Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 351 posts

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#191

Post by s1artibartfast »

rbanffy wrote: post #106
aerique wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that fork think of it?

If I were to fork myself in this situation, I'd make one fork who thinks that making the trip will be awesome and another that will think that staying home is the coolest thing. If we can, from time to time, merge our memories and refork, this wouldn't be a big issue, as both forks would experience both lives. I think that, at this point, we wouldn't be that much human anymore.

You don't even have to modify it. If you are a person that thinks going and leaving a fork would be cool, and also thinks staying and sending a fork would be cool, the job is done.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#192

Post by s1artibartfast »

once_inc wrote: post #151
mortehu wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Earth-like" just means terrestrial, as opposed to jovian. It means it has a rocky surface.

Then they should have just called it a rocky planet. Earth-like is a massive misnomer/clickbait here.

It is the term used in planetary science. Not understanding something doesn't mean clickbait

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#193

Post by psyc »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #184
rbanffy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. For you to think you are traveling 20x faster than light, your friends that stayed at home would have to see you traveling at 0.99995c. For 233x faster than light, that's a lot of 9's in that number.

There is no faster than light, I can't parse this statement.

Distance divided by [time experienced by traveler]. GP is not saying that traveler went faster than light.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#194

Post by ethbr0 »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #179
ethbr0 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to think we've improved our technology a few orders of magnitude in the last 1.8 million years.

And so you think you can just mush those two claims together and come to the conclusion that sustaining life on mars must be achievable?

Not must be. Is probably achievable, and is worth attempting, even at the cost of lives.

You can argue from either the perspective of futility of attempt (no chance of success) or futility of outcome (success wouldn't be worth it), but I'm pretty convinced both would be weak arguments, both logically and historically.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#195

Post by ncmncm »

monkeywork wrote: post #176
uwuemu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A probe based on nuclear pulse propulsion could do it in around 50 years, with today's technology. It's not that we can't do it fast (within one average human lifespan), it's that the project would be very expensive and something like Nasa has a relatively tight budget. I mean we, as humanity, have to have an eccentric billionaire start a Martian fire (SpaceX Starship) under our lazy asses to even start to think abou…

Do you have any suggested reading about: "A probe based on nuclear pulse propulsion could do it in around 50 years, with today's technology." I was always under the impression that these vast distances were basically entire unreachable in several human lifetimes.

Is talking about detonating nukes behind a ship with a big shield behind it.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#196

Post by shswkna »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #180
ethbr0 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to {the Middle East, Europe / Asia, Australia, the New World, interior South America, the North American West) seems pretty useless to me at this time. It’s a super hostile environment and we don’t have the technology yet to have a self sustaining base there. Give it a few decades and progress in {insert technology} will make a base much easier. There is plenty of work to be done on {current place}. We have to…

This is absolutely, objectively, incorrect. You might as well argue that you can build a self-sustaining base on Antarctica. Of course you can't, because Antarctica can't support life. No amount of shouting into a bullhorn about adventure will change that. It might be possible with an absolutely epic effort to airlift soil, nuclear reactors, nuclear and other fuels, machinery for every eventually (including chip fabs…

Linear Reasoning

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#197

Post by s1artibartfast »

rbanffy wrote: post #103
samatman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope! If you obtain the full speed of light then a) you're not made of baryons anymore so congratulations on that and b) no time passes whatsoever between your being emitted in some tight laser beam on planet A, and being transcribed on planet B, from your perspective. None. Photons don't experience time, they are time.

Not exactly. For you to think you are traveling 20x faster than light, your friends that stayed at home would have to see you traveling at 0.99995c. For 233x faster than light, that's a lot of 9's in that number.

I get 0.999c for 20x and 0.99999c for 220+

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#198

Post by wcarron »

ethbr0 wrote: post #149
spaetzleesser wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to Mars seems pretty useless to me at this time. It’s a super hostile environment and we don’t have the technology yet to have a self sustaining base there. Give it a few decades and progress in robotics will make a Mars base much easier. There is plenty of work to be done on Earth. We have to solve clean energy production and in general reduce pollution. These are massive technological challenges that deserve…

Going to {the Middle East, Europe / Asia, Australia, the New World, interior South America, the North American West) seems pretty useless to me at this time. It’s a super hostile environment and we don’t have the technology yet to have a self sustaining base there. Give it a few decades and progress in {insert technology} will make a base much easier. There is plenty of work to be done on {current place}. We have to…

> Only one technology matters: that which enables transportation.

Is this tongue-in-cheek? I genuinely hope so.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#199

Post by spaetzleesser »

Tepix wrote: post #183
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely, objectively, incorrect. You might as well argue that you can build a self-sustaining base on Antarctica. Of course you can't, because Antarctica can't support life. No amount of shouting into a bullhorn about adventure will change that. It might be possible with an absolutely epic effort to airlift soil, nuclear reactors, nuclear and other fuels, machinery for every eventually (including chip fabs…

If we really wanted to, i don't see why we couldn't establish a self-sustaining base in Antarctica. Of course, it's forbidden.

Then create one in the Sahara or the Atacana desert at 5000m elevation. Still way easier than Mars.
Post reply on HN