Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth

Post by Cyphase » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 12:55 AM UTC

dcposch wrote: post #496

dmix wrote: post #6

My favourite part of the press release: > The planets also are very close to each other. If a person was standing on one of the planet’s surface, they could gaze up and potentially see geological features or clouds of neighboring worlds, which would sometimes appear larger than the moon in Earth's sky. > In contrast to our sun, the TRAPPIST-1 star – classified as an ultra-cool dwarf – is so cool that liquid water cou…

> The planets also are very close to each other. If a person was standing on one of the planet’s surface, they could gaze up and potentially see geological features or clouds of neighboring worlds, which would sometimes appear larger than the moon in Earth's sky. this reminds me of one my favorite films ever. it is just four minutes long http://www.erikwernquist.com/wanderers/

Post by svachalek » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 1:00 AM UTC

LrnByTeach wrote: post #517

dmix wrote: post #6

My favourite part of the press release: > The planets also are very close to each other. If a person was standing on one of the planet’s surface, they could gaze up and potentially see geological features or clouds of neighboring worlds, which would sometimes appear larger than the moon in Earth's sky. > In contrast to our sun, the TRAPPIST-1 star – classified as an ultra-cool dwarf – is so cool that liquid water cou…

As these planets are most probably TIDALLY LOCKED, making it hard for LIFE to thrive. > All seven of TRAPPIST-1's planets orbit much closer than Earth orbits the Sun. A year on the closest planet passes in only 1.5 Earth days, while the sixth planet's year passes in only 12.3 days >Tidally locked planets likely have very large differences in temperature between their permanently lit day sides and their permanently da…

Post by johncolanduoni » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC

chris_va wrote: post #204

wallace_f wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My layman's reading of physics-for-layman books has taught me that if we were to travel at the speed of light, we'd convert into energy. However, I'm not so sure about 99.999999% the speed of light. That's really OK, as far as we know?

You are technically travelling at 99.99999% of the speed of light right now, relative to something.

Post by svachalek » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 1:25 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #101

h4nkoslo wrote: post #41

Uh oh. The "great filter" hypothesis is essentially that the rarity of intelligent life has to be explained by some parameter of the Drake equation, and that whatever the "small" parameter is is either in our past or in our future. If the "great filter" is the rarity of habitable worlds, then clearly we don't need to fear it, since we already found one. But if habitable worlds aren't rare, then it's more likely it li…

The theory as described in your link seems to hand-wave away the difficulties incumbent in the "colonization explosion" step. As it stands, intergalactic space travel (at scale) is utterly inconceivable in practical terms, and to simply assume that it is inevitable seems like a major flaw in the theory.

Post by certifiedloud » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 1:33 AM UTC

Arizhel wrote: post #539

maverick_iceman wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General relativity gives a very solid and accurate understanding of gravity.

It does? Great; please point me to some instructions on how to build an anti-gravity device. I can easily build myself an electromagnet with some wire and a battery, so if our understanding of gravity is so great, I should be able to do the same with gravity, right?