NASA Discovers 700 new planets - 140 similar to Earth

SNBthetrue · Jul 27, 2010

A fantastic reading on physic explained with words not equations :

the elegant universe by Brian Greene.

http://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensions-Ultimate/dp/0375708111

------------------------------------------------------------

Earth-like okay...

But we only have one like this :

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Awi5Dy6HDEQ&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Awi5Dy6HDEQ&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

CoolTraderDude · Jul 27, 2010

Quote from ptrjon:

I'm going to start watching star trek and try to reverse engineer the warp engine.

I'll help get you started...

It's called the Alcubierre Drive...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

But there are some big problems with it like...

"...a warp bubble traveling at 10 times light-speed must have a wall thickness of no more than 10−32 meters. This is only slightly longer than the Planck length, 10−35. A bubble macroscopically large enough to enclose a ship 200 meters across would require a total amount of exotic matter equal to 10 billion times the mass of the observable universe."

MohdSalleh · Jul 27, 2010

I think the future of space travel is not in technology but the mind. If you can project your consciousness, then it will certainly be FTL

CoolTraderDude · Jul 27, 2010

Quote from MohdSalleh:

I think the future of space travel is not in technology but the mind. If you can project your consciousness, then it will certainly be FTL

But the information projected will still be limited by the speed of light.

I think we may have some clues to FTL from the "tachyon" particle. That is if it does in fact exist...

"One curious effect is that, unlike ordinary particles, the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases. (For ordinary bradyonic matter, E increases with increasing speed, becoming arbitrarily large as v approaches c, the speed of light.) Therefore, just as bradyons are forbidden to break the light-speed barrier, so too are tachyons forbidden from slowing down to below c, because infinite energy is required to reach the barrier from either above or below."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

This is due to the fact that v*2 > c*2 leading to a negative denominator in the equation. See link above...

Speed of Light

"The speed of light, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant representing the speed at which light and all other electromagnetic radiation travels in vacuum. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second[1][2] (approximately 186,282 miles per second). In the theory of relativity, c connects space and time, and appears in the famous equation of massâenergy equivalence E = mc2. The speed of light is the speed of all massless particles and associated fields in vacuum, and it is believed to be the speed of gravity and of gravitational waves and an upper bound on the speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

So in reality to reach the speed of light you have to be a "massless" particle. Which is indeed strange. Also see the tachyon FTL example.

Now we have a problem with light... Light actually has energy and as we all know... E = MC*2. So technically speaking doesn't light actually have a "mass"...!????

Something is definitely wrong with the entire theory.

killthesunshine · Jul 27, 2010

Quote from Mike805:

At one point you referred to special relativity. If you actually know the mathematical details of special relativity (other than what wikipedia or pop-culture has taught you), then you would not be arguing the points you are arguing now.

Traveling a great distance is not equivalent to the *time* taken to get there. That, and time is also a variable, not a constant.

Take a more advanced physics class (high school and community college doesn't cut it) before you refer to these types of ideas. Distance and time are not a linear relationship... that's the whole point of special relativity you dummy

In layman's terms, traveling at the speed of light has nothing to do with traveling across a tremendous distance.

You're too wrapped up in your own thought process to even understand what Einstein was actually saying.

Your the one that's confused here getting all lost in the trees that you lost sight of the forest

The point IS it's not possible to travel these great distances according to known laws of physics.

If it is NOT possible then it must be ta daa .....IMPOSSIBLE.

To argue, like that other guy, that it will become possible based on the speed of man's scientific progress is ta daa...IRRATIONAL

The speed of learning has nothing to do with it.

He says he's being logical, he is not

Kassz007 · Jul 27, 2010

Quote from killthesunshine:

Your the one that's confused here getting all lost in the trees that you lost sight of the forest

The point IS it's not possible to travel these great distances according to known laws of physics.

If it is NOT possible then it must be ta daa .....IMPOSSIBLE.

To argue, like that other guy, that it will become possible based on the speed of man's scientific progress is ta daa...IRRATIONAL

The speed of learning has nothing to do with it.

He says he's being logical, he is not

We are discussing science - you are discussing the meaning of the word impossible. You missed the point of my argument entirely. It has nothing to do with the "speed of learning".

Please refrain from polluting the thread with pointless arguments.

Lucrum · Jul 27, 2010

Quote from Kassz007:

Please refrain from polluting the thread with pointless arguments.

But it's really all he's got.

You want him to stop posting?

killthesunshine · Jul 27, 2010

Quote from Kassz007:

We are discussing science - you are discussing the meaning of the word impossible. You missed the point of my argument entirely. It has nothing to do with the "speed of learning".

Please refrain from polluting the thread with pointless arguments.

i don't wish to beat a dead horse but this is your argument.

You'll see that what i said characterized your "logic" accurately:

Quote from Kassz007:

Of course it is not fact. Not yet at least. But think logically for once. The rapid pace of scientific advancement with regard to space travel over the past ~100 years is likely to continue. Can you not see that it is only a matter of time before humans can travel great distances in space?

Rapidity of discovery has nothing to do with turning the impossible into the possible.

goodgoing · Aug 26, 2010

Quote from Mike805:

At one point you referred to special relativity. If you actually know the mathematical details of special relativity (other than what wikipedia or pop-culture has taught you), then you would not be arguing the points you are arguing now.

Traveling a great distance is not equivalent to the *time* taken to get there. That, and time is also a variable, not a constant.

Take a more advanced physics class (high school and community college doesn't cut it) before you refer to these types of ideas. Distance and time are not a linear relationship... that's the whole point of special relativity you dummy

In layman's terms, traveling at the speed of light has nothing to do with traveling across a tremendous distance.

You're too wrapped up in your own thought process to even understand what Einstein was actually saying.

Why do people talk about things they do not understand? I lost all respect about you Mike805. I think you are a crank. If you say such things I really have to seriously reconsider everything else you have said.

You need to understand Relativity Mike. Length contraction and time dilation are observed effects that apply to measurements made with stationary clocks and rulers in moving frames with respect to an inertially moving frame where the observation takes place.

As far as time dilation, if v = c then the time measured in the moving frame equals the time calculated in the observer frame.

In the case of length contraction, the length calculated in the observer frame equals the length measured in the moving frame.

In other words and unless you are a crank you should know that travelling at the speed of light is travelling at the speed of light in kinematic terms, meaning V = L/T applies. Problems arise when one needs to get to that speed or slow down from that speed. In that case Special Relativity does not apply because this theory deals only with globally inertial reference frames and contrary to what many cranks think, including notable professors. Einstein said it himself that it does not apply to accelerated motion.