We have found Earth 2.0

[The Martian Hegemony]

Alright, let's stir all of our brains, it is impossible to think that there is no life there, so based on the planet's size, relative distance to kepler,

what will it's inhabitants look like:

Short, leathery-skinned, with a large pouch on their back for filling with water and another large pouch for filling with fat. They come out during the day, so their skin is very light and sand-colored for optimal cooling and for blending in with the large stretches of desert. These daytime creatures have trunks with beaks on the end for breaking through sun-baked clay to get to the moisture underneath. Those that come out at night have darker skin for absorbing heat during the frigid nights and infrared-sensitive eyes for night vision. All creatures have dense skeletal systems meant for supporting something under 60% more gravity. Intelligence may have once flourished, but any has probably left the system because of the aging sun turning the world into a merciless desert.

[Solestia]

you know....... after browsing to NASA, and many other conspiracy theories..

i remembered stumbling on an article about the mysteries of early radio transmissions....

the story goes like this....
a brilliant man created a radio antennae, then pointed it to (someplace here on earth or space,, i cant remember)
then he received a transmission (all jumbled up i think)
the guy thinks that pigeon droppings caused the interference
but then, pigeons were not the culprit.....(that's all that i can remember from that article)

another is the Wow Signal
The Wow! signal was a strong narrowband radio signal detected by Jerry R. Ehman on August 15, 1977, while he was working on a SETI project at the Big Ear radio telescope of The Ohio State University, then located at Ohio Wesleyan University's Perkins Observatory in Delaware, Ohio. The signal bore the expected hallmarks of non-terrestrial and non-Solar System origin. The signal appears to have come from the northwest of the globular cluster of M55 in the constellation Sagittarius, near the Chi Sagittarii star group.
The entire signal sequence lasted for the full 72-second window that Big Ear was able to observe it, but has not been detected again. The signal has been the subject of significant media attention, and astronomers have tried many times in vain to find the signal again. Impressed by the relative resemblance of the expected signature of an interstellar signal in the antenna used, Ehman circled the signal on the computer printout and wrote the comment "Wow!" on its side, which became the name of the signal itself.

although many explanations had risen...........there's still a possibility

maybe they' are the watchers...

[Solestia]

maybe i'll tune in more to ANCIENT ALIENS on History Channel

[Imperializt Russia]

It is therefore a billion times brighter, hotter, and more irradiating (ignoring the fact that it is substantially larger and therefore more powerful than Sol anyhow).

You never did very well in science class, did you?

I can't mistype?

I was anxious to start drinking at my Bachelor of Science graduation yesterday.
"A billion years' worth of increased brightness", is what I meant to say.

[Imperializt Russia]

Bussard ramjets are feasible, but would not enable us to exceed the speed of light. It would still take millions of years for any ship to reach Kepler 452b using them.

On the topic of Kepler 452b, it's certainly of academic interest, but it's unlikely we'll ever actually reach it. Even if we did, it's not necessarily inhabitable. We don't know what the composition of the planet's atmosphere is for a start. Since it's considerably larger than Earth, it's also likely to have stronger gravity than we're used to; someone with more knowledge in this field could probably tell you more.

Given that surface gravity is, AFAIK, in no small part based upon the density of the body in question (I believe Saturn has a theoretical surface gravity that is about Earth's standard 1G, for example), and Kepler 452b, although 5x more massive than Earth, is also considerably larger, I suggested to a friend the other day based on some numbers I found for a super-Earth 4x more massive and 1.4x larger than Earth that 452b's surface gravity would probably be less than 2G. Entirely bearable, in other words, if a little harder to work in than Earth is.

EDIT: There's some data up on its Wikipedia page now, and Wikipedia gives Kepler-452b's surface gravity as being 1.88G.

Approximately 2G would be incredibly punishing. Highly unpleasant. Imagine the calorific intake you'd require to function there.

It would not be sustainable for human habitation, though yes it would be feasible (based on nothing but surface gravity).

If time moves slower the faster you move, wouldn't it actually make it look longer? I'm no big expert on this - I study history, not physics - but wouldn't that be the case?

Nah. That's more or less the point of travelling at as high a percentage of c as possible - it makes the time taken shorter from your perspective.

Not quite, it would be more accurately pointed out as a really nifty advantage to travelling near c, which is the theoretical speed limit of the universe. You want to travel close to speed limits. You don't drive at twenty in a fifty, do you?

Unlike on earth, travelling near c shortens the physical length of time that journey will take.

[Dooom35796821595]

sigh

We don't know that. We should atleast try.

Yes we do. We know that very well. Any form of FTL would violate causality, because it's necessarily time travel also - and causality cannot be violated.

You know, FTL is a bit of a misnomer since any method of FTL travel wouldn't actually be moving at faster then c velocities. And it takes a while to get your head around it, but it most certainly is possible.

And you have yet to make any semblance of a case that FTL drives are impossible, would constitute traveling backwards in time or how it would violate causality.

[Auroya]

Yes we do. We know that very well. Any form of FTL would violate causality, because it's necessarily time travel also - and causality cannot be violated.

You know, FTL is a bit of a misnomer since any method of FTL travel wouldn't actually be moving at faster then c velocities. And it takes a while to get your head around it, but it most certainly is possible.

And you have yet to make any semblance of a case that FTL drives are impossible, would constitute traveling backwards in time or how it would violate causality.

Okay, ignore what I or anyone else has written on the matter of why it's not possible, sure.

[Imperializt Russia]

sigh

We don't know that. We should atleast try.

Yes we do. We know that very well. Any form of FTL would violate causality, because it's necessarily time travel also - and causality cannot be violated.

Why do you believe FTL to be "time travel"? It is not. It stretches time, yes. But it should not violate causality because there is no logical reason that it would generate an event that it does.

Causality cannot be violated until you try and change the order of interacting events. As Brian Cox once tried to explain, there is no "moment" that permeates the universe, or any sufficiently large medium. Maybe there is no such thing as a "moment" that permeates the surface of this earth (or maybe there is, because gravity. I'm not a relativistic physicist). If I throw my teacup out the window, and you scratch your head, those events are irrelevant. We can change the order of them to no ill effect. Causality is preserved because these events do not interact.

If, however, I throw my teacup at your head, and you scratch your head because it hurts, we cannot change the order of those events when they interact with one another, as that would violate causality. The teacup cannot smash against your head before I have thrown it, it cannot harm you before it strikes you.
You may appear to arrive before you have left on an FTL voyage, to the casual observer.

But that's an observation. Relativity fucks observation right up. It's not what actually happens.

[Harkback Union]

1.4 k lightyears away?

/thread.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know, FTL is a bit of a misnomer since any method of FTL travel wouldn't actually be moving at faster then c velocities. And it takes a while to get your head around it, but it most certainly is possible.

And you have yet to make any semblance of a case that FTL drives are impossible, would constitute traveling backwards in time or how it would violate causality.

Okay, ignore what I or anyone else has written on the matter of why it's not possible, sure.

People have written about how the neutron is not possible to exist, how black holes are not possible to exist, how bumblebees cannot fly.

[Auroya]

Relativity shows that there is no absolute reference frame. There can't be a "what actually happens". If those events happen in the wrong order from any potential perspective, the whole situation is impossible.

[Imperializt Russia]

Relativity shows that there is no absolute reference frame. There can't be a "what actually happens". If those events happen in the wrong order from any potential perspective, the whole situation is impossible.

You have still failed to demonstrate how FTL may violate causality.

[Chessmistress]

Don't forget that the planet closest to Earth in comparative size and position, and often called our twin, is Venus, a planet so hot that lead would melt on it's surface, and with a poisonous atmosphere and no liquid water.

Although the more planets we find in the habitable range, the more likely we will find other planets which are potentially habitable. So it's a good thing, but we do not know enough to get too excited about this one particular planet.

Exactly.
Venus is theoretically even more similar to Earth than this one.
But in fact it's absolutely unhabitable.
And it could be the same even for this planet.

[Auroya]

Relativity shows that there is no absolute reference frame. There can't be a "what actually happens". If those events happen in the wrong order from any potential perspective, the whole situation is impossible.

You have still failed to demonstrate how FTL may violate causality.

I'll have to admit that I can't offer a complete and detailed explanation because I don't remember the specific details; the lecture where it was explained quite well was a while ago. But I think that essentially different reference frames can end up disagreeing which event happened earlier. It'll be explained well on the internet somewhere, I'm sure.

[Diopolis]

You have still failed to demonstrate how FTL may violate causality.

I'll have to admit that I can't offer a complete and detailed explanation because I don't remember the specific details; the lecture where it was explained quite well was a while ago. But I think that essentially different reference frames can end up disagreeing which event happened earlier. It'll be explained well on the internet somewhere, I'm sure.

"Explained well on the internet somewhere" is about as reliable a cite as an episode of Ancient Aliens dealing with fox news.

[Imperializt Russia]

You have still failed to demonstrate how FTL may violate causality.

I'll have to admit that I can't offer a complete and detailed explanation because I don't remember the specific details; the lecture where it was explained quite well was a while ago. But I think that essentially different reference frames can end up disagreeing which event happened earlier. It'll be explained well on the internet somewhere, I'm sure.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=25395212

Even I wouldn't use "my lecturer told me" to back up a point where there is no strong consensus.
It is, in fact, fallacious to do so.

First-year biology students at my university were told this year certain things about Black Smokers, which was actually disproved one week after the lecture. Lecturers can be wrong, can fall victim of bias and become blinkered. Lecturers can hold peculiar opinions.
"My lecture said this" does not make it so, even in the physical sciences.

[Auroya]

Fair enough then. This seems to be one of the better explanations of it I could find actually, hopefully you can be satisfied with that.

[Cinnabarra]

Those were pretty close achievements.The Moon, space are close to Earth when we compare it to Kepler.Interstellar travel doesn't look very realistic to me.

Oh, it will be in future.

How far in future is ultimately up to us, but there exist perfectly viable concepts for doing so.

I did hear about a vague idea NASA had about interstellar travel, there was even a video but I can't seem to remember it.Maybe one year ago.I don't think it even made it to research.Anybody heard about that?

[Dooom35796821595]

You have still failed to demonstrate how FTL may violate causality.

I'll have to admit that I can't offer a complete and detailed explanation because I don't remember the specific details; the lecture where it was explained quite well was a while ago. But I think that essentially different reference frames can end up disagreeing which event happened earlier. It'll be explained well on the internet somewhere, I'm sure.

Well it's not easy to explain how it works either.

Imagine there are two planets, each 5 light years away. Planet A sends a distress signal to planet B, and that signal takes 5 years to reach planet B as its being sent by the EM spectrum. Planet B then sends a rescue fleet at FTL to planet A that takes three minutes to reach planet A. The fleet arrives 5 years and three minutes after the distress signal was sent. No causality violation, no backward time travel.

[Auroya]

I'll have to admit that I can't offer a complete and detailed explanation because I don't remember the specific details; the lecture where it was explained quite well was a while ago. But I think that essentially different reference frames can end up disagreeing which event happened earlier. It'll be explained well on the internet somewhere, I'm sure.

Well it's not easy to explain how it works either.

Imagine there are two planets, each 5 light years away. Planet A sends a distress signal to planet B, and that signal takes 5 years to reach planet B as its being sent by the EM spectrum. Planet B then sends a rescue fleet at FTL to planet A that takes three minutes to reach planet A. The fleet arrives 5 years and three minutes after the distress signal was sent. No causality violation, no backward time travel.

The reason that works is that you're entirely disregarding relativity and only focusing on one reference frame because it happens not to violate causality in that particular one.

Sorry, but no.

[Roski]

Fair enough then. This seems to be one of the better explanations of it I could find actually, hopefully you can be satisfied with that.

It directly applies to Inertial viewers, or viewers that relative to each other, face no acceleration (meaning that point A and B could move in conjunction with each other). Therefore, interstellar travel at speeds beyond that of the speed of light could not ever be applied because there are no two single points in a travel station that move dependently or relative dependency to you. This is why Worm holes and blackholes can "violate causality" as you like to claim, because wormholes have rather inconclusive points and blackholes physically being point B to them (as long as it wasn't in serious ranges.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well it's not easy to explain how it works either.

Imagine there are two planets, each 5 light years away. Planet A sends a distress signal to planet B, and that signal takes 5 years to reach planet B as its being sent by the EM spectrum. Planet B then sends a rescue fleet at FTL to planet A that takes three minutes to reach planet A. The fleet arrives 5 years and three minutes after the distress signal was sent. No causality violation, no backward time travel.

The reason that works is that you're entirely disregarding relativity and only focusing on one reference frame because it happens not to violate causality in that particular one.

Sorry, but no.

He hasn't disregarded relativity, he's skipped the calculation of it by neglecting to inform us of the speed the fleet takes.

The fleet takes three minutes to arrive by what I assume is a reference frame that somehow includes both planets (or assumes that planet A knows that the fleet will move at a precise moment by their clocks). Causality would only be violated if they took three minutes to arrive, and arrives before the distress signal had been received by Planet B. Because that is time travel, not relativity.

[Harkback Union]

FTL doesn't work.

Light already goes at infinite velocity, you can't get faster then infinite.

Yes, the speed of light isn't actually c, its infinite, c is only the speed at which information spreads throughout the universe from a given point of reference.

Maybe wormholes work but humanity will probably not ever make it far enough to find out how to make them.

[Roski]

FTL doesn't work.

Light already goes at infinite velocity, you can't get faster then infinite.

Yes, the speed of light isn't actually c, its infinite, c is only the speed at which information spreads throughout the universe from a given point of reference.

Maybe wormholes work but humanity will probably not ever make it far enough to find out how to make them.

Call me redundant but there's a few citations needed.

[Diopolis]

FTL doesn't work.

Light already goes at infinite velocity, you can't get faster then infinite.

Yes, the speed of light isn't actually c, its infinite, c is only the speed at which information spreads throughout the universe from a given point of reference.

Maybe wormholes work but humanity will probably not ever make it far enough to find out how to make them.

Hello Aristotle.