Have we fond life on this planet?

[LordJaric]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_sc/
habitable_planet_5

What do you think?

[Elfer]

No. We found a planet that might have life on it.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/24/07 09:38 PM, Elfer wrote: No. We found a planet that might have life on it.

He's right!

i'm really exited about hearing about this.

hundreds of years from know when we invent incrediably fast space travel and have created world peace we can engage in a series of whole new wars with a NEW planet.

[xineph]

At 4/24/07 09:35 PM, LordJaric wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_sc/
habitable_planet_5

What do you think?

Uh... What?
You're asking a question that's already been answered. No, we haven't. We haven't gotten close enough to determine. What we've found is conditions that could, theoretically support life. Your question is null.

[LordJaric]

At 4/24/07 09:49 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: hundreds of years from know when we invent incrediably fast space travel and have created world peace we can engage in a series of whole new wars with a NEW planet.

I hope you are jokeing about that last part.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/24/07 09:53 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/24/07 09:49 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: hundreds of years from know when we invent incrediably fast space travel and have created world peace we can engage in a series of whole new wars with a NEW planet.

I hope you are jokeing about that last part.

I'm a little bit of both; i'm really stating that it would be ironic that in the future we'll probably have more world peace then we did before, [infact, probably in 100-200 years we'll be able to invent weapons which can destroy the planet in one attack].

i watch too mucb sci-fi [i dont watch any, but i know the common 'features' of the typical sci-fi movie]

[LordJaric]

At 4/24/07 09:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

[infact, probably in 100-200 years we'll be able to invent weapons which can destroy the planet in one attack].

I think makeing a weapon like that would be a stubid idea

[Boltrig]

At 4/24/07 09:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: [infact, probably in 100-200 years we'll be able to invent weapons which can destroy the planet in one attack].

Nukes! One attack, multiple warheads.

i think you mean a singular device that will destroy the planet in one go.

No such weapon will be developed, since your country needs land to exist on, andif you destroy the whole world, that kinda leaves you in a jam.

[LordJaric]

At 4/24/07 10:06 PM, Boltrig wrote: Nukes! One attack, multiple warheads.

i think you mean a singular device that will destroy the planet in one go.

No such weapon will be developed, since your country needs land to exist on, andif you destroy the whole world, that kinda leaves you in a jam.

I don't know if you realize that this is about other worlds not just one.

[Boltrig]

At 4/24/07 10:09 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/24/07 10:06 PM, Boltrig wrote: Nukes! One attack, multiple warheads.

i think you mean a singular device that will destroy the planet in one go.

No such weapon will be developed, since your country needs land to exist on, andif you destroy the whole world, that kinda leaves you in a jam.

I don't know if you realize that this is about other worlds not just one.

Yes, but war with the other world would require interstellar travel, some form of delivery system for the weapon, and mostly that there are developed beings, capable of communication, hostility and agression on a global scale.

Since this is a lot of impositions and as of yet unachieveable objectives, that would leave the superbomb with only Earth to target.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/24/07 10:06 PM, Boltrig wrote: No such weapon will be developed, since your country needs land to exist on, andif you destroy the whole world, that kinda leaves you in a jam.

it would destroy the enemy but it's fun to steal the enemies land after.

[Boltrig]

indeed. Look what we got that you dont. Nyah nyah..

style of thing

[LordJaric]

At 4/24/07 10:12 PM, Boltrig wrote: Yes, but war with the other world would require interstellar travel, some form of delivery system for the weapon, and mostly that there are developed beings, capable of communication, hostility and agression on a global scale.

Since this is a lot of impositions and as of yet unachieveable objectives, that would leave the superbomb with only Earth to target.

I wouldn't say that they are unachieceable objectives, even though Enstin said he can't travle at the speed of light, he could be wrong, there could be some thing out there that can grant us these capabilitys.

[Boltrig]

At 4/24/07 10:17 PM, LordJaric wrote:

I wouldn't say that they are unachieceable objectives, even though Enstin said he can't travle at the speed of light, he could be wrong, there could be some thing out there that can grant us these capabilitys.

Not really. Einstein's theory wasnt wrong, just incomplete. I posted the complete one on a thread not long ago. It shows that faster than light travel is impossible.

The gist of it is that the faster you are going, the more energy is required to get you going a little faster. So when your going 99% light speed, the amount of energy required to get you going 100% light speed tends to infinity.

So no warp speed for you!

[LordJaric]

At 4/24/07 10:23 PM, Boltrig wrote:

:: The gist of it is that the faster you are going, the more energy is required to get you going a little faster. So when your going 99% light speed, the amount of energy required to get you going 100% light speed tends to infinity.

So no warp speed for you!

What i ment by something being ou there is there could be something that can grant that much power or a civilisation that has made some thing that can give of so much energy. (I like to be vary open minded)

[Boltrig]

You dont seem to get it.

The amount of energy tends to INFINITY. INFINITY!

So matter how much energy you produce, more is required.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/24/07 10:23 PM, Boltrig wrote: It shows that faster than light travel is impossible.

Thats a rather bold assumption considering how little we know about the Universe. Based on the knowledge we posess now, that is correct. But we do not know everything so I think an absolute statement like that is rather presumptous.

[DrunkenGargoyle]

My brain says "I don't know", but my gut says "maybe".

[ForkRobotik]

At 4/24/07 11:42 PM, DrunkenGargoyle wrote: My brain says "I don't know", but my gut says "maybe".

go with the gut, and do it for truthiness!

[Boltrig]

At 4/24/07 11:39 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/24/07 10:23 PM, Boltrig wrote: It shows that faster than light travel is impossible.

Thats a rather bold assumption considering how little we know about the Universe. Based on the knowledge we posess now, that is correct. But we do not know everything so I think an absolute statement like that is rather presumptous.

Well it'd need to be a hell of a breakthrough in quantum mechanics to allow faster than light travel. In fact, it would just need to break quantum mechanics!

Better looking at folding space and wormholes.

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/24/07 10:23 PM, Boltrig wrote: Not really. Einstein's theory wasnt wrong, just incomplete. I posted the complete one on a thread not long ago. It shows that faster than light travel is impossible.

The gist of it is that the faster you are going, the more energy is required to get you going a little faster. So when your going 99% light speed, the amount of energy required to get you going 100% light speed tends to infinity.

Yeah, but that's only in a “flat” spacetime. Our isn't quite so “flat”.

So no warp speed for you!

Not even sure if I should post this... But, what the hellAlcubierre drive.

However, there are secondary problems with this concept...

At 4/24/07 11:39 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Thats a rather bold assumption considering how little we know about the Universe. Based on the knowledge we posess now, that is correct. But we do not know everything so I think an absolute statement like that is rather presumptous.

Not quite so much, you see it's not just one piece of physics that doesn't like FTL, it the vast majority of it. For FTL to be possible would require the very nature of causality and/or realism to be violate, which brings me to my next point...

At 4/24/07 11:54 PM, Boltrig wrote: Well it'd need to be a hell of a breakthrough in quantum mechanics to allow faster than light travel. In fact, it would just need to break quantum mechanics!

If any one here has a subscription to nature An experimental test of non-local realism. I really have no further comment.

[SirXVII]

I'm gonna agree on the impossible light travel thing.

I think you can probably travel at mindblowingly unsafe speeds, but light is a type of source that is mindblowingly fast.

[HogWashSoup]

i hope the women there are hot. i plan to go there this summer.

[Boltrig]

At 4/25/07 02:17 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

If any one here has a subscription to nature An experimental test of non-local realism. I really have no further comment.

I read an article on entangled particles not long ago. It seems to be an interesting concept but a bit sneaky in its application

The article stated that two particles that were completely in sync, so that one was the inverse of the other, could be separated, and taken to different locations. However, by measuring one and inverting it, you could determine the behaviour of the other paired particle, thus overturning the notion of locality.

Thing is you're not really measuring what the other particle is doing, merely deriving it. If you were to completely obliterate one particle, the other one would be unaffected, so as I see it, locality still stands.

Thats just me though, Ive not done physics in 3 years and Im a bit out of touch. Always happy to be corrected.

[DeathDementor]

i think that is possible for life on that planet even thoughttyhere is probly not but mabye in the future they will disscover how to get there and tyhen when our resources fail we can move there

[Saveo]

Its better to wait and find out the truth than to speculate. Otherwise, conflicting points of interest develope, and thats a catalyst for people dividing into factions and warring. I say we wait and see what this planet harbours, then make a decision.

[Rinogas]

At 4/24/07 09:49 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 4/24/07 09:38 PM, Elfer wrote: No. We found a planet that might have life on it.

He's right!

i'm really exited about hearing about this.

hundreds of years from know when we invent incrediably fast space travel and have created world peace we can engage in a series of whole new wars with a NEW planet.

I dont know why you are so exited about this you'll be dead In a Hundred years from know.
But i know How you feel I really want them to sent some satilight picture thing right know
And get some pictures on the planet right know!!!But thats impossible because its 10.5 light years away.