backtop


Print 177 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Nov 23 at 10:28 PM


This image was snapped by Hubble of one of the four planets, which orbits the star Fomalhaut 25 light-years from Earth.  (Source: NASA)

A second image of three planets orbitting the star HR 8799 was taken by the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii, which consists of two large 8-m reflecting telescopes (note HR8799d is not in image shown).  (Source: NASA/Gemini Observatory)

This artist rendition represents how the HR 8799 worlds might look when viewed up close.  (Source: Gemini Observatory)
Beautiful new images reveal our first visual glimpse that other solar systems share planets just like ours does

One of the central themes both to science fiction and to real-life space progress was the drive to find and eventually travel to extrasolar plants.  In recent years, constantly improving computer processing and better imaging technology have allowed scientists to at last confirm what many have long fantasized -- there's a wealth of planets outside our solar system.

From water bearing planets to ultra-hot ones, and even with a few that resembled larger versions of Earth, extrasolar planets thus far have shown great variety.  Most of these planets were detected using Doppler, or "wobble," technique to locate stars which were tugged at by the gravity of orbiting planets, leading to a wobble.  Thus far, infrared images from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope and spectral analysis of composition had provided us of our clearest picture of these worlds.  However, the public has never seen a picture of an extrasolar planet -- until now.

The new images, developed by NASA and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are the first-ever pictures taken from the visible spectrum, glimpsed by the Gemini North and Keck telescopes on the Mauna Kea mountaintop in Hawaii.  British and American researchers snapped the first ever visible-light pictures of three extrasolar planets orbiting the star HR8799.  HR8799 is about 1.5 times the size of the sun, located 130 light-years away in the Pegasus constellation.  Observers can probably see this star through binoculars, scientists said.

To identify the planets, researchers compared images of the system, known to contain planets HF8799b, HF8799c, and HF8799d.  In each image faint objects were detected, and by comparing images from over the years, it was confirmed that these were the planets in their expected positions and that they orbit their star in a counterclockwise direction.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope at about the same time picked up images of a fourth planet, somewhat unexpectedly.  The new planet, Fomalhaut b orbits the bright southern star Fomalhaut, part of the constellation Piscis Australis (Southern Fish) and is relatively massive -- about three times the size of Jupiter.  The planet orbits 10.7 billion miles from its home star and is approximately 25 light-years from Earth. 

Hubble astronomer Paul Kalas describes the challenge of obtaining the images, stating, "Our Hubble observations were incredibly demanding. Fomalhaut b is 1 billion times fainter than the star.  We began this program in 2001, and our persistence finally paid off."

NASA and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s use of direct-imaging to "see" planets marks a new era in astronomy.  Says Bruce Macintosh of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, "After all these years, it's amazing to have a picture showing not one but three planets.  The discovery of the HR 8799 system is a crucial step on the road to the ultimate detection of another Earth."

While none of the planets were even remotely habitable, they are an important step towards imaging habitable worlds.  Their discovery brings the total of known extrasolar planets to 326.

The photographs were published in two research studies in the American Association for the Advancement of Science's journal Science Express.  They can be viewed here [1] [2].



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awesome...but...
By nomagic on 11/16/2008 10:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
How long would it take to send a probe there?




RE: Awesome...but...
By eickst on 11/16/2008 10:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming we had the ability to send a probe at the speed of light, 25 years. Seeing how that isn't possible, I doubt you'll see a probe travel there in your lifetime.


RE: Awesome...but...
By quiksilvr on 11/16/2008 10:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
We just need the Large Hadron Collider to be fixed so that we can make two black holes to stretch the fabric of the space time continuum and jump to other galaxies.


RE: Awesome...but...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/16/2008 11:21:53 AM , Rating: 5
Or just simply buy a StarGate off Ebay.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Tsuwamono on 11/16/2008 6:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
But then you might have to simply rent it... And if that happens they may just take it back...


RE: Awesome...but...
By mbeenon on 11/17/2008 7:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
But the need for space travel will be eliminated, simply by a small leap in computer technology . A super computer could make calculations of what exactly is out there, right to the nanometer , thus providing the information required to generate an image, or even a replica of the environment from a different planet, no matter how many light-years away it is.

Then we can just browse around, take samples, even smell the gas from a different planets atmosphere thanks to our handy little computer that probably will exist in the next era of technology.


RE: Awesome...but...
By DJMiggy on 11/18/2008 12:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
The Matrix has you.


RE: Awesome...but...
By kzrssk on 11/18/2008 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that, though, is that we still need to colonize other planets in case our solar system encounters some sort of cataclysmic event which destroys it. So having a tour from our own backyard is fine and dandy, but we need to perpetuate our race. Especially if we're going to have to war with aliens... Or robots that we've created that make themselves look like us.


RE: Awesome...but...
By AlexWade on 11/16/2008 9:32:53 PM , Rating: 3
So I said "super collider, I just met her. And then they built the super collider."


RE: Awesome...but...
By ceisman on 11/16/2008 11:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
a light year is 5,865,696,000,000 miles (9,460,800,000,000 kilometers). Even if a probe could travel at the speed of light it would take 25 years to reach this part of space. It is currently impossible because a typical space shuttle travels 17,500 miles per hour (in the range or orbit, some travel at 25,000 mph, therefor devide the numbers roughly in half), meaning that it would take 335,198,228.57 hours or 38,264.64 years to travel ONE light year. It is compounded by the fact that the Shuttles would not be able to hold enought supercold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to fuel the journey, with the proper amount of fuel it may travel the speed of Lance Armstrong riding a bike, if it would move at all.


RE: Awesome...but...
By retrospooty on 11/16/2008 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 3
Suffice to say its impossible with our current tech. It would take a massive new discovery of yet unknown science for us to ever travel to other stars.


RE: Awesome...but...
By on 11/16/2008 11:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think it would probably be more likely for for us to build a large telescope on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/09oct_liqu...

this would be the best immediate means of getting closer to our celestial neighbors.


RE: Awesome...but...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2008 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"It is compounded by the fact that the Shuttles would not be able to hold enought supercold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to fuel the journey, with the proper amount of fuel it may travel the speed of Lance Armstrong riding a bike..."
Eh? Once in motion, objects in space move forever: Newton's First Law. A constant expenditure of fuel is only required to accelerate or decelerate...not simply to keep moving.

The space shuttle could in theory make such a trip, as long as it has enough fuel to exceed Earth's escape velocity, it can in theory reach any point in the Universe -- after enough millions of years.

With current technology, though, our best bet for an interstellar probe isn't a rocket, though, but rather a light sail. Build a large reflector out of ultralight materials, unfurl it near the sun, and light pressure will quickly accelerate it to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.


RE: Awesome...but...
By JonnyDough on 11/16/2008 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 4
I would think some fuel would still be required to steer clear of gravitational fields. It probably isn't a direct line through the void to get to a place that far away. There is likely to be some gravitational field somewhere along the route that would draw a tiny ship towards it, and would probably set it slightly off course.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Cogman on 11/16/2008 3:10:59 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, it is a direct shot. How do I know this? Because we can see the star and the planet. Light follows the gravitational fields, so will the ship. If the ship is aimed straight at the star, then it will get there eventually.


RE: Awesome...but...
By pxavierperez on 11/16/2008 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
maybe i'm imagining this but didn't Voyager 1 probe used the gravity of the sun to catapult it to deep space? also i think V1 left our solar system already.


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman on 11/16/2008 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
debatable - it's not beyond the oord cloud yet

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.htm...
bottom of the page


RE: Awesome...but...
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it's not beyond the Oort Cloud... the Oort Cloud's existence is based on a few non-verifiable premises and exists as a hypothetical construct in the minds of astronomers (and of course, the public).


RE: Awesome...but...
By Samus on 11/17/2008 3:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be willing to bet we'll be able to launch probes at near-light-speed in our lifetime.

In space, velocity is constant as their is no resistance, so the only requirement to achieving light speed is getting it up to that speed. You just turn the 'engine' off from there and count the years...

Magnetic ion, magma drive and many other propulstion technologies in the works are very promising for this task. Unfortunately, even if we were to achieve light speed one day, sending a human being on a 25-year one-way mission is highly unlikely, especially with the weak amount of available light for growing food, producing heat and generating electricity once they exit our solar system making the trip uninhabitable :(


RE: Awesome...but...
By MrBungle123 on 11/17/2008 10:54:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
sending a human being on a 25-year one-way mission is highly unlikely, especially with the weak amount of available light for growing food, producing heat and generating electricity once they exit our solar system making the trip uninhabitable :(


The voyager missions use a nuclear power source and have been going since 1977. Generating enough power to go for 25 years is the easy part.


RE: Awesome...but...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2008 4:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "but didn't Voyager 1 probe used the gravity of the sun to catapult it to deep space? "

Not the sun, but rather the outer planets, via the so-called 'gravitational slingshot'. The dV obtainable through such a maneuver is, however, limited.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Spivonious on 11/17/2008 10:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Star Trek IV?


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
Outer planets, not sun.
Also don't forget that the probe has a huge velocity even before it's been built.
Slingshotting is as much about changing direction as changing speed.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
That would only hold for something traveling at the same speed as light.
A slow craft would follow a more curved path, the way a slow aircraft has its heading more altered by crosswind than a fast aircraft.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Iketh on 11/17/2008 1:47:39 AM , Rating: 3
too bad when you're aiming at that star, you're looking at it 25 years in the past... so as you approach it, the star will appear to move at a faster pace than when you observed its movement before you left on the trip, so as to catch up to its actual location...


RE: Awesome...but...
By rcc on 11/17/2008 10:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Bad plan. If you aim at it, you are headed toward where it was 25 years ago. You'd be flying a loooong pursuit curve.

When you corrected half way, you'd still be aiming at where it was 12.5 years ago. And, while the distance may not stack up much vs. 25 light years, it's enough to ruin the passengers year.


RE: Awesome...but...
By pingu125 on 11/17/2008 4:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
You dont know what youre talking about. You know how i know this? The fact that we can see the star means that we are seeing light generated from that star however many X odd lightyears away it is from us. Therefore we are observing where the star and planets WERE 25 years ago not where they are now. It is even possible the star may not even exist. Light takes "time" to travel so therefore there is a "delay". Please refine your basic understanding of physics before posting. This goes for the moron who said something about Newtons first law too.


RE: Awesome...but...
By icanhascpu on 11/23/2008 8:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just becuse you can see it, doesnt mean there is nothing between us and it. Farmers logic you got.


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman on 11/16/2008 4:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
c'mon masher, a lightsail would be pointless even at a small distance from the sun, a lightsail would be without a source of propulsion. And the mass required for any sail that imparts a significant deltaV to any payload would have to be so massively large, pound for pound there are many more attractive propulsion methods - the voyager method still being one of the forerunners.

Though it would be quite a sight to behold.


RE: Awesome...but...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2008 4:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "at a small distance from the sun, a lightsail would be without a source of propulsion...the voyager method still being one of the forerunners."

With current technology, ALL types of probes are without propulsion except for a very brief period after launch. Do you think Voyager ever had a means of propulsion? After being released from its launch rocket (a simple Titan 3), the only velocity it's gained is from slingshots past Jupiter and Saturn.

A lightsail is, at present, the only feasible method we have of reaching an appreciable percentage of the speed of light. The challenge there is in providing a light enough payload...a few grams is the entire budget, which means only a few ultra-miniaturized ICs, in sleep mode when not exposed to direct sunlight.


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman2 on 11/17/2008 4:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lightsail is, at present, the only feasible method we have of reaching an appreciable percentage of the speed of light


not quite. any particle collider accellerates particles upto significant %c. The point is - an EM accellerator in orbit could be used to impart velocity to a probe, leaving the whole engine behind. Ofcourse - the only breakes you could use would be the target - either through direct impact or gravity assist.

a lightsail big enough to impart a usefull V to any probe would be thousands of times more massive than it's payload. It's immense surface area would also make it more vulnerable to anything that populates the near vacuum of space.


RE: Awesome...but...
By juserbogus on 11/17/2008 5:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
Pulsed nuclear propulsion is far more feasible and capable.


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
The light sail has the huge advantage that the propulsive mass is not carried by the craft, meaning the mass of craft can be orders of magnitude less, meaning the acceleration can be orders of magnitude higher.

Another advantage is you could use the destination star to decelerate by turning the sail around. Of course, you'd need your Casio scientific calculator in one hand and your Advanced Origami for the Autistic Gentleman book in the other.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By ikkeman2 on 11/17/2008 7:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
The benifit of propulsive mass is that the final bit of fuel doesn't need to accellerate the first bit of fuel - your system becomes more efficient over time - with a light sail you need to carry the Huge & Massive sail along everywhere. and since it's thrust is dependent on the solar wind intensity - it diminishes rapidly when you move away from sol...


RE: Awesome...but...
By JediJeb on 11/17/2008 4:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
You would also have to find a way to fold and store the sail once you pass the boundry between our solar system and interstellar space, or you would be blow off course by the interstellar wind. Unless you learn to sail it through the interstellar wind but I doubt it would have a current headed directly to the star you are shooting for. Also you would need to correct at certain intervals for the drift caused by the interstellar wind pushing on your craft. It would be a very small thrust, but any at all would add up over 25 lightyears travel.


RE: Awesome...but...
By rudolphna on 11/16/2008 7:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
good example. voyager will keep travelling for untold billions of years, long after humans are gone.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Iketh on 11/17/2008 1:51:56 AM , Rating: 4
too bad it's just gonna end up as a shooting star in the atmosphere of another planet


RE: Awesome...but...
By MrBungle123 on 11/17/2008 11:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
maybe the cylons will pick it up on the way here and we can put it in the smithsonian... :/


RE: Awesome...but...
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 9:13:05 PM , Rating: 3
"The space shuttle could in theory make such a trip, as long as it has enough fuel to exceed Earth's escape velocity, it can in theory reach any point in the Universe -- after enough millions of years."

There's also this thing called the Sun that has gravity which is no picnic to get away from. Without the slingshot effect, we wouldn't be able to get past Jupiter, even with the best Russian rockets: http://books.google.com/books?id=iEZNXvYwyNwC&pg=P...

If you're going to quote Newton, you ought to remember that - Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. How else do you suppose the Sun keeps things such as comets and planets in orbit? Moving on, do you suppose that the center of the galaxy exerts no attraction which any object would need to escape from?


RE: Awesome...but...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/17/2008 12:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Escape velocity is the velocity required to leave the surface of the planet, assuming there is no more power after the initial shot. Since the launch vehicle continues to deliver power through the flight, escape velocity is a moot point. As long as enough power is achieved to keep the space ship moving, the space ship will escape the gravitational field of the earth under slower speeds. 1 MPH, for example, as long as the ship can keep powering at that speed. Escape velocity lessens as the ship gains altitude, you see.

Orbital speed is a different issue, which is why we orbit at higher speeds.

The escape velocity of the solar system is more than 93,000 mph, so that should be figured in your calculations as well.


RE: Awesome...but...
By icanhascpu on 11/23/2008 8:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The space shuttle could in theory make such a trip, as long as it has enough fuel to exceed Earth's escape velocity, it can in theory reach any point in the Universe -- after enough millions of years.


I think you mean billions. Even so, that may be impossible still, as the univerce may be expanding faster than light, let alone a sub lightspeed object.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Cogman on 11/16/2008 2:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be forgetting the fact that there is basically 0 friction/resistive forces in space. Once the shuttle breaks the earths atmosphere it can travel the 25,000 mph indefinitely. It would actually require less fuel because stopping wouldn't be a major concern for the shuttle. (the O2 would have completely leaked out by the time it gets there no matter what so why stop at all?)

The next and probably bigger problem is this, How do we send a message from that distance? It's hard enough to send data from mars or even pluto, but when you are talking a distance of 25 light years, you had better hope that the ship has some sort of AI that allows it to do exactly what we would have it do, taking pictures where we want them to be taken.


RE: Awesome...but...
By JonnyDough on 11/16/2008 6:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oxygen won't leak out of tanks with better nanotech. :-P


RE: Awesome...but...
By 16nm on 11/17/2008 5:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's right. Let's say we manage to get a probe there in 25 light years, it will take another 25 to transmit the probe's data back to earth. I'm afraid the best we have is this artist's rendition which is no better than watching Star Treque.


RE: Awesome...but...
By SeeManRun on 11/16/2008 6:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Good thing you don't need to keep the rockets on the whole time! Just get up to speed and drift.


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
Space shuttle is a supertanker compared to the sort of probe you'd send though.
By using multi-stage rockets you could get a lightweight probe a hell of a lot faster than the shuttle, and using ionic propulsion you could gradually keep accelerating for years.
You would almost certainly overshoot when you got there though, just time for a quick glance around and a squirt of radio back to earth.
Also the probe would need to make all its own decisions, as a request/response would approach 50 years as the probe approached its target.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By mbeenon on 11/17/2008 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
But the need for space travel will be eliminated, simply by a small leap in computer technology . A super computer could make calculations of what exactly is out there, right to the nanometer , thus providing the information required to generate an image, or even a replica of the environment from a different planet, no matter how many light-years away it is.

Then we can just browse around, take samples, even smell the gas from a different planets atmosphere thanks to our handy little computer that probably will exist in the next era of technology.


RE: Awesome...but...
By amanojaku on 11/16/2008 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 3
Advertisers seem to be everywhere, so I'll put money down and say they're in space already. There's probably a billboard floating near some rock saying "McDonald's next left. Over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^1,000 sold."


RE: Awesome...but...
By 16nm on 11/17/2008 5:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
And Warren Buffet was hoping for a number closer to 1,000^1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


RE: Awesome...but...
By Yaysoda on 11/17/2008 12:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well.....If we were able to get something to get a boost equal to the speed of light for less than a the smallest fraction of a second in the next 60 years (which I doubt will happen) then according to laws of physics it could travel through space to reach the destination always going the speed of light, it could get there. Again I doubt this will happen in my lifetime, but there's always hope because in the time of wright brothers when they invented the airplane everyone thought it wasn't real, but look at it now...just a thought.


RE: Awesome...but...
By theapparition on 11/17/2008 8:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
because in the time of wright brothers when they invented the airplane everyone thought it wasn't real

These analogies are always flawed. Be it "man can't fly", or that "man can't go faster than the speed of sound", both are compared to light speed travel. Unfortunately, why both were being postulated, there were real world examples showing that it was possible. Birds were flying. It just took an understanding of aerodynamics to make it happen. Bullets and other objects exceeded the speed of sound. Just took an understanding of compressive aerodynamics to make it happen.

Unfortunately, we've never witnessed anything that can violate our current knowledge of light. The day that happens is the day I'll start being optimistic. I'd like to believe that anything is possible, but doubt it in my lifetime.


RE: Awesome...but...
By Murst on 11/20/2008 1:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
Your hopes may come true with the LHC, although it may require an even more powerful tool to observe stuff like this. For example, according to some theories, Tachyons are subatomic particles that travel faster than the speed of light.

Other "things" probably move faster than light also (in fact, they may be instantaneous) - quantum entanglement comes to mind. So does gravity ( btw, I'm not really saying that entanglement or gravity are actual things that move, but who knows... I'd love to actually learn what gravity really is in my lifetime).

There's just so little we know about how the universe works. Would you really be surprised if tomorrow a researcher published a paper that explained how light-speed travel is possible? It is pretty much impossible to prove a theory, but disproving it just requires a single example...


RE: Awesome...but...
By cmatrix4761 on 11/17/2008 1:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
The fastest rocket I've been able to find in my research is the X-I5, which was recorded at 3600 miles per hour. At a distance of 25 light years (or 146,864,728,800,000 miles), it would require 4,657,050 years for the X-I5 to travel there.

-- CM


RE: Awesome...but...
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 1:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's for aircraft, but space craft can go much faster.

Luke


RE: Awesome...but...
By theapparition on 11/17/2008 8:39:22 AM , Rating: 3
The fastest intersteller man-made object so far is Voyager 1 which exited the solar system at a speed of ~38,600mph. However, the Voyager's missions were never for max speed. The Helios probes achieved a max speed of ~150,000mph (.02% speed of light) on route to the sun.

I think with a concerted effort to send a probe, 1%c is obtainable, which would equate to a speed of approximately 6.7million mph.

At present rate of speed, Voyager 1 would take approximately 434336 years, Helios 2 would take 111,769 years, and a probe managing 1%c would only take 2500 years.


RE: Awesome...but...
By 16nm on 11/17/2008 5:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm, right? Even @ .1c it would be too long of a time to work with.


RE: Awesome...but...
By JohnnyFlash on 11/17/2008 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 3
It wouldn't take that long. As you know, several probes have already reached Uranus.


RE: Awesome...but...
By MicahK on 11/17/2008 3:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well assuming a probe going as fast as the fastest spacecraft, thats the Helios probes which are on highly elliptical orbits around the sun, approach speeds of 250000 km\h at closest approach to the sun:

It would still take over 100 000 years... so not likely unless we can get near light speed propulsion. Even then it would take about 25 years to get there, and another 25 years to get a signal back from the probe...


RE: Awesome...but...
By MicahK on 11/17/2008 3:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
And because of time dilation, if you sent a human travelling at 0.9999% the speed of light, they would see 25 years pass on the journey, while approximately 1800 years has passed on earth... pretty messed up


RE: Awesome...but...
By charles ponzi on 11/17/2008 9:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe, that if a human was on the spaceship travelling at almost the speed of light, and that spaceship had to travel 25 lightyears, it would take 25 years from the Earth's frame of reference - and a great deal less to the person on the spaceship. Mere seconds, from the traveller's perspective, if the speed were close enough to the speed of light.

Mind you, it would take 50 years for someone on Earth to "see" the arrival - as it would take another 25 years for "evidence" of the arrival to return to Earth.


RE: Awesome...but...
By NIKSTLITSELPMUR on 11/18/2008 12:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Is there any chance that black holes rotate, and could the speed of the rotation be more than 670,000,000 mph.


RE: Awesome...but...
By charles ponzi on 11/18/2008 8:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
I would imagine so. Stars rotate. Black holes are formed from stars that collapse. As the stars collapse, they would spin faster and faster like a figure skater pulling in their arms. As for how fast a black hole might rotate, are you speaking of the event horizon, or the singularity itself? It's no easy task to speculate on what goes on within the event horizon. Everything we know about time starts to fall apart as you approach the event horizon. Were you to actually reach the event horizon, you would witness the entire future of the universe in the blink of an eye. Hence the name, "event horizon". The singularity is somewhere beyond the event horizon. Hard to say much of anything, in this day and age, about what may be going on beyond that.


Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/16/2008 9:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
According to the most recent research in astrophysics, the probability of one earth-like planet in the entire universe happening by random chance is 1 out of 10 with 400 zeroes after it!! There are only about 1 out of 10 with 79 zeroes after it protons and neutrons in the entire universe. So, you can see the probability of one planet by random chance is impossible.

There are about 300 finely tuned parameters needed to get one earth-like planet capable of supporting life (not to get life, just a planet capable of supporting it). For example, the dark energy space ratio is fine tuned to an accuracy of 1 out of 10 with 120 zeroes after it...this is like saying: multiply our own universe by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion...take all of that and if you remove one electron or proton from it during the time just after the singularity of the Big Bang, you would have no possibility of getting even one earth-like planet.

Where do I get these figures? Based on many sources from established astrophysical literature. For example, the one out of 10 with 120 zeroes after it is a very well-known figure among astrophysicists.




RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 9:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think you're alone in thinking this. Somewhere, out there in the galaxy on a distant planet, is probably another group of people who believe the same thing.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/16/2008 9:55:19 PM , Rating: 1
While life on other planets is a "romantic" and fun idea, the realities of what it takes to get an earth-like planet are against it; the general public has no idea of the latest findings of astrophysics. With that said, if God wishes to create life on other planets - fine, but if one utilizes a "naturalistic" paradigm of reality, then it is not going to happen according to the discoveries of physics of the last couple of decades.


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 11:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if God wishes to create life on other planets


You know, in my initial response, before I edited it out, was something to effect that there would be other Christian scientists out there on another planet saying how they're alone in the universe. That kind of thinking is ... amazing. On the one hand, take a book of fables and use that to declare that we're the center of the universe is far more 'romantic.' On the other... let's just say that there's no way that reason or logic can declare that the universe is home to just a single planet wherein life has sprung.

I think a common theme amongst Christians is that we have no proof that life exists on other planets. This, though we lack the ability to find out. The ideas of a flat earth, 5,000 or so years since the earth was created, and laws that put people in jail for saying otherwise has discredited Christianity or the Bible as a trustworthy source of information. That would be like watching Star Trek and believing in Klingons, or Star Wars and believing in Jedi.

It's unrealistic to assume that earth is the only planet wherein there is life. There are more likely 1,000s of other planets in our own galaxy that have civilizations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/18/extr...

It's not about being 'fun', it's about getting our heads out of are behinds to realize that there's nothing special about us, that we are the creators of the mythology of God, and not God who created us.


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:23:51 AM , Rating: 1
It's sad when people claim to be scientific but ignore or don't bother to comprehend the mathematics behind probabilities.

For one, imagine a plane that has a 1-in-10-followed-by-40-zeros chance of reaching its destination. If every cell on earth had such a plane of its own and took its own journey, all life on earth would be extinct.

It is also sad when people base their romantic notions of life in outer space on fictional literature and media similarly fantasised by other romantics in the past century or so. And everybody holds a certain worldview that is almost certainly held up by a cursory acknowledgement of the Miller-Urey experiment which proves that life can be created from non-life under laborat... no I mean, early Earth conditions. If "tar" (which is carcinogenic) can be called life, sure.

When people actually do an in-depth study of that famous experiment, it may rock their worldview. But hey, if people want to entertain romantic notions, let them.

I believe that hobbits exist.


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 3:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
I wish I could recall the article I'd read. From what I remember, there's an organism that's capable of living in places nothing else does. It 'breathes' iron oxide, or eats it... something like that, and then defecates iron. It doesn't need oxygen. It can survive in intense heat and pressure.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/ironeat.html

Anyways, we found signs of life on Mars in the form of fossils, and there's evidence that there's active life on Venus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#P...
Of course, until we land a man on Venus and actually catch one of those buggers, they won't exist in the minds of those closed-minded to the idea of extra-terrestrial life. When it's found - if we're intelligent and technologically advanced enough to get the evidence - they'll then say that there's no chance of other intelligent life on other planets.

Why don't we tell George Bush that there's a hundred trillion barrels of oil on Mars left over from a few billion years ago? Surely NASA would have gotten more funding!


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:25:18 AM , Rating: 3
The iron article you linked said that the hyperthermophiles ingested iron oxide and excreted magnetite. According to Wikipedia, magnetite is Fe3O4, another form of iron oxide. The organisms do not feed on iron metal. If you notice, these organisms are anaerobic, so making magnetite (Fe3O4) out of iron metal is out of the question.

You couldn't land a man on Venus. Pressure and temperature too high. Again, if you read the article you linked, it mentioned that any possible organisms can only live in the clouds, which are cool enough. The toughest hyperthermophiles on Earth can only survive up till 122 degrees Celsius.

Where's the article about fossils on Mars?

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/opportunity_s...
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-report...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4480097/

Make what you will of the articles. Fossils => catastrophe => non-uniformitarian geological processes. I frankly find it easier to believe that the Twin Towers collapse was a conspiracy. =)


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 9:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The iron article you linked said that the hyperthermophiles ingested iron oxide and excreted magnetite. According to Wikipedia, magnetite is Fe3O4, another form of iron oxide. The organisms do not feed on iron metal. If you notice, these organisms are anaerobic, so making magnetite (Fe3O4) out of iron metal is out of the question.


Well, since you can get iron out of magnetite, and I already said that they ate iron oxide (rust). I guess the distinction I didn't make before is that it is non-magnetic, and I don't know if you can turn it back into iron. But with the magnetite you can make iron out of it.

Right now, I agree that we can't land on Venus. But I think that's what it will take for religious folks to believe that there is life on other planets, including those in our own solar system. Then, they'll claim that we're the only 'intelligent' life form until we manage to travel a few hundred lightyears in a few hours.

As to fossils being found on Mars, it's debatable - here's a summation of the debate: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsfo...


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 3:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
But isn't it equally improbable that our own earth is here?


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 6:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But isn't it equally improbable that our own earth is here?


Is that yours, or did you pick it up somewhere? Deserves a 6.


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks! it's all me baby...


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. Natural causes are governed by statistics. Supernatural causes aren't. =)


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
I should know better than to argue science against religion ;-)

Science can never win, because religion comes with a free magic wand that can make anything happen 'just by magic'.

On the flipside, if you're religious then why join a science argument if you are just gonna pull the ripcord at the end.

Aaarrghh
Luke


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 9:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the flipside, if you're religious then why join a science argument if you are just gonna pull the ripcord at the end.


Christian science is like military intelligence, or going to war for peace. It starts on the premise that a book compiled thousands of years ago is correct, and their purpose is to bend science in order for it to substantiate their beliefs.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 10:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
You stated, "It's sad when people claim to be scientific but ignore or don't bother to comprehend the mathematics behind probabilities."

I could take hours to discuss this. However, let it be said that it is documented that many solid-thinking scientists, because of these fine tuning/statistical numbers, acknowledge design and therefore the need for a designer. And these very analytical people fully understand the significance of such numbers showing the fine tuning/design of the universe.


RE: Exoplanets
By General Disturbance on 11/17/2008 10:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
What is sad when people have blind faith in mathematical probabilities which no one on this planet fully understands.

For example: imagine the Big Bang. Now imagine all the hot gas and photons created in the Big Bang just floating around bouncing off each other, and then all of the sudden there YOU are writing this article on DailyTech.
Of course, such a scenario is so ludicrously improbable it is not worth even considering.

Yet....it happened.

Math is not the answer, just a part of it, and by itself is almost always wrong.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 8:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
From the highly emotional, negative tone of your message, I doubt if I could carry on a calm, analytical conversation with you. So, I am not really going to try. However, a couple of very brief points: one, the Bible never claims a flat earth; in fact it says that the earth is a sphere which hangs on nothing. Second, the "days" of Genesis 1 can very easily be interpreted literally to mean long periods of time...and based on a careful reading of the text one can see that the Bible intends on the days of Genesis 1 to be long periods of time.

Your statements of about people being put into jail, etc., etc. is way off the topic, and shows a real anger problem on this subject matter. Yes, sometimes things have been done in the name of Christianity that are not good...but those things are contrary to the teachings of Scripture. So, do not the Bible for what some hypocrites may do.

Lastly, my statistical information, etc. is based on many statements in the scientific literature, not religious. A number of established scientists are wondering if we are the only inhabited planet....it is not just a "religious person" who is considering that very real possibility. In spite of your caustic attitude, I truly wish you the very best, and hope you come to know the love of Jesus Christ someday. By the way, I work for NASA (although I am not representing them in this post).


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 9:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
One typographical correction to my previous post...2nd paragraph, last sentence, should read "So, do not BLAME the Bible for what some hypocrites may do." Thank you.


RE: Exoplanets
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 10:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
I never believed in Santa, nor do I believe in God. What irks me about religions is their attacks on freedom and people. Heaven as is described by Christians is a dictatorship and is more repressive than the society in Orwell's 1984. They then want to make Heaven on earth. One nation under God, etc. Why wouldn't I be upset about that?


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/16/2008 10:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but that sounds like complete rubbish.

Can you please provide links to your source?

Exactly what are the factors that limit the formation of Earth-class planets and therefore make our little world such a rarity?

In the absence of credible scientific sources to substantiate your statements, I call bogus.

If your sources are of the religious and/or pseudo-scientific variety, my suspicions will be confirmed...


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
When their conclusions don't agree with yours, they have to provide their sources.

Ever heard of the problem of spontaneous de-amination of cytosine?


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/17/2008 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, - when outlandish claims of dubious scientific validity are made, it is surely the obligation of the claimant to substantiate such statements with evidence. (If he or she doesn’t wish to be considered a moron or a crackpot.)

Yes again, - I am aware of spontaneous deamination of cytosine, but what exactly that has to do with the formation of Earth-class planets, I’m not sure. Perhaps it has relevance to the sustainability of DNA-based life in environments subjected to high levels of radiation and therefore to the evolution of life (as we know it) but nothing to do with planetary formation (the crux of my request). I’m sorry, but I'm really not sure what point you're attempting to make…


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 10:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
I could provide many sources, but I do not have the hours to spend on this in this particular forum. However, reference the web site "reasons.org" The President is an astrophysicist from Caltech. There are many sources of literature there. For example, Dr. Hugh Ross's books, "Creator and the Cosmos," "Creation as Science," etc., etc. When I did some writing on this some time ago, I counted the sources - over 180. (NOTE: he believes, as I do and many others, that the literal interpretation of the "days" of Genesis are long periods of time, so do not confuse all of this with the six 24 hr. day "creationists").

I know Dr. Ross, have known him for over 20 years. He is a very well respected, and knowledgeable, astrophysicist.


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/18/2008 1:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
Religious and quasi-religious sites hardly constitute recognised or reputable sources for scientific information. As for Dr Ross, - I'm sure he is well meaning and probably a very nice chap, but so is Bozo the clown (only Bozo has more credibility). Basically, Hugh has formed his own "ministry" to teach his version of religion, - a desperate attempt to reconcile his intellectually and emotionally feeble attachment to the concept of God with the real facts he has observed as an Astrophysicist.

His statistical work (he is not a statistician) has been taken to task by real statisticians and physicists (those who can be bothered) and his beliefs are considered to be those of a fringe loony within the serious scientific community.

180 “sources” and that’s the best your extensive reading has uncovered? Stick to cereal boxes, - you’ll learn more.


RE: Exoplanets
By cmatrix4761 on 11/17/2008 1:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
Your assumptions are problematic, here. That kind of math takes into account the current state of the entire system, not the initial state of the system (one of the hotly debated issues in chaotics). If, instead, you assume the deviation of the initial system toward the current state (and therefore only take into account the probability of the state of the initial system as required to deviate toward the current), the chances of habitable planets and intelligent life are extremely likely.


RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
His assumptions are surely not problematic. He simply assumed uniformitarianism. =)


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 9:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your response. The fine tuning numbers I have utilized are based on several factors; some of them are just after the singularity of the Big Bang, and therefore ARE at the "initial state of the system." (for example, expansion rate of the universe at this point [1 out of 10 to the 57th power], the ratio of the gravity force compared to electromagnetism [1 out of 10 to the 40th power], the space-mass density ratio [1 out of 10 to the 60 power], and the dark energy-space density ratio [1 out of 10 to the 120th power]. These numbers are well established in the scientific literature. If any of them were off by the amounts described, no life would be possible anywhere in the universe.

However, we have about 300 more finely tuned parameters to talk about...but not here.


RE: Exoplanets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 3:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the most recent research in astrophysics, the probability of one earth-like planet in the entire universe happening by random chance is 1 out of 10 with 400 zeroes after it!! There are only about 1 out of 10 with 79 zeroes after it protons and neutrons in the entire universe


How can it be impossible? It's actually happened. We are living on it.

quote:
Where do I get these figures?

Usually from religious pamphlets.
I know it's a snide remark, but before you get your hackles up answer me this: are you a member of a church that believes in creation?

The problem with using improbability to suggest something can't happen is everything that has happened was also improbable.

What are the odds that all the things in your house are there? In their exact positions, to the micron, and at their exact angles, with that exact number of dust specs, with that exact intensity of light coming in through the window with that exact refractive index, and those exact imperfections.
Just because something is infinitely unlikely doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Luke


RE: Exoplanets
By freeagle on 11/17/2008 10:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
A triangle has 3 edges. Let's assume they can have length of only <1, 10> in N centimeters. That leaves us with 10^3 triangles... whoops, it does not, because very large portion of these "triangles" would not be triangles at all. Because, as we all know, sum of any two edges of a triangle must be more than than the length of the 3rd. That being said, even if those 300 variables were scientifically correct, I do believe that huge amount of these "planets" wouldn't actually be planets at all.


RE: Exoplanets
By MrBungle123 on 11/17/2008 11:36:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
There are about 300 finely tuned parameters needed to get one earth-like planet capable of supporting life (not to get life, just a planet capable of supporting it). For example, the dark energy space ratio is fine tuned to an accuracy of 1 out of 10 with 120 zeroes after it...this is like saying: multiply our own universe by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion by one trillion...take all of that and if you remove one electron or proton from it during the time just after the singularity of the Big Bang, you would have no possibility of getting even one earth-like planet.


What are the odds that your parents would have met each other? 1:5,000,000,000

what are the odds that your dad would would be successful and convincing her to have sexual relation with him? you might meet 5,000 and acutally have sex with 15 so... 1:5x10^9 x 15:5000 = 15:25x10^12

what are the odds that they would have sex at the right time for her to concieve? 1:30 (asuming sexual relations a daily basis) so now our ods are at 15:750x10^12

what are the odds that the right sperm during said copulation would reach the egg? 1:400,000,000

now we're at 1:20x10^23

this is made under the assumption that your parents exist, now if we factor in the odds that your parents exist.

1:20x10^23 (you) x 1:20x10^23 (mom) x 1:20x10^23 (dad) = 1:20x10^69

so, the odds of you existing is 1:20x10^69 (assuming that your grandparents exist) since the odds of this happening is so small that it is beyond comprehension I'll just assume you are not real.


RE: Exoplanets
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 9:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your response. My reply to your statistics could take a long time; however, my response will be very brief. Your statistical logic is hardly applicable to what I am talking about. The fact that many scientists have become theists/or at least deists because of the Big Bang and the fine tuning statistics of numerous parameters which show design, shows that sound-thinking, analytical individuals in the sciences respect these kinds of numbers and their valid application to the issue of design in the universe. Now, I realize anyone can say some people believe in this or that, or that they reached such and such conclusions based on whatever. I do not have time to elaborate on this subject, which I could for days. Please, just take into consideration some of these things. Thanks!


RE: Exoplanets
By MrBungle123 on 11/18/2008 11:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
I was trying to show you in a round about way that throwing out statistics with incredibly huge odds is meaningless. If I had kept going a few generations the numbers would have gotten so big that they would outnumber the atoms that make up the entire planet... and yet, you're here. Does this mean that your existence is a miracle or some highly significant mathematical absurdity? no, it means that statistics are not the right way to go about trying to figure out how everything came to be.

Everything around us is subject to natural laws. chemical reactions, physical properties, etc... The things that have happened in the past did not happen that way by chance, they happened the way they did because the natural order of things is to move in the direction they did. I could ask the question what is the probability that a ball moves down a hill in a specific direction? There are an infinite number of possible directions a ball can move but it will go in one, and it will roll down in exactly the same direction every time if you keep setting it back up and letting it go... is this design? is it a miracle? no it is the ball being subject to gravity and the slope of the hill. Calculating probability is meaningless in this situation, just as it is when trying to figure out why the planets and stars are the way they are... they are as they are because of the conditions in which they formed it is not chance it is physics in action.

Figuring out how the planet got to be the way it is, is more an exercise in determining the conditions at its begining than it is an exercise in calculating all the other ways it could have been.


RE: Exoplanets
By icanhascpu on 11/23/2008 10:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
You sound like a damn fool, not citing anything and not even knowing how to write out scientific notation.

Please stop reading things that are way too far over your head.


how to travel slowly
By andHIfromME on 11/16/2008 11:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
Astronomers who deal with possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence say if any civilization is patient enough they could send megaships on which "people" live for few generations, and slowly, just in order that at rate at 5% of light speed (what we may achieve in century or so) a ship comes to the target in some few hundred years for each trip. That way, any civilization may settle the whole galaxy in few millenniums. The fact the galaxy isn't settled say either we are alone or, very possibly, that every civilization that reaches high stadium simply kills itself before they do anything useful.




RE: how to travel slowly
By ioannis on 11/16/2008 12:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
hmm, your maths must be wrong (unless if by "millenniums" you mean million years, which is wrong)

the Milky Way is about 100 thousand light-years in diameter. Traveling at 5% the speed of light, will take 2 million years to cross the galaxy. With an ever expanding tree, 'spawning' new ships along the way, a civilisation could then chart the entire galaxy in that time.

Having said that, a lot of things can happen in 2 million years. If a civilisation has the technology to sustain 5% speed of light on such a large ship that can carry a small community, then they will be close in achieving 10% and 20% or even break the light-speed barrier with some even more exotic technology. They probably wouldn't have to wait for 2 million years to colonise the entire galaxy.


RE: how to travel slowly
By Solandri on 11/16/2008 2:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
The problem reminds me a lot of crypto. They introduce new cryptographic algorithms which "would take 10,000 years to crack with today's computers". But 10 years later computers have gotten fast enough to crack them in a few months.

Also, according to our current understanding of physics, if faster-than-light travel is posible, then time travel is also possible. So FTL opens up a whole other can of worms.


RE: how to travel slowly
By Bruneauinfo on 11/16/2008 3:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
"i cracked that yesterday, before you invented it"


RE: how to travel slowly
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 9:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
I never got into the latest Star Trek. But I recall an episode where the Enterprise encounters a ship which was taking so many years to reach its destination, and that it was suffering from the time distortion that Einstein believed in. Essentially, they were flying for hundreds of years while the rest of mankind had advanced to the point where such sacrifice wasn't necessary. Of course, I don't believe in Einstein's theory (time is constant) - but it's still a funny story.


RE: how to travel slowly
By cocoviper on 11/16/2008 10:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
How can you not believe in time dilation? It can be proven with any aircraft and two stop watches (one on the ground and one on the plane). That's like not believing in gravity...


RE: how to travel slowly
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 12:12:38 AM , Rating: 3
One of the most common things to use to 'prove' the theory is to use the dilation of time on satellites. But, since that phenomenon also occurs on geostationary satellites, which don't move at all relative to the earth, it pretty much invalidates that as evidence and conjures the question what is exactly happening to those clocks. Einstein also said that mass would affect time. Perhaps some of his followers might point to that. However, speed is a measurement of time and space. How would a black hole, such as we have at the center of the galaxy, be able to move at all if time was frozen, let alone set the pace of the Milky Way through the universe?

I could get into a long explanation as to why I don't believe in time dilation... however, in general people don't seem able to understand what I'm saying and resort to ridiculing me for disagreeing with the man whose name made it into the dictionary to mean someone of extraordinary genius. There is no hard evidence to support his theory of time dilation. What 'evidence' there is is often easily argued against.

To put it shortly, I believe that everything he said about light, and how it dilates time, I believe to the extent that the finite speed of light is incapable of giving us a true measurement of reality. That is to say, a ladder traveling near the speed of light doesn't get shorter/longer, it only has the appearance of it.

Gravity is the one force I actually believe goes faster than light. Unfortunately, there is neither evidence to corroborate nor confute my statement - simply educated guesses by the scientific community which seems to believe it goes at or about the speed of light. There is, on the other hand, a growing list of experiments which show that there are indeed things that are faster - quantum particles have shown that they can move at instantaneous speeds as far as we can measure. So, we're far from corroborating Einstein's theory on relativity.

I am not saying that his theory isn't important. The fact is that light does distort time, just as sound does, when relative movement is at play. That siren's sound is both louder and faster as it approaches, and softer and slower as it recedes. Does that mean that time has actually dilated, or is it only the appearance of time? I would say it's only the appearance of time, and copy and paste the logic to explain what is happening with light and time.

As far as I can tell, it'll take a real Einstein, not me, to prove what I'm suggesting. Clearly, I'm not qualified to have a respectable opinion on the matter.


RE: how to travel slowly
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 2:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, since that phenomenon also occurs on geostationary satellites, which don't move at all relative to the earth, it pretty much invalidates that as evidence and conjures the question what is exactly happening to those clocks.


But geostationary satellites are moving faster than the point on earth over which they're stationary.
They are further from the centre of the earth, so they have to travel further each day than the city they are over.

quote:
How would a black hole, such as we have at the center of the galaxy, be able to move at all if time was frozen, let alone set the pace of the Milky Way through the universe?


Because time is not frozen for us, and we are the ones watching it move.

quote:
The fact is that light does distort time, just as sound does, when relative movement is at play.


Sound doesn't distort time (I except country music).

quote:
quantum particles have shown that they can move at instantaneous speeds as far as we can measure


No. Two entangled quantum particles can communicate with eachother instantaneously, regardless of how far they are separated. The particles themselves don't go anyway.
Yes, it's a new and interesting mystery.

I heard the best example ever on the radio the other day, explaining relativity.
Imagine your in spaceship travelling 1 mph slower than the speed of light.
You fly past someone and just as you go past you switch on the headlights.
They see your headlights move ahead of your spaceship at 1 mph, but you see the light move ahead of you at the speed of light.
You are both seeing the headlights moving ahead at the speed of light, ie. you are seeing them at the speed of light and the observer is seeing at your speed plus 1mph.
The only way for you to see the light race ahead and the observer to see it move ahead slowly is if your time was slower than the observer's time. So in one of your hours you see the headlights move forward one light-hour, and in one of the observer's hours it moves forward 1 mile.

Luke


RE: how to travel slowly
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 6:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But geostationary satellites are moving faster than the point on earth over which they're stationary.


That's not true at all. How are they faster? They don't move relative to each other. That's how relativity works. Since they don't move, then the clocks on each point should remain the same, but they don't.

quote:
Because time is not frozen for us, and we are the ones watching it move


But if, for it, time is frozen, then how is it moving at all? Otherwise, you'd have to calculate infinite time for infinitesimal travel. Movement would be impossible for it were time to stand still.

quote:
Sound doesn't distort time (I except country music).


It's the relative movement between you and the moving object that's making a sound, and since there is movement going on, the perception of time gets distorted. It sounds faster, then as it passes, it sounds slower. According to my own speculation, just as if you were to watch something moving at 1/10 the speed of light, it would look faster and shorter, then it would look slower and longer as it moved away. There's no difference in the principal here. The time dilation is just an illusion of the ears when it comes to sound, and an illusion to the eyes when it comes to light. I believe time is a constant, and not relative, unless you're having fun vs. having to be with your in-laws.

I understand what Einstein was trying to say. If you move at the speed of sound or faster, you will not hear yourself. If you're in a cabin, the sound will actually be traveling through air that's moving at the speed of sound, and the speed of sound will actually double if you could see it from the ground. I don't know if there's some sort of ether (to follow the Greeks) in space which inhibits the speed of light and creates some level of density that we're not aware of, as water inhibits light, of which were it to follow the same principal that I mentioned it too could increase its speed - that I couldn't answer with any certainty, obviously. Not seeing it, or not being aware of it, is not proof that it does not exist - it's simply an indication as to our inability to perceive and forthwith foment a new theory.

quote:
No. Two entangled quantum particles can communicate with eachother instantaneously, regardless of how far they are separated. The particles themselves don't go anyway. Yes, it's a new and interesting mystery.


OK, then deal with this: http://www.physorg.com/news137937526.html

Instantaneous travel for photons in Nimtz's experiment. If you read the whole article, you'll find more holes in Einstein's theory. Please don't think that I disrespect Einstein. His theories about how time is distorted (ok, so I use the word distorted as opposed to dilated) by light is vitally important to modern science.


RE: how to travel slowly
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/17/2008 9:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's not true at all. How are they faster? They don't move relative to each other. That's how relativity works. Since they don't move, then the clocks on each point should remain the same, but they don't.

If the earth were flat then your comment would make sense. However, the satellite is moving in three dimensions, not two; the satellite is following an arc, not a straight line.

The satellite has the same angular speed as the point below it on the earth's surface, but because the satellite is also far above the earth's surface (larger radius of motion), the linear speed has to be faster. That's just basic mechanics.


RE: how to travel slowly
By wordsworm on 11/17/2008 8:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The satellite has the same angular speed as the point below it on the earth's surface, but because the satellite is also far above the earth's surface (larger radius of motion), the linear speed has to be faster. That's just basic mechanics.


That may be so, but it doesn't affect relative motion. There is no relative motion, and therefore the time dilation theory would not apply. It would be no different than having an ambulance traveling in an arc while you're traveling at a faster speed in a wider arc, or vice versa, with both points not moving relative to each other. There would be no dilation of time in terms of sound. The same applies to two objects whose method of interpreting time is light, and they were a chunk of ground and the geostationary satellite. There is no relative speed between the two. Yet, this effect of the clock seeming faster in orbit occurs. Again, due to having been on earth one is on a massive object compared to an object in orbit which is further away from the mass. This would be the thing that suggests that time is dilated by mass. However, I'm not ready to jump to that conclusion. There must be something we're not aware of that causes the clocks to appear slower - something that affects the mechanics themselves. What that explanation is, I don't know. What I believe is that the explanation that is used is not correct.

Einstein essentially took Doppler's theory and extended it to light. But then he suggested that time itself was bent by speed. My question is why did he suggest that time itself is bent by relative motion as per observation (using his eyes) when clearly he wouldn't have come to the same conclusion had he used his ears to notice how time seems to be dilated when a sound and relative motion is in effect. To me, they are one and the same. The waves of both light and sound convey a sequence of events, and relative motion affects the speed at which that sequence of events unfolds. Does that, however, actually distort time itself? As you can guess per-my-theme, no. It's just a trick of light, or an illusion due to the fact that light does not travel at an infinite speed through a vacuum. If we had some means of observing things which did move instantaneously, then I am certain that no matter how fast the relative motion of one or the other was, one would see that the ladder does not get shorter or longer, just as one who watches the light which flashes in time to the pulses of the siren does not skew time nearly as badly as sound. For, while one would hear the alteration of the sound of the siren, one would see that at 100km/h the light pulses have virtually been unchanged, and no discernible dilation has taken place. For me, it's logical, and the universe is ordered by logic. Math and science is just our way of trying to understand what it is that we see. But what if what we see is being distorted by the limitations of light? Can we really base all of our science on it? We can, if we use Einstein's Theory of Relativity to compensate for its limitations, which is why his theory is vitally important for modern science.


RE: how to travel slowly
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/18/2008 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, there IS relative motion. Suppose that we have a reference frame such that the satellite is located at the origin, the x axis points tangent to the orbit, and the y axis points towards the center of the earth. At an instant in time, the satellite has some speed in the x direction, and the corresponding point on earth has a smaller speed (related by the ratio of the radii).

Now imagine that a particle is ejected from the satellite towards the corresponding point on earth. The velocity of the particle will have an arbitrary y component, and it will have an x component equal to that of the satellite. Now move forward in time...the particle moves in the y direction towards earth, but what happens in the x direction? Both velocity components remain the same, and more importantly, the x component remains the same, but the radius decreases. If the linear speed is constant and the radius decreases, then the angular speed increases. Now, where the particle ends up as t -> 8 depends upon the magnitude of the y component. However, no matter what the value of the y component, it can never possibly hit the corresponding point on earth exactly. Therefore there is relative movement, and the translational doppler effect must apply.

If you have trouble visualizing this, you could just go out and test it. You could get on an amusement park ride and throw something towards the center (although you will get yelled at and maybe kicked out) or you could build a simple model. In any case, it is testable, so you can easily prove/disprove what I am saying.


RE: how to travel slowly
By wordsworm on 11/19/2008 3:35:26 AM , Rating: 1
I'm speaking in terms of relativity. If folks want to talk about other unrelated things, such as how to explain energy and its relation to rotation, that's all good. But the experiment to try would be to get a 100 meter merry-go-round to see if the sound of the ticking clock increases on the inside as opposed to the outside of the circle. Speed it up, slow it down, see what happens if anything at all. Give it a shot and we'll have proof. If one has sensitive enough equipment, we could try it with light as well.

One interesting point about looking down from a satellite to the earth is that the atmosphere does affect your line of sight, just as water does.


RE: how to travel slowly
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/19/2008 8:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
I am speaking in terms of relativity as well. Relativity is simply an extension to classical mechanics, and it can be applied to any kinematic system to obtain more precise results. Objects do not have to move at high speed for the theory to apply, it's just that the benefit of using relativity at low speeds is negligible. If you were so inclined, you could calculate the blue shift of a traffic light from the perspective of an approaching car. Nothing stops you and the calculation is valid, it's just that the answer will be effectively zero. It also doesn't matter if you are talking about light (photons), sound (propagating directional vibration of matter), or even a thrown baseball, relativity still applies. Any case where you can set up a reference frame in which things move relative to each other relativity can be applied. The example I gave is absolutely related to the topic at hand. You could convince yourself of that by drawing a free body diagram. Or if you still want experimental evidence, I say go for it. Might want to check and see if someone has already done this though. I would be extremely surprised if nobody has documented such an experiment before.

That is interesting that the atmosphere skews one's line of sight, although it isn't surprising. There are many different gases (non-zero permeability) including water vapor, varying pressures with altitude thus varying concentrations of said gases, and heat differentials -- factors which are known to bend light.


RE: how to travel slowly
By cmatrix4761 on 11/17/2008 1:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's a misunderstanding that leads people to believe travelling FTL leads to time-reversal. Special relativity states that the timeline affected by such travel would be imaginary, not reversed.

-- CM


RE: how to travel slowly
By foolsgambit11 on 11/16/2008 3:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact that other civilizations could exist in other galaxies besides our own.

Still, his logic does point out something interesting - if there are civilizations out there, they're either not very close to us, or they're not very interested in us. (Or they're interested, but they've got a 'Prime Directive', and don't use omnidirectional EM waves as information carriers (that we've seen so far).)


RE: how to travel slowly
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 9:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
If a civilization has acquired the technology to travel faster than light, then I doubt if it would use a communications system whose delivery travels only 300,000km/second. That would be counter-intuitive to say the least.


RE: how to travel slowly
By Ringold on 11/17/2008 2:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thats always been my theory; we're not at all interesting, and they've evolved beyond the need to take every planet they can get their hands on, so they ignore us.

I'm just waiting for us to see some large explosions inside our own galaxy that appear to have no rational proximate cause.... http://thatsnomoon.com/


RE: how to travel slowly
By ikkeman on 11/16/2008 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
well, either intelligent life is extremely rare, or we don't really fall in that category...

we may feel inquisitiveness is the great indicator of intelligence, but if you think about the energy required to cross even to our closest neighbour in space - let alone anywhere interesting, one might argue that true intelligence lies in appreciation what you have, rather than wanting what you don't.


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 11/17/2008 10:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think any advanced civilizations would approach us in the same manner that a scientist would study a group of monkeys -- stay out of the way and observe.

As far as I know, the last time a scientist walked to the middle of a monkey colony and announced that he was there to help and to not be afraid....


RE: how to travel slowly
By cmatrix4761 on 11/17/2008 1:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
The Milky Way Galaxy is estimated at 100,000 light-years across; at 5% the speed of light, it would take about 2 million years (2,000 millenia) to traverse.

-- CM


Alone?
By NubWobble on 11/17/2008 12:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
I find it unbelievable that some people believe that we are all alone in this universe and that the only possible life is carbon based life. There's life on this very planet that doesn't need oxygen or water to survive so what makes you people so certain that no life is possible without those two ingredients?

In this unfathomably large galaxy alone there're millions of planets and we are alone? The only thing that is an obstacle to people understanding that we can't possibly be alone is (religious) arrogance.

It's easier for us to believe that we are alone than accept the fact that we are not. We may be an under developed specie, seen as nothing but dirt by other races who might have passed us due to our nature. This idea was brought up in Star Trek, First Encounter, when the Vulcans only made contact because we had discovered warp drives.

This is really frustrating because people just won't accept that we can't be alone. If life on earth simply sprouted out of nowhere then it will also have happened elsewhere. The denial of life outside of this little lump of rock is no different than the acceptance that the world is round.

When Star Trek brought its own idea of technology to peoples homes everyone laughed. Within 20 years mobile phones, PC's, laptops, microwaves, cat scans etc. had been invented. I am not going to link these things with their Star Trek versions but they all came from the series regardless. The only two things we haven't really invented yet are the replicator (other than the microwave) and the warp drive. Once we know how the replicator works we will also be able to build the transporters as they use the same E=MC2 theory.

The warp drive is a totally different thing as it bends space behind the craft to propel it through space. It is also possible but in theory only right now. Maybe we won't be able to create it but a drive that goes at the speed of light is also not feasable as it's too slow and it will require an infinite amount of energy to propel anything at that speed. We either need to invent a device that bends space and create a wormhole, or can bend space and create a gravitational wave, like the warp drive.

The time of intergalactic struggle is coming, it is inevitable, if greed hasn't killed us before then.




RE: Alone?
By DTAdmin on 11/17/2008 1:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
This can't be a real post. This person is either 1) an Onion writer wannabe 2) socially, mentally and professionally retarded.
Maybe we should just flame and have fun?


RE: Alone?
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
Have you been watching Andromeda Strain?

You know, sulphur-based lifeform, no DNA, no RNA, no proteins, and yet can still reproduce, uses quantum mechanics to facilitate mass-energy conversion safely and easily even though there's a c^2 term somewhere?


RE: Alone?
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 4:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
We could easily be alone, why not? It's pretty unlikely we are here at all.
Sure it would be nice to bed some blue alien with a bee-hive hair-do, but there are nice girls on earth too you know.

Luke


RE: Alone?
By NubWobble on 11/17/2008 5:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
In Iceland there're pools of sulfur that have organisms in them exactly as sld mentioned. But I'm only flaming, right?

Mobile phones didn't come from Star Trek? Laptops weren't invented in Star Trek? Th PC wasn't invented in Star Trek? Obviously you people know a lot less than you think. Star Trek is serious science as it has led to many discoveries.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/21418

I didn't know about the tractor beam, the 'holodeck' nor the cloaking device (though I had read about it being different than what is described in the article). The original communicator which they used to hold in their hands has turned into the mobile phone.

As we can see, I have no idea what I'm talking about. And I will stick to the idea that we can't be alone.
Who is flaming now?


RE: Alone?
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the organisms you mentioned.. these have DNA right?

And I guess you haven't read reviews of the TV series... it's cool as science fiction is cool =) , but calling it science fiction even, is tarring the name of science.

I haven't even gotten started on the viability of making bacterium infernus survive away from its extreme pressure/temperature environment.

All the scientific advances you mention, all have to do with machines created by humans, because these were within our capability to invent and construct. That doesn't mean the rest are equally realistic or can ever be realistic.


RE: Alone?
By NubWobble on 11/17/2008 9:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea what you're talking about. You unhappy that I was right or that we actually invented the things from Star Trek? I wouldn't call finding microbes in boiling sulphur science fiction. Looking for the correct one has given me a headache as I have read tons of pages and haven't got a clue what they're talking about. The following link is the one that made the most sense.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:18450705

quote:
All the scientific advances you mention, all have to do with machines created by humans, because these were within our capability to invent and construct. That doesn't mean the rest are equally realistic or can ever be realistic.


Well said, now we can go back to the following:
- the world is flat
- the universe spins/revolves around the earth
- it's impossible to walk on the moon
- the world is only five thousand years old
- men are superiour in intelligence to women
- observation has no bearing or relevance on or to theory
- etc.

You keep telling yourself that we can't invent things just because they're unrealistic (now) and everything man has invented in the past millenia will go away, because prior to their inventions or discovery they were unrealistic. You may now leave the PC as that was unrealistic not too long ago.

As a troll you do fail as all you do is argue hollow points.


RE: Alone?
By FITCamaro on 11/17/2008 9:38:08 AM , Rating: 4
If we're the best thing that this universe has to offer that's pretty f*cking depressing.


RE: Alone?
By wordsworm on 11/18/2008 9:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
On advanced planets they don't have the Republican party. They are ruled by tree hugging hippies and they fly in faster-than-light solar powered ships that take about 5 minutes to charge their lithium ion antimatter batteries.


RE: Alone?
By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 9:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your response. Please let me emphasize that I was not saying there cannot be life elsewhere in the universe...I maintained, based on recent discoveries in modern astrophysics (and not on "religious arrogance"), that life is not going to happen on a random basis...if it exists it would be by divine design. You may read some of my other posts that I have just posted to consider some of the additional information offered.

From astronomical observations, the laws of physics are constant throughout the observable universe. Carbon is really the only element, for various reasons, that provides a viable baseline for the possibility of life.

When there are hundreds of fine tuned parameters needed to get just one earth-like planet, it is logical to conclude a designer behind it all. To conclude to the contrary, takes too much faith for me.

My response is very brief, and by no means comprehensive. But I thought a more short, generic response is better. I could go into the hard sciences involved, however, let me end this by saying, "Live Long and Prosper."


New planets
By BCCM on 11/16/2008 8:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
New Planets. Lets see we've been saying-seeing these for how long now? What a fascinating notion to keep recycling the same stuff till we're numb. Hope it works out for a change; not much else has without massive infusion of fake dollars and salaries.

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary....

SRD-BCCM




RE: New planets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists think a global flood happened on Mars and didn't happen on earth, when:

1) Mars is now 0% water
2) Earth is now 76% water
3) If all land on earth was levelled, water would cover all the earth to more than 1 mile in depth.
4) The highest landmark on Mars is Mount Olympus, 12 km in height. The highest landmark on Earth is Mount Everest, 8 km in height.
5) We are supposed to be consistent here and apply uniformitarianism. Catastrophes not allowed, even on Mars.


RE: New planets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:42:45 AM , Rating: 1
Woops. Sorry, Wikipedia says Olympus Mons is 3 times the height of Everest.

That is surely a strong case for a global flood on Mars and none on Earth!


RE: New planets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 4:22:34 AM , Rating: 3
sld, I know it's hard to change long-held beliefs, but there are too many holes in the flood story for it to be believable.

1. How did all the Australian animals get to Australia from the resting place of ark, then die out everywhere else leaving now bones.

2. Ditto for the Americas, the penquins etc.

3. How did the freshwater fish survive?

4. Why didn't the icecaps melt?

5. How did the Chinese survive? What about the Masai? Pygmies? Australian Aboriginies? Aztecs?

6. How did Noah and family survive being the hosts to all the viruses in the world? If they weren't the hosts, where did the viruses come from? Did they evolve?

7. How did all the insects survive? Not most, I mean ALL. There are almost a million named and cataloged insect species.

8. How did all the plants survive? If their seeds survived why didn't they spread everywhere? ie. why no maple trees in New Zealand or gum trees in Pakistan?

9. There are 800 species of fish in lake Baikal that are found nowhere else in the world. How did they survive? Why didn't any of them end up anywhere else.

If even a single one of the above points is valid then the flood did not occur.

My theory is that a big flood did occur and it affected the Hebrew people and got added to their folklore. Moses was the first guy to get enough education and influence, thanks to the relatively advanced Egyptian education system, and he wrote down the folklore.
Years later, when 2nd-year grad students know better, human nature is such that it's hard to shake beliefs taught us by our parents.

Luke


RE: New planets
By NubWobble on 11/17/2008 5:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
The great flood did take place and the proof of that is found on the Sphynx which, with carbon dating, has been found to be twelve thousand years old.

There're two theories.
One is that the world shifted in its axis and that's why there're Mamoths found in Siberia frozen with pieces of undigested food in their stomachs, as if the weather all of a sudden turned cold as some were obviously in motion when they suddenly died.
The other is that the world climate changed somehow through other, unknown, events.

The first theory is in regards to possible ice buildup at the poles and, thus, making the world shift due to weight balance. The other I don't know. It doesn't matter which is true in the end.


RE: New planets
By WTFiSJuiCE on 11/17/2008 7:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
Since you're stating that the Great Sphinx is twelve thousand years old, i'm assuming that you're a subscriber to Hancock and Bauval's alternate theory.

Yes, Robert Schoch has argued that the erosion from the sphinx strongly indicates that it was due to water and not wind erosion but he has indicated that it is most likely not twelve thousand years old but more likely around seven to eight thousand years old speculatively. Other geologists have made counter-arguments as well so please try not to state them like they are purely fact because they are merely theories just like the mainstream accepted theory that it was built by Khafre is.

Also there is no evidence to indicate a correlation between the Great Sphinx and the great flood. The Egypt of then was not a mirror image of the Egypt of now. The closer you go back to the end of the Ice Age, the climate of the African North (i.e. Sahara Region) becomes much more fertile, sort of like a grassland savannah type. It was subject to much better rainfall amounts and they were more frequent as well. As the glaciers pulled back, water temperatures changed, water levels rose, wind patterns changed, weather patterns changed, rainfall decreased and desiccation of the Sahara region slowly turned into the giant desert region that we know today. Egypt's fertile lands slowly shrunk until they limited to perhaps only several miles out on either side of the Nile and its tributaries until irrigation techniques came along.

The great flood myths aren't necessarily false though. There are so many accounts of the myth from such a wide range of peoples around the world that they can't be making it up. HOWEVER, we must remember that myths are usually stories that contain some bits of truth but are LARGELY exaggerated since such is the nature of storytelling, especially in ancient times and Creation myths are no different. These stories were meant to explain to the people how things happened or came to be because they had no other way to explain it. It is of a symbolic nature mostly even if it does contain some bits of truth. Also, people were not as traveled as we are now so their immediate region was widely thought of as "the entire world", so while there most likely was a flood, the stories mean the whole of the world because it is happening in their immediate vicinities, not really the entire world.

Take the Mesopotamian great flood myth. Utnapishtim was the King of a city-state, possibly Shuruppak. The god Ea or Enki (depending on your preference) warns him that the gods are going to wipe out mankind and tells him to build a giant boat or ark to escape death. Needless to say, he builds it and the flood comes and destroys everything in the vicinity but Utnapishtim and his wife. In the end they are granted immortality, but the point to made from this is that most cities were located near bodies of water.
Now in reference to the Mesopotamian cities, there were usually located on either of the two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, or somewhere in between as there were many tributaries branched out in the area between the two; irrigation techniques from the southern Uruk region helped further this development.
Flooding is commonplace for establishments located on riverbanks as makes it very favorable for farming. Euphrates is a river that flows all the way down from the mountains of Turkey to the Persian Gulf and mostly gets its water from the snow-cap runoff from the mountains so although it usually has a more stable and predictable waterflow, it is still possible that any unusual weather occurrence could cause a massive flood. The Tigris is a river that depends on major rainfall to supply its water and is therefore a much more volatile river being more prone to sudden unpredictable flooding. Whichever river it was that flooded so violently that it destroyed an entire city, it must have truly felt to those people like it was happening to the entire world because to them, that region was the entire world.

Also I believe the ice cap buildup causing an axis shift is called the pole shift hypothesis. The ice buildup on the caps was a very early idea as to how the axis shift could have been triggered but most people researching this hypothesis have moved away from it.
There has supposedly been research done in France that has shown a major axis shift occurring in the Precambrian period but it took around 20 million years to complete and was nowhere near the sudden and drastic event that was originally described. Even still, it doesn't have anything to do with the great flood.


RE: New planets
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:07:44 AM , Rating: 1
1 & 2. Brief ice age due to massive evaporation then precipitation of floodwaters. Lowered sea levels => more islands in shallow seas at lower latitudes and ice bridges linking continents at higher latitudes.

3. If my worldview allows for the supernatural... but well, a natural explanation will be that the original fish ancestors had a large salinity range tolerance... modern fish, having diversified and speciated, no longer have such a large range.

4. The ice caps did melt during the flood. The current ice caps are leftovers from the shrinking ice age.

5. Chinese, Masai, Pygmies, Aborigines and Aztecs are all descendants of Noah. You seem to think the ancestral humans were primitive and incapable of travelling large distances as well as building impressive structures (Tower of Babel, Egyptian Pyramids, Incan / Mayan ruins). The civilisations you mentioned have variants of the global flood narrative. How do you explain that?

6. Sorry, this is beyond my scope of knowledge. If even proteins can evolve to cause disease (prions), then I won't put it past viruses to do the same. DNA machinery is truly amazing.

7. Diversification and speciation from the original insect ancestors. All ants came from one ant ancestor, etc etc. And insects are REALLY small.

7b. Dinosaurs are huge, but hey, there's no law against bringing dinosaur-lings / dinosaur-lets onboard.

8. Erm. Differing climates? Absence of symbiotic agents / pollination agents?

9. It's not so much as fish surviving in Lake Baikal, but fish NOT surviving in other water bodies.

You can read up the Ice Age theory from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/...

In any case, this makes more sense than trying to cook up a global flood on Mars (something which was reported here on Dailytech), I hope?


RE: New planets
By NubWobble on 11/17/2008 7:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
Nice of you to ignore the sphynx being 12 thousand years old. When you can explain how Noah built that while the world was supposed to be under water you might start sounding credible. In Japan fragments of pottery have been found, as well as in the middle East and other parts of the world, that are as old or even older than the Sphynx (civilisation started in the Middle East so obviously things have been found that predate other civilisations). You care to explain how that happened when the world is meant to be five thousand years old only?

I wouldn't try if I were you, you are arguing a lost case as there is no case to argue other than "Trust me, I know."


RE: New planets
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
OK first, no magic wands OK? You're not allowed to say that God waved his magic wand and everything just happened, but some of the details didn't make it into the bible.

In answer...

1-2. So the entire fauna of Australia walked from Mt Ararat (or wherever), settled Australia, then died out everywhere else? Every single species? All the rattlesnakes slid over to America then died out everywhere else? All the bison and cougars and moose and kodiak bears?

3. If they no longer have a large salinity tolerance range are you allowing evolution to be the cause of that change? And no magic wands I said...

4. Come to think of it icebergs don't melt for years, and the flood only lasted 150 days, so maybe they didn't melt.

5. Actually I meant strange that they had evolved into such a variety of races. The distance thing is fine, people are pretty good movers.

6. Yeah mine too.

7. That's evolution talk buddy.

7b. OK, I don't know why you mention dinosaurs, but sure Noah could have squeezed some eggs on board.

8. Nah, climate's pretty similar in lots of places.

9. No I mean how can there be one giant worldwide sea, then at the end have every member of a lake only in that lake.

Maybe it's best to focus on just one thing. How many years would it take Kangaroos to spread to Australia from the middle east? And how come there aren't still in the middle east? Or Africa? Or Asia? They didn't fly you know...

Luke


RE: New planets
By ikkeman on 11/17/2008 1:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
god, allah, the great spagetti monster in the sky and I are omnipotent, omnicogniscent and omnipresent.

1-9 no need for wands - Our will be done in mysterious ways.

"have you ever seen someone so pathetic as the guy in the corner trying to convince the religious guy his beliefs are wrong using logic..."


How much did that photo cost?
By wordsworm on 11/16/2008 8:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
Camera that can take distant photos of other planets: millions. Salary for the folks that have to maintain and use the equipment: millions. Photo of a planet orbiting another star - priceless?

I'd love to know how many millions were spent trying to get that picture... I'm all for exploration of the universe. I'm certain that in the next 100 years we'll have our orbital tower and mining operations on the moon, so expenditures on moon exploration makes a lot of sense. As far as spending millions on finding planets other than our own, stars, and whatever else, doesn't make much sense beyond the urge to know more. What practical use can this have? Maybe if they spent less looking at the stars they could have a new shuttle by now. I can't foresee us having the technology to take advantage of any resources that these planets have, even in the distant future. I think they ought to put a hold on these kinds of research and fix their priorities.




RE: How much did that photo cost?
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 5:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
They're curious, that's all.
It's all cheap compared to war anyway. World military budget this year was around $1.3 trillion. US taxpayers alone forked out around $700 billion. That's a lot of dough.

Hubble cost about $6 bill (about a day and a half of the military budget), LHC is $9 bill (2.5 days).

I wish we could all just calm the heck down and save all that money.

Luke


RE: How much did that photo cost?
By NubWobble on 11/17/2008 5:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately for us, the Wall-E scenario might turn into fact. Living where I am I can see people literally poinsoning themselves and not caring about it (the water the people fish in has a very thick layer of oil and chemicals on it for example and there're loads of dead fish floating around).

For us to survive, we will have to leave earth, we will otherwise wipe ourselves out.


RE: How much did that photo cost?
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. For us to survive, all of us have to stop being selfish idiots and actually start thinking for the good of our neighbours.

The things we throw away, the consumer items we want to buy, the chemicals we want to dump without prior treatment, the coal we want to burn without chimney scrubbers, the cars we want to buy that look good but have such loser mileages... it all starts with the individual, not with "society", not with "governments", and moving to other planets..

isn't that called "escapism" and "irresponsibility" ?


RE: How much did that photo cost?
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Your reply doesn't really match my posting, but anyway...

Don't worry, humans are great survivors and we are very organized and generally well-behaved.

And most fortunate of all, you ain't in charge.

Luke


Travel at speed of light
By NIKSTLITSELPMUR on 11/16/2008 2:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Impossable,but .9999% theoretically passible,take into account that while the travellers would age fifty years on a round trip,millions of years will have passed on earth.




RE: Travel at speed of light
By joegee on 11/16/2008 8:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're thinking of the twin paradox. http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_twin_p...

My understanding is: the faster you go, the greater your mass. The greater your mass, the slower time moves for you relative to the rest of the universe.

On Earth we would experience the hundred plus light year round trip as a hundred plus years of time. On the vessel moving .99999 C, because of time dilation they would subjectively experience a significantly shorter travel time to and from the planet, plus the few years they would spend there (if it was round trip.) For them the whole journey might only have taken twenty or thirty years.

Special relativity can mess with your head. :)

-Joe


RE: Travel at speed of light
By sld on 11/17/2008 7:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the twin paradox was refuted by the concept of accelerating frames in General Relativity.

It arose as a result of the concept of no reference frames for massive (as in non-massless) objects in Special Relativity (of course, photons are massless and do move at lightspeed in all inertial frames.


RE: Travel at speed of light
By joegee on 11/17/2008 11:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. Click through the link. The twin "paradox" is not.

-Joe


Botany or Astronomy
By pxavierperez on 11/16/2008 4:05:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the drive to find and eventually travel to extrasolar plants .


;D




RE: Botany or Astronomy
By feraltoad on 11/16/2008 9:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say quite a few people have extrasolar plants in their basements that lots of folks would be very interested in.


RE: Botany or Astronomy
By feraltoad on 11/16/2008 9:55:28 PM , Rating: 3
To boldy grow where no man....oh that's just too corny.

Spades, the fine full front rear! It's five year clippings, NArf!


Conservation of Mass & the "Magic Wand"
By uafanman on 11/17/2008 3:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I've read many of the comments here and as always appreciate a good debate. I'd like to hear from some of you debating the creationism aspect to explain to me how science can rely on the law of conservation of mass to solve all kinds of difficult problems yet turn around and say everything we see came from nothing? Sorry but that makes no sense to me at all and goes right up there with the "magic wand" that some accuse the creationists of using. Yes I'm a Christian but I'm also an engineer/geek who loves science. The two are not mutually exclusive to me.




RE: Conservation of Mass & the "Magic Wand"
By WTFiSJuiCE on 11/17/2008 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree that people can be both religious and still believe in science at the same time as long as one still thinks rationally and reasonably.

I don't pretend to think I'm an expert on creationism because frankly I cannot take it seriously, plus I believe there are different schools of thought within creationism itself so that would actually require interest to keep up with it.

So many scientists and religious person strive to explain the mysteries of the universe through a single entity that always happens to be their own whether it be science or religion. There are a few who do attempt to maintain a fair balance between them also.

Science itself does not choose sides, only people with opinions do. I honestly don't see where in the law of conservation of mass it says that we came from nothing. How I interpreted it was that mass, just like energy, cannot be destroyed but converted or transferred into a different form. All that is saying is that everything is created by something that is already there or "nothing is created from nothing".

This statement is also applied to energy as well and in my own opinion, goes hand in hand with some stances on religion. So many religions have either taught or teach about some form of this in the form of reincarnation.

Reincarnation is merely the recycling or transfer of energy from one vessel to another. The physical shell is used then discarded at the end of its life cycle and the energy becomes unbound, released, and then is used again in some other form.

I've heard that certain Christian sects at one point early in its time taught about reincarnation although this is pure speculation since I cannot back this up.

I have a problem with Creationism simply because it attempts to explain the creation of the universe through the literal interpretation of a book around 2000 years old, that is comprised of a collection of stories and myths that are thousands of years old. Genesis was never meant to give a fully detailed explanation and definitely not a scientific explanation as to how the universe, earth, and man was created. It does give an religious explanation as to what created it, so a creationist approach is just a sad attempt at interpreting a religious text via a scientific manner and it merely comes off looking like a farce.

It doesn't seem impossible to be able to believe that both, the universe was created by God and that the universe was created via the Big Bang. Is an event like the Big Bang truly out of the realm of God? It seems highly unlikely if indeed God exists. Anyone that believes in God and thinks that it is outside of God's power, I would have to call them naive.

The universe wasn't created in seven days, it was created in a fraction of a second and is still growing to this very day! Now of course there was no way to know this at the time the stories that are now in Genesis were being told by storytellers, let alone when they were written down, but they were merely ways to explain what wasn't known and were mostly of a symbolic nature in the first place. Is it an insult then to declare that the universe wasn't created in seven days, but actually faster? Is that really an insult to God? I think its more like the religious egos of the followers have been bruised. A fraction of a second sounds more like a testament to God's power than seven days could ever do so in that aspect, science could be said to have actually proved that God's power is even greater than we made it out to be.

Science can't 100% refute the existence of God or the creation of the universe through God and vice versa with Religion.

This is all my opinion of course, as I cannot come from a purely unbiased stance.


By uafanman on 11/17/2008 7:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not bad, and yes I'm in the camp that God created the universe via the big bang. For me it makes the most sense from a scientific (what I can see) and creation (what I believe) stand point. I also don't believe everything in the Bible was meant to be taken 100% literally. Even Jesus spoke in parables in teaching spiritual concepts. Often He didn't even intend for everyone listening to understand what He was saying.

I did fail to mention the conservation of energy principle as I agree that you have to start with either mass or energy to end up with matter. I just find it amusing to hear hard core scientist agree universally on those laws but in the next breath decline to even entertain God's existence when there are few (no credible) theories on how the mass or energy got here to begin with. They end up acknowledging that they simply don't know how it got here and point to future research or something.

It is sad though that few of us Christians have much of a chance with these discussions because most all scientists want some proof that God exists. I'll just say for me there need be no physical proof. For some reason God made it so that you have to believe before experiencing it. Admittingly it's foolishness to those who trust with their eyes.


By jtdavis on 11/17/2008 10:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your comments.

First, the Big Bang itself states that all space,time, energy, and matter had a beginning. That is an integral part of the Big Bang, and that is why some people do not like it since it has obvious theological implications. Anyone who says the Big Bang does not teach the beginning of space, time, energy, and matter is simply not informed as to the "details" of the Big Bang. So, one does not "have to appeal" to religious arguments here...it is the "teaching of the Big Bang." And at present, the Big Bang has been shown to be accurate to the 15th decimal place! So, it is real, real, real certain.

Second, according to the second law of thermodynamics, everything wears out! (entropic heat death). So, one cannot have an infinitely old universe...if that were the case, we would not be talking right now...the universe would have died out an infinitely long time ago.

Lastly, any appeal to a "multiverse" (many universes) scenario is totally an appeal based on blind faith: there is "zero" evidence for such a paradigm, and even IF there was some kind of "generator" making numerous universes, THAT generator would have to have a beginning according to the second law of thermodynamics, etc., etc. And who designed any such fictitious generator?

So, isn't it interesting that the main tenets of the Big Bang: all space, time, energy and matter had a beginning; that the universe was and is expanding, and that it will eventually wear out are the same basics of cosmology that the Bible teaches??!! The Bible does indeed teach that everything in this universe had a beginning, that God stretched out and is stretching out the universe and that it will wear out. It only took science 2500 years to catch up on this issue!

As I said, the Big Bang has obvious theological conclusions. That is why Geoffrey Burbidge of UC San Diego, an astronomer and atheist/agnostic, lamented that so many of his fellow astronomers/astrophysicists, because of the Big Bang, were "rushing off to the Church of Christ of the Big Bang"!

Have a good day, and best wishes.



New planets
By kmiles8176 on 11/16/2008 10:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is great news, but you had to realize that there were more planets in this vast universe than our 9....oh, excuse me 8.
I truly wish that some type of verifiable contact is made with intelligent life forms in my life time. That would be outstanding!




RE: New planets
By retrospooty on 11/16/2008 11:15:34 AM , Rating: 2
We've already done that. Greys FTW!


RE: New planets
By Goty on 11/16/2008 12:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
We've already detected hundreds of other planets, this was an important development because these are the first optical images of extrasolar planets.


Radio signals
By MiketheTeacher on 11/16/2008 9:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
In order to find other intelligent life forms, we'll have to communicate by radio waves. The thing is, we've been sending signals for a century from antenae, and for half a century using satellites.

It's very possible that another civilization, if they have just invented radio, could be picking up our signals today. Of course, if they are, say, forty lightyears away, and just received out signals, they are celebrating in the streets, so-to-speak. They'll be glad that there's life out there, and after seeing our culture, will be relieved we can't reach them to destroy their world (which is likely what we'd do in our current immature socialogical state).

Then, they'd send a message back to say hello, but we won't get it for a long time.

I'm fairly sure that with the billions and billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, that there is life out there. I think there has to be.

Unfortunately, you and I are never going to meet it or even hear about it. We're just not far enough along scientifically. A hundred years ago, in 1908, most people were still riding horses, and a few cars and trucks were going. We had just broken into the industrial revolution a hundred years before that, and going back just 200 years we used candles, horses, and printing presses. No electricity, no steam engines, no oil. Nothing.

But we can dream. And this is one step closer.

On a separate note, the newest Time Magazine has an article on the race to the moon. I'm one of those who is skeptical about the first moon landing. I wish I wasn't, but I am.




RE: Radio signals
By BilltheStudent on 11/16/2008 11:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Who is to say that we have not been receiving signals from space? You must keep in mind that we may not have the technology in play to interpret the signals that we are receiving?


RE: Radio signals
By ice9tsm on 11/16/2008 11:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In order to find other intelligent life forms, we'll have to communicate by radio waves. The thing is, we've been sending signals for a century from antenae, and for half a century using satellites.


There is a problem with this. Assuming that your radio waves are emitted nearly perfectly radially from a source, the intensity (power per unit area) at a distance R away from the source is proportional to one over 4*Pi*R-squared (the surface area of a sphere with that radius). At any appreciable distance (let's go with something even between 50 and 100 light years, the distance that should have been reachable by our first transmissions), the signals should be left far too weak to detect and very easily drowned out by background noise. If there were any civilizations out there using radio communications like we use, we should basically not be able to "hear" them at all, unfortunately.


Exoplanets
By Flyboy4 on 11/17/2008 12:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wondered if anyone has read Lee Strobel's The Case For A Creator because he interviews very smart people at the top of their fields such as Astrophysics/Cosmology etc.
Faith in the God of the Bible, a Creator, certainly does not rule out the possibility of other worlds like ours. Either way, my faith in His Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience is not diluted in any way. Let's hear your thoughts after reading Strobel's interviews with the experts.




RE: Exoplanets
By sld on 11/17/2008 2:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
Then these extraterrestrials are pitiful indeed, their experience of death and decay on their planets are the fault of Adam on our planet.

If and when they do arrive, it'll be wise to help them with their class-action lawsuits. We won't want to be vaporised by Z-rays, will we?


RE: Exoplanets
By Redback on 11/17/2008 9:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way, my faith in His Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience is not diluted in any way.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is both able and willing?
Then why is there evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Epicurus


Misleading Article
By jtdavis on 11/16/2008 9:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
The above article can easily mislead people into believing an earth-like planet has been found....unless one reads until almost the very end. The newest planets found are far, far from being earth-like, and definitely cannot support life. I believe all the planets found so far have been gas giants, many times the size of Jupiter, either way too far from their sun or too close for life to even be possible.




RE: Misleading Article
By Bonesdad on 11/21/2008 9:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
Exoplanets
By Flyboy4 on 11/17/2008 12:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot to mention, my faith in His love for His creation will never be diluted either. He demonstrated it in Jesus Christ and continues to do so in our lives.




RE: Exoplanets
By Jjoshua2 on 11/17/2008 2:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys is a really good book to read for the technical minded. It talks about how the universe could have started and such.


Clockwise?
By lemonadesoda on 11/17/2008 10:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the planets orbit their star in a counterclockwise direction

What exactly does that mean?

Analogy; does the Earth rotate in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction? Does that depend if you are standing in the Northern Hemisphere or Southern Hemisphere? Or do we define clockwise from the convention of our "electromagnetic North"?

In which case, do we really know what the orientation is for this solar system? Or have we stepped back to the Astronomy that predates Copernicus, and now the Earth is the centre of the universe from which all measurements are made.




RE: Clockwise?
By lco45 on 11/17/2008 10:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
It means using the convention of looking down at the Earth's north pole.

Hey, one end has to be called the top, right?

Luke


By embarrassingButTrue on 11/16/2008 8:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
from reading all this - a possible Earth is 25 light years away. If that is true, and if they have a little better tech than we do, that means they can SEE us. That also means, if they look, they'll see us in the 1980 's!!

How embarrassing would THAT be?




Interesting
By excrucio on 11/16/2008 10:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
I love these news/blogs in science. It's one of the most interesting topics one can read...

Also, wouldn't going at the speed of light or faster bend time and space? so like all the aging and stuff would be different. idk im confused on that part of the subject.




By Ringold on 11/17/2008 3:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
You bring shame to the real G. Gordon Liddy.


going to exoplanet X
By newluser on 11/17/2008 3:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
The debate about 'going' to these exoplanets 25 light-years away is a little ridiculous right now. Just send a txt, you might get an answer in 50 years :) As I understand it, 'they' will have started receiving audio from radio broadcasts not that long ago in cosmic terms... it's possible 'they' have already spent a few years trying to figure out what 'we' were talking about. You might compare it to the translation of hieroglyphics... which only happened because of the discovery of the Rosetta Stone 2000 years after it was created. And that's on 'our' planet. As Einstein said (don't quote me) the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we _can_ imagine. NUFF SAID by me OOMFasis mine




speed of light travel
By NIKSTLITSELPMUR on 11/17/2008 10:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
Traveling at the speeed of light would cause the space time continuim to warp and bend, causing your head to fly up uranus




Propulsion speed?
By F4iHorn on 11/18/2008 7:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no scientist, so please don't blow me up with this question. Even with ion drive, nuclear pulse, etc... wouldn't the velocity of the engines exhaust have to be at least the speed of light in order for the craft to go the speed of light? It seems to me that even without drag your craft would be outrunning it's propulsion otherwise.




Travel to HR 8799
By ParchedParsec7 on 11/19/2008 4:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Fantastical stuff--but forget about it. We won't see human interstellar travel. Ever. It can't even happen in theory: The gentlemen who earlier invoked Newton's Laws with solar sail, or any other,technology (i.e accelerate a mass to any desired velocity< c in space by applying a constant force...etc.)--wrong. This assumes not only space as a vaccuum, but space devoid of any other forces other than the force we apply, which is true NOWHERE. The shuttle glides at 17,500 mph without power while circling earth--BUT ONLY AFTER having burned through two giant tanks of liquid fuel to PARTIALLY escape earth. Now, doesn't the sun have a gravitational field too? And we are going to build a solar sail to fly on out of here??

RE: time travel dilemma. Previous commments are not accurate about relativity. Time on traveling ship appears to slow down RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER ON EARTH, not to the traveler on the shuttle....

Lastly, theory is always trumped in the end by embarrassingly obvious impracticalities. Maybe harnessing sufficient heat or energy with current technology is not a problem; even food can be grown en route. But what about drinking water? We can't even find a feasible way now to desalinate the oceans of saltwater we have. There's no interstellar mountain run-off. Unless we find a way to desiccate ourselves into a shriveled suspension that can be later re-hydrated and revivified many years later, we are going to get really thirsty en route.

Only possibility for "communication": highly asynchronous "e-mail". The farther the distance, the more asynchronous. It's like having an e-mail conversation with someone where each response was delayed by 25 years. Now if we can just overcome the 1 in 40 gigamillion chance of finding someone/something alive somewhere within at most 40 light years distance (our average life span x 2responses). Oh , and she has to have a computer with internet. You get one chance to seduce her. But you'll NEVER kiss her.




Human madness
By Powerlines2000 on 11/20/2008 12:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
In 1957 Dr Lee Forest said:
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances"

Willbur Wright to his brother Orville, 1901:
"Man will not fly for fifty years"

It is very dangerous to make a prediction that something will never happen. If i have learned anything through life it is that the human race has a uncanny knack of defying the odds and doing the seemingly imposable. Don’t forget that even the greatest minds are still sometimes only human.

Remember "640k ought to be enough memory for anybody."




wow
By Bonesdad on 11/21/2008 9:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
All this arguing, no one has said how very cool this is!!!




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki