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

Seven-Planet System Detected

livasperiklis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#61

Post by ars »

vectorjohn wrote: post #54
ars wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is also cryogenics and other life extension techniques that could get us there. You are aware those don't actually exist? People assume they will exist, but we have nothing to base that assumption on except "it would be cool".

Besides the fact I think it's clear they will exist (assuming we don't destroy ourselves somehow), I already addressed that. We're already talking about things that don't currently exist. I can talk about a ship to Mars which doesn't currently exist. But both a Mars trip and cryogenics seem pretty reasonable to me.

> it's clear they will exist

???? Based on what exactly?

> But both a Mars trip and cryogenics seem pretty reasonable to me.

You think those are similar? We could do a Mars trip today with enough money. Every bit of money in the entire world would still not get you cryogenics - it requires a new idea that doesn't exist right now.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#62

Post by fernly »

alex-g wrote: post #33
gnaritas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

15.6 years for the passenger, thousands of years from our perspective.

So after a few subjective years, you will be overtaken by newer and faster ships, and when you arrive, there will be a flourishing civilization already there to greet you.

And the people in the faster ships will be your grandchildren, yup. Plot of Heinlein's "Time for the Stars", pretty much.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#63

Post by tg3 »

deletes wrote: post #5
ck2 wrote: post #4

the entire system lies within one Earth orbit Perhaps little chance of life as we know it.

Moons orbiting the outermost gas giant could support earth like life.

Although if the gas giant is anything like Jupiter those moons are probably getting smothered in radiation that is dangerous to Earth-like life.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#64

Post by pmahoney »

jlgreco wrote: post #32
doctoboggan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just replace solar with stellar.

This seems like yet another case of unnecessarily Earth/Sol-centric terminology, much like "apogee" being Earth specific such that you have to use "apoapsis" if you want to be generic. I mean, do we really need a new word for every planet, the sun, a star in general, a black hole specifically, and galaxies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis#Terminology We should declare terminology bankruptcy to wipe out our existin…

So, what gets to be "mg"?

I'm not against the idea, but please don't have the new base also start with "g".

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#66

Post by jlgreco »

nitrogen wrote: post #53
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like yet another case of unnecessarily Earth/Sol-centric terminology, much like "apogee" being Earth specific such that you have to use "apoapsis" if you want to be generic. I mean, do we really need a new word for every planet, the sun, a star in general, a black hole specifically, and galaxies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis#Terminology We should declare terminology bankruptcy to wipe out our existin…

Shouldn't that be "milligrave" if you're using SI prefixes?

You are absolutely correct.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#67

Post by jlgreco »

pmahoney wrote: post #64
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like yet another case of unnecessarily Earth/Sol-centric terminology, much like "apogee" being Earth specific such that you have to use "apoapsis" if you want to be generic. I mean, do we really need a new word for every planet, the sun, a star in general, a black hole specifically, and galaxies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis#Terminology We should declare terminology bankruptcy to wipe out our existin…

So, what gets to be "mg"? I'm not against the idea, but please don't have the new base also start with "g".

Hence "terminology bankruptcy", all existing terminology debt will be erased ;)

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#68

Post by jeorgun »

woofyman wrote: post #58
manojlds wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many say "moon" when they mean natural sattelitte of a planet

Our moon is named Luna.

I've always wondered how Spanish speakers deal with this naming convention— do they have some different naming scheme (tal vez nuestra luna se llama `Moon'?), or is there just not an equivalent proper noun?

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#69

Post by paolord »

deletes wrote: post #51
Debugreality wrote: post #45

I found this site interesting for more information: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=KOI-351... The star is about the same size as sol so it might be possible to live on some of the moons of the edge planet if we ever got there.

I think you found my new favorite website. Some of the closest habitable neighbour stars. tau Ceti: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=tau%20C... Gliese 876: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=Gliese%... HD 62509: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=HD%2062... Gliese 581: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=Gliese%... This is an interesting example…

Was Gliese the one where the aliens from the Battleship movie came from? I think I read somewhere some scientist picked it for the movie.
Post reply on HN