User Panel
Quoted: Maybe you should write a letter to NASA. Not sure there is much bending of light in a vacuum. View Quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Just absolute bullshit. They have no idea. The science world has become a cartoon. What does that have to with this? |
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? |
|
|
Quoted: Uh...no, water is not life. Does life spontaneously come into existence where it can, or does it need to be seeded? If it needs to be seeded, by something like a foreign body which has life on it impacting a planet , has that happened to this planet in question? I certainly don't know. Nobody does until we go look. Furthermore, water is essential to sustain life as we know it here on Earth. So, it's possible that we will find life which also requires that, on a planet which has water. It's also entirely possible that there is life in the universe which water kills. Instead of requiring water, it might require chlorine gas to live in. Etc etc. We look for planets which have water, because they are best chance of discovering a form of life, that we know for fact at least exists. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Is it possible that a planet covered in water as we understand it would not be supporting life? Isn't water essentially life? Does life spontaneously come into existence where it can, or does it need to be seeded? If it needs to be seeded, by something like a foreign body which has life on it impacting a planet , has that happened to this planet in question? I certainly don't know. Nobody does until we go look. Furthermore, water is essential to sustain life as we know it here on Earth. So, it's possible that we will find life which also requires that, on a planet which has water. It's also entirely possible that there is life in the universe which water kills. Instead of requiring water, it might require chlorine gas to live in. Etc etc. We look for planets which have water, because they are best chance of discovering a form of life, that we know for fact at least exists. Maybe said planet burps up some form of bacteria from its core... into the life sustaining water... Just sayin' |
|
Quoted: "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? Interesting theoretical - I read somewhere about a spot somewhere in the Universe whereby the author posited it was composed of water so deep that at some point it, the water itself was hard as a rock. |
|
Quoted: Stuff like this is so much bullshit. They have no idea what it looks like. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Stuff like this is so much bullshit. They have no idea what it looks like. Uhh excuse me, its beautiful.... just like the pictures in the article. |
|
Quoted: Maybe said planet burps up some form of bacteria from its core... into the life sustaining water... Just sayin' View Quote Just because a planet has liquid water though, does not mean that life exists on it. We think it's more likely that it does vs one that is 87,00F. So that's why we look for planets with water. |
|
Quoted: You said that the science world is a cartoon. The rocket going back to the moon tomorrow, would not exist if that where true. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: What does that have to with this? 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. |
|
Quoted: It is most certainly possible. Just because a planet has liquid water though, does not mean that life exists on it. We think it's more likely that it does vs one that is 87,00F. So that's why we look for planets with water. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Maybe said planet burps up some form of bacteria from its core... into the life sustaining water... Just sayin' Just because a planet has liquid water though, does not mean that life exists on it. We think it's more likely that it does vs one that is 87,00F. So that's why we look for planets with water. Ok... cool |
|
Quoted: "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? That would be pretty cool. Swim right to China by going straight down. |
|
|
Quoted: Terrestrial life evolved to thrive in the chemical composition of water on Earth. On another planet, with a few billion years of evolution, life will evolve to thrive in the chemical composition of the water there. The water on either of our planets may be inimical to creatures from the other planet, but I would expect both to have life of some sort. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: From your understanding of science maybe. Have you ever heard that water is a solvent? Meaning the solute could be super high levels of salt, or any other number of things that make it incapable of supporting life. Our planet is a goldilocks planet of sorts. Not to much, not to little, just right. That's not to say other planets out there aren't similar, but the presence of water does not equal the ability to support life lol Terrestrial life evolved to thrive in the chemical composition of water on Earth. On another planet, with a few billion years of evolution, life will evolve to thrive in the chemical composition of the water there. The water on either of our planets may be inimical to creatures from the other planet, but I would expect both to have life of some sort. With the infinite number of possibilities here(our universe), magnetism could be the fluidity life is based on instead of a chemical or element.“Life”. |
|
I guess now we know why all those ufo's disappear into the ocean water instead of land at the local walmart.
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Is it possible that a planet covered in water as we understand it would not be supporting life? Isn't water essentially life? View Quote If all it took was water and the right temperature to create life then creating life would be a class lab in every Jr High in the world, wouldn't it? Since we have never created life in a lab we don't know how many factors it takes to produce life. It could be ten factors or 80. Could even 263,800,199 factors. |
|
Quoted: If all it took was water and the right temperature to create life then creating life would be a class lab in every Jr High in the world, wouldn't it? Since we have never created life in a lab we don't know how many factors it takes to produce life. It could be ten factors or 80. Could even 263,800,199 factors. View Quote let it sit and see what happens |
|
|
Stupid though, if the land on earth was flat - Earth would be covered with water as well...
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote Different elements, different gasses, different atmospheric pressures can probably create any number of different combinations. Just a guess as I don’t know for sure |
|
"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. |
|
Quoted: If all it took was water and the right temperature to create life then creating life would be a class lab in every Jr High in the world, wouldn't it? Since we have never created life in a lab we don't know how many factors it takes to produce life. It could be ten factors or 80. Could even 263,800,199 factors. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Is it possible that a planet covered in water as we understand it would not be supporting life? Isn't water essentially life? If all it took was water and the right temperature to create life then creating life would be a class lab in every Jr High in the world, wouldn't it? Since we have never created life in a lab we don't know how many factors it takes to produce life. It could be ten factors or 80. Could even 263,800,199 factors. You mean like tap water? |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Just absolute bullshit. They have no idea. The science world has become a cartoon. When is that supposed to launch? (Time) sounds like there a re a ton of people camping out overnight to watch |
|
The water could be too acidic to support life, hell it could dissolve anything that touches it for all they know.
|
|
Quoted: Maybe said planet burps up some form of bacteria from its core... into the life sustaining water... Just sayin' View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is it possible that a planet covered in water as we understand it would not be supporting life? Isn't water essentially life? Does life spontaneously come into existence where it can, or does it need to be seeded? If it needs to be seeded, by something like a foreign body which has life on it impacting a planet , has that happened to this planet in question? I certainly don't know. Nobody does until we go look. Furthermore, water is essential to sustain life as we know it here on Earth. So, it's possible that we will find life which also requires that, on a planet which has water. It's also entirely possible that there is life in the universe which water kills. Instead of requiring water, it might require chlorine gas to live in. Etc etc. We look for planets which have water, because they are best chance of discovering a form of life, that we know for fact at least exists. Maybe said planet burps up some form of bacteria from its core... into the life sustaining water... Just sayin' Thats what is so cool/ interesting, there could be anything there. Maybe the water isn’t life sustaining but the atmosphere has hydration life would need to survive in it. Maybe some other life form started some sort of life on that planet and it is like a young Earth. Maybe everything there will kill you. If inhabitable, the question is who is going? Dems or us? |
|
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. View Quote 2: The answer is that it would take an infinite amount of time for a human to reach the speed of light. |
|
|
Quoted: There are posters whose entire exposure to anything science related beyond Sunday School is limited to internet screeds. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: In this thread there are posters that don't know about the Dead Sea, right here on this planet and how that might apply to a water world. It is very difficult to know everything about everything, no? |
|
Quoted: 1: We don't need to physically go to a location to learn about it. We know a lot more about space now than 100 years ago. We have knowledge about stars and galaxies that are much further away than 100 light years, and we have only ever been to our moon (in person). 2: The answer is that it would take an infinite amount of time for a human to reach the speed of light. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. 2: The answer is that it would take an infinite amount of time for a human to reach the speed of light. What does theory mean again?? Soldiers fighting in the Revolutionary war thought it impossible or not even a thought to see into space. Just sayin |
|
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. View Quote 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 |
|
|
|
Quoted: What does theory mean again?? Soldiers fighting in the Revolutionary war thought it impossible or not even a thought to see into space. Just sayin View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: It is very difficult to know everything about everything, no? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In this thread there are posters that don't know about the Dead Sea, right here on this planet and how that might apply to a water world. It is very difficult to know everything about everything, no? |
|
|
I would like someone to correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding is that they "observe" exoplanets by observing the wobble in the movement of stars. While I can understand the math to do that (I can understand how there could be math to do that) but that math would be based on an estimate of the mass of the star and would give an estimate of how much mass is orbiting the star. Is there any other evidence for these exoplanets? I fully expect there to be exoplanets, and fully expect some to be in the golden zone where liquid water could exist. I don't think we will have any confirmation of this stuff in my lifetime. On the other hand "Water planet? That must be where Soros is having the Kamino build his clone army to oppress us" |
|
Quoted: Is there any other evidence for these exoplanets? View Quote As the amount of light from the star is known, the amount of decreased light when the body passes between us and the star can be used to describe the size of that body. IE: is it a planet. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: What does theory mean again?? Soldiers fighting in the Revolutionary war thought it impossible or not even a thought to see into space. Just sayin 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. It came from your edited post. I don’t know enough about how this universe/ world works but new data and stuff is discovered fairly often so just because it it is a hurdle at this moment in time, those wondering and dreaming can take it further than those who think its impossible. |
|
Quoted: It's very easy to know nothing about anything, though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In this thread there are posters that don't know about the Dead Sea, right here on this planet and how that might apply to a water world. It is very difficult to know everything about everything, no? Wow, so witty |
|
Quoted: It came from your edited post. I don't know enough about how this universe/ world works but new data and stuff is discovered fairly often so just because it it is a hurdle at this moment in time, those wondering and dreaming can take it further than those who think its impossible. View Quote Absolutely. Nothing is set in stone and science itself has to be fluid and adapt to new information. Science doesn't dislike being proven wrong, it seeks to describe what we currently know. What we currently know changes.... a lot. |
|
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.