Thread
Hubble finds 100 more exo-solar planets!!!
Planet Zakbor-9! ...now we just need some Spaceman Spiff to explore the cosmos for us to find weird things. 
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: How long before we discover how to go faster than light? oh, probably a good millenia or so. |
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: You can't count out what you don't know. |
In other words, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
You have a very smart gut. i won't hold my breath. My gggggggreeat great humanoid maneating robot grandchildren will, though 
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mark Tungston: there's no questions alien life exists |
Right. After hangin' out in the MacNN forums for a while, there is no doubt about it.
-t
Quote:
|
Originally posted by history1me: Your in 10th Grade... I feel ancient. |
Yeah, it's been 15 years since I was in 10th grade.... back before we had space telescopes! We would hold up one of those McDonalds glasses to the heavens and pretend we saw stuff.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: obviously it's impossible (right now) to travel the speed of light. unless we turn to energy, it isn't happening. i'm sure you have much more knowledge about the subject (i'm still in 10th grade), but I think it's pretty early to say it's absolutely impossible. Theories about limits (such as speed) have been ongoing for hundreds of years. It's presumptive to say we've found out the peak speed this early in human history. Just like scientists have discovered "dark matter" (the invisible matter that is making the universe speed up fast er and farther away from each other) and up to ten dimensions (or is it 11?), nwhole new factors will be discovered constantly that could alter how everything else is explained. If nothing related to the subject are discovered from here until the end of mankind, then ****, we're in our golden age of all mankind already (</sarcasm>)! 1000 years from now there could be a technology so different from what we consider orthodox today. Tens, if not hundreds, of new theories regarding the subject will have been produced by then. From my quick google search, there is a constant debate on whether there is a speed faster than light http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi...html#conclusion The thing about science is that scientists make discoveries on the foundation of previous discoveries. Newton didn't have the access to new theories that Einstein did, and Einstein won't have access to the new theories that future scientists do. Future scientists might have to alter Einstein's theories just like previous scientists had to alter Galileo's. If Galileo had lived in a later period, he might not have made his heliocentric theory (the sun is the center of the universe), but based on what scientific information was available to him at the time, his heliocentric theory was pretty damn good. You can't count out what you don't know. |
... and pretty sick on others
As for FTL, there are some fairly solid theories that it is possible. Here's one link about the Alcubierre drive, which has since been refined by Chris van den Broek. I personally think it's great that you at least have the imagination and interest to think about these things.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: You have a very smart gut. i won't hold my breath. My gggggggreeat great humanoid maneating robot grandchildren will, though
|
Didn't see that one coming, did you?
they're humanoid robots!....half human/ half robot.... they breathe ...to um...dust their gears....
I read a great non-fiction book by Asimov that basically says that, because the number of possible worlds is literally astronomical, the % chance of life would have to be vanishingly small in order for there not to be thousands of civilisations out there. Civilisations - not just life, or intelligent life.
The real killer though is that we'll probably never meet any of them.
The real killer though is that we'll probably never meet any of them.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Gee4orce: I read a great non-fiction book by Asimov that basically says that, because the number of possible worlds is literally astronomical, the % chance of life would have to be vanishingly small in order for there not to be thousands of civilisations out there. Civilisations - not just life, or intelligent life. The real killer though is that we'll probably never meet any of them. |
That's interesting...what's this book called..?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: That's interesting...what's this book called..? |
Not the "Bible," that's for sure.
These large jupiter-sized planets are not like earth or mars. They are gaseous, so if they support life I assume it is in a much a different form than what we can imagine.
It seems one of the reasons that hubble is going to die is because Bush pushing this moon/mars thing, and starving the rest of nasa. This whole manned mars trip is retarded. Hubble has provided us with so much more valuable information, the strongest telescope known to man, and Bush has no clue.
It seems one of the reasons that hubble is going to die is because Bush pushing this moon/mars thing, and starving the rest of nasa. This whole manned mars trip is retarded. Hubble has provided us with so much more valuable information, the strongest telescope known to man, and Bush has no clue.
hopefully the fires in arizona don't take out the new telescope, when online, will be 10x stronger than hubble...
while the structure won't burn, damage to optics and electronics is possible from smoke, etc. there was an article on it on cnn.com yesterday or the day before.
while the structure won't burn, damage to optics and electronics is possible from smoke, etc. there was an article on it on cnn.com yesterday or the day before.
oh, here is the info on the new, almost online scope...
http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbto/
the facility already has two smaller ones online.
http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbto/
the facility already has two smaller ones online.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: I just hope we're smarter than them (lol). You guys probably have thought of a lot of it...but it's so awsome to think that there could be a real life starwars out there taking place. I can dream, can't I? |
I just hope they're smarter than US, so they've progressed beyond petty crap like wars about territory and religion. Hopefully they concentrate on important things like music and art, exploration and science. I'd love to have a leaf through their record collections
Quote:
|
Originally posted by waffffffle: These large jupiter-sized planets are not like earth or mars. They are gaseous, so if they support life I assume it is in a much a different form than what we can imagine. |
Some are terrestrial, even at the size of Jupiter.
Quote:
| It seems one of the reasons that hubble is going to die is because Bush pushing this moon/mars thing, and starving the rest of nasa. |
Sort of, but mostly because of the Discovery.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by residentEvil: hopefully the fires in arizona don't take out the new telescope, when online, will be 10x stronger than hubble... while the structure won't burn, damage to optics and electronics is possible from smoke, etc. there was an article on it on cnn.com yesterday or the day before. |
10 times stronger than hubble, but limited to Earth. At mercy to earth's weather (even on clear days the atmosphere distorts telescopes much more than if they were in space).
Quote:
|
Originally posted by OB1: I just hope they're smarter than US, so they've progressed beyond petty crap like wars about territory and religion. Hopefully they concentrate on important things like music and art, exploration and science. I'd love to have a leaf through their record collections
|
this is true.
yeah, but on earth, you can repair it cheaper. it was built cheaper. and it is private, not at the mercy of the government cutting funding and deciding we don't need it.
but all things considered...it will be better than anything hubble can 'see'.
but all things considered...it will be better than anything hubble can 'see'.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by johnnydr87: 10 times stronger than hubble, but limited to Earth. At mercy to earth's weather (even on clear days the atmosphere distorts telescopes much more than if they were in space). |
I'll ask my dad what he thinks, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be as powerful as hubble. Powerful is the wrong word, it's without a doubt more powerful, but the clarity of the pictures might not be as good. I agree with your other points