure, nor anyone planning that far down the road.

I would love to think that we did that, even though i'd not live long enough to see any results. But i'm pessimistic about that sort of thing because human history shows us to be usually short-sighted and selfish.

One of my prime objection to the so-called Fermi paradox is that he didn't, apparently, think about social structures when positing the likelihood of technological civilizations sending out colonizing missions.

I'm more optimistic. Look at all the achievements and all the variety of governments that humanity has had over the past several thousand years. There are going to be a lot of achievements and forms of government over the next million years of human history. And even if we stay on Earth, we will probably have more than a billion years before extinction catches up with us.

Also, even if there are no "big" projects to send humanity out to the stars, it could still happen slowly. Space travel within the solar system is likely to become common in the future, and by the time the next million years of human history have passed, there will likely be a sizable population who have lived their entire lives in space.

Once the solar system fills up with enough space-dwelling people, there will be a gradual push outward deeper and deeper into interstellar space.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 08:50 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
is using the Schwartzchilde metric to determine R* only valid for magnetic radius distances less than (say) 1000 lightyears?
Im not sure I follow the entire analysis because there has to be an effective limit of validity for this entire "redshift Mass" calculation. NO?

I don't understand the question, so can't attempt an answer without clarification.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 08:51 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
There was a scientific study recently (within the past year) that considered what would be the optimal features of a habitable planet.

They determined that we could do a lot better than Earth, and said that a larger planet would be much better (but presumably not more massive like this new discovery is). They also felt that a widespread sprinkling of small seas was preferable to a few large oceans.

I tried to track down the original study when it came out, so I could see their exact recommendations and assess how realistic I found their study to be, but I ended up at a journal wanting me to pay to read the article, and wasn't quite that interested.

What do you know. That scientific study is available for free now.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.2392.pdf

It appears that double Earth's mass is the optimal size for a life-bearing planet. And it should be orbiting a small orange K-spectrum star.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 08:52 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Small steps I guess, until (and maybe not until) we discover some loopholes in physics.

I strongly suspect that for the most part there are no such loopholes to be found.

The one possibility that might work is if we discover that we are not real, but are software running in a computer simulation, in which case perhaps we can gain an advantage by hacking our simulation and gaining control over it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 09:02 am
@oralloy,
I think we will find that major loopholes exist in the acquisition of huge gobs of energy.
(We futz with things like " constants" in physical chemistry all the time and it works most of the time
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 02:58 pm
@oralloy,
If--and it's a big if--we head for distant stars, i suggest that the only plausible advanced base for such projects would be the so-called asteroid belt. With carbonaceous chondrite and nickel-iron bodies tehre in abundance, in a microgravity environment,that would be the place to start. Still and all, with physics as we know it, given the limitations of c, you'll still have to have groups far more visionary than recent (last few thousand years) history suggests will be available.
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 03:28 pm
@Setanta,
What is Earth like about it? Are there trees? Oceans, with giant squid?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.62 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:49:12