User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 9:52:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And a solar sail could achieve 10 percent light speed. Few hundred years from now, who knows? First flight with people about 1780s. First space flight 1960s. 2300-2400? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If we could mount a manned expedition that could travel as fast as the Voyager spacecraft, it would only take 1,772,000 Earth years to get there  And a solar sail could achieve 10 percent light speed. Few hundred years from now, who knows? First flight with people about 1780s. First space flight 1960s. 2300-2400? How many solar sails have we made that have achieved even 1/1000th of light speed velocity? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:00:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, I don't think he's capable of anything that takes place outside his basement. I was referencing the article written by him that the OP put in his OP.If you want to put your faith in PhD students, who are encouraged to publish something in order to get their PhD, go ahead. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You think he's the guy who published that paper in The Astronomical Journal, or are you just really that stupendously ignorant of what that article was about? Well, my assessment his that article's encapsulation of the published research far more accurately captures what was there than any of the nonsense you have posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:01:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many solar sails have we made that have achieved even 1/1000th of light speed velocity? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If we could mount a manned expedition that could travel as fast as the Voyager spacecraft, it would only take 1,772,000 Earth years to get there And a solar sail could achieve 10 percent light speed. Few hundred years from now, who knows? First flight with people about 1780s. First space flight 1960s. 2300-2400? How many solar sails have we made that have achieved even 1/1000th of light speed velocity? Not to rain on your parade, but how many prototype Wright flyers did the Wright brothers make before they hit the jackpot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:10:16 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:15:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The right combination of factors existed to create life on earth. Because it happen here we think that it must happen elsewhere but we don't know. It could be that those factors coming together at the right time at the right place was an unique event. It may not have ever happen again elsewhere in the universe. Even if there is basic life elsewhere another sequence of events allowed life to evolve to higher levels here on earth that may not have happen elsewhere. We tend to think that statistics can produce life when we say "but there has to be life elsewhere because there are so many stars and planets". The problem is that statistics doesn't turn chemistry into biology. We have been brainwashed by 100 years of science fiction to believe that life exist elsewhere and we all want to believe but the reality is that we have no idea. Not only that but every where we look the universe seems to be hostile to life. If the universe is finite then unique things can exist in it. Life may be unique to earth. Until we get another data point we have no idea one way or the other. Turns out to be out here in our obscure neighborhood in an arm of a spiral Galaxy. The rest is for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:25:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do they know it is water? It could be blue or whatever slime, it could be the bukkake planet, they guess it is covered in water. They don't even know what it looks like, they come up with some BS graphic. And talk about how beautiful it is and how it must be right out of a movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:27:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, my assessment his that article's encapsulation of the published research far more accurately captures what was there than any of the nonsense you have posted. Joshua Hawkins is a freelance writer with bylines at Shacknews, PrimaGames, USGamer, Game Revolution, and Digital Trends. He has spent the past five years honing his skills and understanding of SEO to create content that ranks well and drives traffic to the various sites he has worked at. He has a Bachelor's of Fine Arts in Creative Writing for Entertainment, and continues to improve his understanding and use of SEO with each passing day. https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshualhawkins/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 10:56:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not to rain on your parade, but how many prototype Wright flyers did the Wright brothers make before they hit the jackpot? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If we could mount a manned expedition that could travel as fast as the Voyager spacecraft, it would only take 1,772,000 Earth years to get there And a solar sail could achieve 10 percent light speed. Few hundred years from now, who knows? First flight with people about 1780s. First space flight 1960s. 2300-2400? How many solar sails have we made that have achieved even 1/1000th of light speed velocity? Not to rain on your parade, but how many prototype Wright flyers did the Wright brothers make before they hit the jackpot? Not really my parade, and I'd love to be wrong, but "we" (as in, the entirety of the world) have flight tested what, 2 solar sails in space so far? Ikaros and one other, both with fairly miniscule payloads (Ikaros' total mass was 320 kg). With a solar sail measuring 192 square meters, it managed to produce a whopping 1.12 millinewtons of thrust. ...it's going to take a very, very long time to get 320 kg to 0.10c at 1.12 millinewtons of thrust. And it's going to take a much larger sail to accelerate the same mass faster. Solar sails might be feasible to send (very light) probes to Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri, but...the engineering problems with a solar sail for human exploration of the same are...immense (not saying this is your argument, just pointing it out). What it boils down to is any manned mission to another solar system will require a generation ship and that ship will need to be self sufficient in a closed biosphere for hundreds of years. We don't know how to do that yet. We don't know how to freeze people for hundreds of years and revive them later on either. I'll also point out that if you solve the closed biosphere problem for hundreds of years, you end up (economically at least) not having any real need to leave the solar system at all. We really don't have a way of protecting our crew and passengers from ionizing radiation in space other than adding lots of mass, and lots of extra mass is exactly what you don't want when trying to accelerate to fractional light speed (and de-accelerate during the 2nd half of the journey). I personally think that we wouldn't want a planet with a developed biosphere to colonize because of the pathogen problem (if it's compatible enough for our life to flourish, then it's compatible enough for it's viruses, bacteria, and other life to infect and kill us). Ideal scenario would be a planet with a reducing atmosphere that we could terraform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 11:00:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess I just didn't find it entertaining. Joshua Hawkins is a freelance writer with bylines at Shacknews, PrimaGames, USGamer, Game Revolution, and Digital Trends. He has spent the past five years honing his skills and understanding of SEO to create content that ranks well and drives traffic to the various sites he has worked at. He has a Bachelor's of Fine Arts in Creative Writing for Entertainment, and continues to improve his understanding and use of SEO with each passing day. https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshualhawkins/ Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well, my assessment his that article's encapsulation of the published research far more accurately captures what was there than any of the nonsense you have posted. Joshua Hawkins is a freelance writer with bylines at Shacknews, PrimaGames, USGamer, Game Revolution, and Digital Trends. He has spent the past five years honing his skills and understanding of SEO to create content that ranks well and drives traffic to the various sites he has worked at. He has a Bachelor's of Fine Arts in Creative Writing for Entertainment, and continues to improve his understanding and use of SEO with each passing day. https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshualhawkins/ And yet, he still demonstrates an ability to understand the paper more than you. So what does that tell us? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 11:08:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet, he still demonstrates an ability to understand the paper more than you. So what does that tell us? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 11:09:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Please please please please
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 11:11:31 PM EDT
[#12]
 Project Orion: Secret Mars Mission Powered by Nuclear Bombs Someday I hope someone starts playing Pink Floyd's Echoes right before they press engage on one of these drive systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 11:22:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. There are no fundamental breakthroughs in physics needed to reach a planet like that with generation ships. We can argue the ethics of generation ships, but saying categorically we can’t ever get there is not true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2022 11:52:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So wait, it’s possible that the exoplanet doesn’t have a rocky core? That it’s just one giant ball of water close enough to its star to stay liquid? @Rudukai13 Nah, if the planet is indeed all water, or just really deep, but still has some sort of rock and metal core, after you go several miles down, but way deeper than our oceans go, the planet is pretty solid and hard. At enormous pressure, water still crystallizes into "ice" even if it's not cold. Unlike "Ice 1" that we're familiar with, the hexagonal crystal structure, and being 32°F or 0°C, slightly less dense than liquid water so it floats in your drink, or on the ocean etc. IIRC there's 18 different kinds of "ice" that can exist at different pressures and temperatures. They have different crystal structures like cubes etc. And some are even magnetic like ferrous metals. Mid-size ice giant planets like Uranus and Neptune are probably full of certain kinds of "ice". We've made some of the other forms of ice in the lab, and occasionally will find microscopic specs of it stuck inside diamonds. Under certain circumstances the other forms of ice are metastable, meaning that they can actually be taken out of the pressure/temperature chamber we made it in, and it'll survive (awhile?) at regular air pressure and room temperature. If it eventually melts, boils, explodes, or fizzles away into water vapor or steam, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 1:14:28 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Rudukai13 Nah, if the planet is indeed all water, or just really deep, but still has some sort of rock and metal core, after you go several miles down, but way deeper than our oceans go, the planet is pretty solid and hard. At enormous pressure, water still crystallizes into "ice" even if it's not cold. Unlike "Ice 1" that we're familiar with, the hexagonal crystal structure, and being 32°F or 0°C, slightly less dense than liquid water so it floats in your drink, or on the ocean etc. IIRC there's 18 different kinds of "ice" that can exist at different pressures and temperatures. They have different crystal structures like cubes etc. And some are even magnetic like ferrous metals. Mid-size ice giant planets like Uranus and Neptune are probably full of certain kinds of "ice". We've made some of the other forms of ice in the lab, and occasionally will find microscopic specs of it stuck inside diamonds. Under certain circumstances the other forms of ice are metastable, meaning that they can actually be taken out of the pressure/temperature chamber we made it in, and it'll survive (awhile?) at regular air pressure and room temperature. If it eventually melts, boils, explodes, or fizzles away into water vapor or steam, I don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So wait, it’s possible that the exoplanet doesn’t have a rocky core? That it’s just one giant ball of water close enough to its star to stay liquid? @Rudukai13 Nah, if the planet is indeed all water, or just really deep, but still has some sort of rock and metal core, after you go several miles down, but way deeper than our oceans go, the planet is pretty solid and hard. At enormous pressure, water still crystallizes into "ice" even if it's not cold. Unlike "Ice 1" that we're familiar with, the hexagonal crystal structure, and being 32°F or 0°C, slightly less dense than liquid water so it floats in your drink, or on the ocean etc. IIRC there's 18 different kinds of "ice" that can exist at different pressures and temperatures. They have different crystal structures like cubes etc. And some are even magnetic like ferrous metals. Mid-size ice giant planets like Uranus and Neptune are probably full of certain kinds of "ice". We've made some of the other forms of ice in the lab, and occasionally will find microscopic specs of it stuck inside diamonds. Under certain circumstances the other forms of ice are metastable, meaning that they can actually be taken out of the pressure/temperature chamber we made it in, and it'll survive (awhile?) at regular air pressure and room temperature. If it eventually melts, boils, explodes, or fizzles away into water vapor or steam, I don't know. And there’s my something new learned today. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 1:27:21 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many solar sails have we made that have achieved even 1/1000th of light speed velocity? LOL. A solar sail does not work very well after you leave the outer solar system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 1:42:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Space isn't real. Deception of Satan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 1:57:47 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So that must be were all those submersible UFO's came from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 7:56:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just absolute bullshit. They have no idea. The science world has become a cartoon. If you get your science news from something like that, I think that you should expect a cartoon. In the 80's there was a magazine called OMNI. Most of us were smart enough to know how that something published by the publisher of Penthouse was not in the same league as dryer science magazines with actual science papers. The link below isn't a science paper and it is a bit puffy, but it is more informative and clear about the science and what actually said and what the limitations of the current findings are using the instruments that were available. It is suggested that the James Webb telescope be used to provide better data. It does have an "artists" conception to satisfy the puffers. http://www.exoplanetes.umontreal.ca/an-extrasolar-world-covered-in-water/?lang=en |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 7:58:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean.... Artemis I is planned to launch tomorrow morning, to go back to the moon. It is the most powerful rocket that human kind has ever built. It's standing on the pad right now waiting for day break. It's certainly real and there is a whole lot of science involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 8:06:29 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh .k Has become a cartoon. They have no clue what that "planet" is made of or what's on it, but yet we have a full blown article about it. Oh, we need the new telescope to confirm it . But honestly I'm not sure what to do with your post. Not sure if your just dull or making a joke. Don't blame science for what you read in the National Enquirer. Or maybe even the Boy Genius Report. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 8:27:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Science is simply to seek to understand and explain the universe as we currently know it. If you have a way around E = mc2, there are lots of people that would like to hear about it. Science doesn't discredit any idea, until it proves it invalid. Law and theory are not something that is set in stone vs something that might be fluid though. A law describes what will happen, a theory describes why that thing happens. Both laws and theories are predictions. In your sentence, I think your meaning is hypotheses, not theory. The only thing that is absolutely concrete when it comes to science, is that you should follow it and covid vaccines are good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 9:19:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never mind my explanation describing spectroscopy so simple that a third grader can understand it. Never mind that anyone can go look up an established scientific technique that's been in existence for over a century and verify that is how many astronomical discoveries have happened. Nah. Its all bullshit. The FBI agents monitoring this site must be falling off their chairs laughing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 9:22:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I missing something? I read that twice and felt dumber each go around. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2022 9:44:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Rudukai13 Nah, if the planet is indeed all water, or just really deep, but still has some sort of rock and metal core, after you go several miles down, but way deeper than our oceans go, the planet is pretty solid and hard. At enormous pressure, water still crystallizes into "ice" even if it's not cold. Unlike "Ice 1" that we're familiar with, the hexagonal crystal structure, and being 32 F or 0 C, slightly less dense than liquid water so it floats in your drink, or on the ocean etc. IIRC there's 18 different kinds of "ice" that can exist at different pressures and temperatures. They have different crystal structures like cubes etc. And some are even magnetic like ferrous metals. Mid-size ice giant planets like Uranus and Neptune are probably full of certain kinds of "ice". We've made some of the other forms of ice in the lab, and occasionally will find microscopic specs of it stuck inside diamonds. Under certain circumstances the other forms of ice are metastable, meaning that they can actually be taken out of the pressure/temperature chamber we made it in, and it'll survive (awhile?) at regular air pressure and room temperature. If it eventually melts, boils, explodes, or fizzles away into water vapor or steam, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 9:03:03 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because while people like you make arguments from proud ignorance, better people than you are making amazing things happen all the time. We're employed a giant space telescope out beyond the moon, we're flying a freakin' remote controlled helicopter on Mars, and we're getting ready to launch the aforementioned rocket. You? You're getting your worthless voice amplified by still more tech and science you have no concept of. Lol. One of your better diatribes - worthy of being copypasta for moon-landing denier threads. Well done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 9:19:01 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is real question. Why would anything anywhere vary too far from what is on earth? I know we don't know everything, but going by physics, stuff should not vary too far from what it is here. So yea, there is hydrogen and O2 that combined somewhere. What's interesting to think about is that we really have no idea until we find the 2nd planet with life. There's not much you can infer from a sample set of 1 but as soon as you have 2 then you can start to talk about both the frequency and characteristics of life on other planets. For example, the frequency of life right now is 1 / X whereas X is an indefinitely increasing number of planets / moons where we've looked so far. We don't know if it's 1 in 1000 or in 1 a trillion. If you find a second example of life, then you can establish the denominator based on the number of planets / moons you had to search to arrive at that initial discovery. At that point you have a rough, but ultimately real, number from which you can make projections and start to fill out a missing component of Drake's equation. It probably becomes even more meaningful if we can find evidence of life outside our solar system in order to rule out that our solar system itself is unique. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 9:20:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also 100 light years away? That is not exactly current data. Yea, it was there ......once, or maybe now. Well it was there 100 years ago. Planets don't regularly flash in and out of existence in 100 years. It's probably a safe bet to presume it's still there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 9:21:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are no fundamental breakthroughs in physics needed to reach a planet like that with generation ships. We can argue the ethics of generation ships, but saying categorically we can’t ever get there is not true. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. There are no fundamental breakthroughs in physics needed to reach a planet like that with generation ships. We can argue the ethics of generation ships, but saying categorically we can’t ever get there is not true. There are however fundamental breakthroughs in economics required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 9:43:08 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL. A solar sail does not work very well after you leave the outer solar system. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many solar sails have we made that have achieved even 1/1000th of light speed velocity? LOL. A solar sail does not work very well after you leave the outer solar system. Most of the interstellar solar sail projects have solar pumped lasers as the propulsion source. Robert L Forward wrote some papers and books about it back in the early 90s (maybe late 80s). Edit. Rocheworld series (SF). Starwisp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp Believe |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2022 10:03:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are no fundamental breakthroughs in physics needed to reach a planet like that with generation ships. We can argue the ethics of generation ships, but saying categorically we can’t ever get there is not true. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. There are no fundamental breakthroughs in physics needed to reach a planet like that with generation ships. We can argue the ethics of generation ships, but saying categorically we can’t ever get there is not true.  Attached FileNobody here, nor their great-great-great grandchildren will be alive to see some expedition to anything approaching that distance. (not without a major breakthrough in physics/engineering/biology) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File