28 New Exoplanets Discovered
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
Given the size of the neighborhood I'd say this shows how very little we really know..... I wonder if this will be the SETI decade or if it's a while off.....
OTB
OTB
There have to be a ridiculous number of planets in the universe, if we've found less than 300 of them and are still figuring out what kinds of stars they can orbit I'd say we have a long way to go. Not a criticism mind you just an observation.Ranger68 said:Why does this show "how little we really know"?
OTB
I certainly hope I live to see it (and not planning to check out any time soon)onthebottom said:Given the size of the neighborhood I'd say this shows how very little we really know..... I wonder if this will be the SETI decade or if it's a while off.....
OTB
Me too - on both.Mcluhan said:I certainly hope I live to see it (and not planning to check out any time soon)
OTB
bigger is better, so I've read...
The more they find planets, the more we are likely to find another life form (no matter its actual shape).
I'd really be interested to know if our "governments" are actually right, that the disclosure of such an information would bring a massive metaphysical Armageddon over the populations of earth.
Though it could be a good way to make all the countries on this f@ earth look in the same direction (Reagan said that already I believe).
The more they find planets, the more we are likely to find another life form (no matter its actual shape).
I'd really be interested to know if our "governments" are actually right, that the disclosure of such an information would bring a massive metaphysical Armageddon over the populations of earth.
Though it could be a good way to make all the countries on this f@ earth look in the same direction (Reagan said that already I believe).
Yeah, people used to say that the odds were against alien life out there, but the more we look, the more possibilities keep increasing. Heck ,we've only studied 2 planets closely, Earth and Mars and both seem to have been able to support life or supports it. That's 2 for 2! TO think there cant be more livable planets is stupid.
There may have been panic in the 1950s if they found alien life but i think it would have a great positive effect today...maybe we would even stop killing each other if we found out that another species wanted to get to know us better. Even a common enemy would unify humans (hopefully an enemy we can defeat like in a Michael Bay film).
There may have been panic in the 1950s if they found alien life but i think it would have a great positive effect today...maybe we would even stop killing each other if we found out that another species wanted to get to know us better. Even a common enemy would unify humans (hopefully an enemy we can defeat like in a Michael Bay film).
Nicely putbbking said:Judging by our current behaviour, if I was from one of those other planets, I would take a pass on us.
bbk
lolbbking said:Judging by our current behaviour, if I was from one of those other planets, I would take a pass on us.
me too I'm afraid.
Considering the vast numbers of suns and planets that exist, it seem inevitable that there is life out there. Humans have to get over our arrogance in thinking that we are that special. Life pops up wherever the correct physical conditions exist. Mold spores can exist in all kinds of conditions even in space. As soon as simple life gets a foothold in time it evolves into different and more complex life forms. Religious types may dispute this.
Last edited:
Actually it was proven in the middle ages that the universe was finite. If it had an infinite number of stars, the night sky would not be dark. Given the inverse square law, some light from every star would reach us, even if a very very very small amount from the most distant ones. You add up all the infinite sources of light and the night sky would be bright. However, I admit that this is nit picking. The number of stars is so great (although finite) that I agree that there is likely life out there.assoholic said:How the fark could the odds be against it?, the Universe maybe infinite, I simply dont get how any-one could possibly believe that in the entire infinity of the Universe this planet and its monkey men are the sole manifestations of creation.
Question: what happens if there are parts of the universe where space is expanding at a speed greater than the speed of light and also contain stars, or say if there are bands of space between areas of space/time expanding at greater than the speed of light. Does the same rule apply?someone said:Actually it was proven in the middle ages that the universe was finite. If it had an infinite number of stars, the night sky would not be dark. Given the inverse square law, some light from every star would reach us, even if a very very very small amount from the most distant ones. You add up all the infinite sources of light and the night sky would be bright. However, I admit that this is nit picking. The number of stars is so great (although finite) that I agree that there is likely life out there.
To be honest, my post was based on an introductory undergraduate course I took in astronomy some years ago. I’m not sure how many details I remember. However, stars are matter and I believe that physicists consider it to be impossible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light. I suppose that if they are wrong about that, a hell of a lot of their findings, besides this one, come into question. However, as long as the universe is of finite age and stars are created at a finite rate, it would be mathematically impossible to have an infinite number anyway. A finite number multiplied by a finite number is a finite number, no matter how big.Mcluhan said:Question: what happens if there are parts of the universe where space is expanding at a speed greater than the speed of light and also contain stars, or say if there are bands of space between areas of space/time expanding at greater than the speed of light. Does the same rule apply?
Edit: Some clarification, although it was a middle ages philosopher (I forget his name) that first asked, "if the universe is infinite, why is the night sky dark” (I'm likely paraphrasing) as someone else pointed out, using the inverse square law to explain the reasoning would have come later. Likewise, although the ancient Greeks proved the earth was round, verifying it by circumnavigating the globe came much later.
I was thinking the same thing, although my spin on it was, what if two parts of the universe are expanding AWAY from each other at something greater than the speed of light.....Mcluhan said:Question: what happens if there are parts of the universe where space is expanding at a speed greater than the speed of light and also contain stars, or say if there are bands of space between areas of space/time expanding at greater than the speed of light. Does the same rule apply?
OTB
I agree with the theory, but you can find an exception: what if there is a black hole between the star and earth? The star's light will be trapped inside the black hole and will not reach us, although it is there.someone said:Actually it was proven in the middle ages that the universe was finite. If it had an infinite number of stars, the night sky would not be dark. Given the inverse square law, some light from every star would reach us, even if a very very very small amount from the most distant ones. You add up all the infinite sources of light and the night sky would be bright. However, I admit that this is nit picking. The number of stars is so great (although finite) that I agree that there is likely life out there.
I don't believe that matter is created at the speed of light either. Just because it would need a HUGE amount of energy. As said, in Newtonian physics, any elements loses its mass when reaching the speed of light, so it's not likely to be true with those rules applied.
Now to emphasize on how little we know, the electro magnetic waves have a speed close or equal to the speed of light. No physics teacher can explain that, and it's surprising as it moves over large particles.
Question: how 'fast' is gravity?osanowo said:I agree with the theory, but you can find an exception: what if there is a black hole between the star and earth? The star's light will be trapped inside the black hole and will not reach us, although it is there.
I don't believe that matter is created at the speed of light either. Just because it would need a HUGE amount of energy. As said, in Newtonian physics, any elements loses its mass when reaching the speed of light, so it's not likely to be true with those rules applied.
Now to emphasize on how little we know, the electro magnetic waves have a speed close or equal to the speed of light. No physics teacher can explain that, and it's surprising as it moves over large particles.
Gravitational force, or gravity, is the mutual attraction between all masses in the universe. Most scientists assume that gravity travels at the speed of light, which is actually the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves (such as light) in a vacuum. The speed of light is a physical constant equal to exactly 299,792.458 kilometers per second (km/s), or about 186,471 miles per second. The assumption that gravity also travels at this speed is implicit in Einstein's general theory of relativity, formulated in 1915, which recognizes the universal character of the propagation speed of light and the consequent dependence of space, time, and other mechanical measurements on the motion of the observer performing the measurements. Although this is still our best working theory of space-time, the concept that gravity travels at the speed of light is an assumption, and, until recently, has never been tested.Mcluhan said:Question: how 'fast' is gravity?
The assumed speed of gravity remained untested and unchallenged for so long because most physicists thought that gravity shows its speed only in the propagation of gravitational waves through space, and since no one has even detected gravitational waves, measuring how fast they travel was not possible.
Sir Isaac Newton thought that the speed of gravity was instantaneous, and Einstein assumed it traveled at the speed of light. Although scientists believe that Einstein was right, for nearly a century no one had been able to directly measure gravity's speed. However, on September 8, 2002, an international team of scientists did just that, using an experiment conceived by Sergei Kopeikin, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
