BREAKING: New potentially habitable exoplanet found around Teegarden's star

a reply to: scraedtosleep

From my unpopular opinion section of the interwebverse, I'm sure the planet exists where it's said that it exists with the characteristics that the supercomputers and astronomer determined that it has.

It still doesn't mean there's anything beyond basic life there. Pardon my view, but I consider the most intelligent creatures below our species on planet Earth such as whales, dolphins, primates etc to be very basic.

It's not the Greys home planet and base to conquer the universe with their superior intellect. Any species like that would have to be more about that life than even we are. Fighting and killing is what we're best at. More goes into killing enemy humans than saving friendly humans by far. Only recently have we started to accept a negative impact on the environment but we haven't. I don't see anyone agreeing with AOC on the principles of the Green New Deal.

a reply to: alfa015

I hate to break it, but this OP is a 1:1 ( word for word) copy of a OP on a less credible public Forum.

And in both cased the only source is the OP's youtube channel.

originally posted by: johnthejedi24
50 years to outside observers. To someone on the ship it would be the matter of a few months to years depending on speed.a reply to: scraedtosleep

...

No, You have that backwards. Traveling twelve light years would take 12 years at the speed of light (100% the speed of light, not 99.99%). To the person who remained behind on earth, that same journey would take far longer than 12 years, as would the journey back home after they found utopia. In no case would the journey ever be less than 12 years, one-way, for the traveler. And, even this is assuming zero mass and/or infinite energy (which we will ignore for the moment).

So, George Jetson takes off on a mission to this new planet. It takes him 12 years to get there. He spends a few weeks exploring and then hops back in his spaceship to report the good news. He travels 12 years to get back home to Earth. Civilization on Earth has aged 4,800 years (50 generations) while he has been gone.

And just for comparison; some groovy dude named Jesus hadn't even been born 2,400 years ago (which is just the journey there)!

Anything George could discover on planet X would have long since been discovered on Earth, or would no longer be relevant to society in that age.

I've said it a million times...long distance space travel, even if possible, is only significant to the space traveler himself. It is not relevant to the people he leaves behind.

Silly humans!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You are claiming the same thing as johnthejedi24. But he has got it backwards? LOL

a reply to: moebius

No, how do you figure that?

He was replying to STS who stated...

But yeah we can travel at speeds close to the speed of light ,very close. But that would still make a trip that's 50 light years away take over 50 years to reach.

STS was talking about the traveler, not the person left behind.

However, to your point...if the person left behind waited 50 years, then the traveler would have only gone 0.25 light years on their journey (actually half that if you include the round-trip).

ETA - In the example I used, I used the distance to the star system in the OP.

I was quoting the example of 50 LYs given by the poster I quoted, I know the actual Star is 12 LY away.a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

a reply to: johnthejedi24

Yes, I see who you were responding to, and I clarified this in my edit.

In any case, a 50 light year journey will take 50 years for the traveler. A 12 light year journey will take 12 light years for the traveler. To the people left behind these journeys will take 10,000 years and 2,400 years respectively. In other words, time does not collapse for the traveler, but rather progresses at a normal pace. The time dilation occurs between the stationary observer and the moving observer.

originally posted by: ausername
The solar system is reportedly twice as old as ours, so if there is intelligent life there, it would be far more advanced than ours.

Not necessarily. It is by pure chance (or design, if that's more to your liking) that human civilization is where it is now.

Just as easily could have been dinosaurs still as ruling the planet, a less developed homo erectus as the dominant species, we destroying ourselves in a nuclear shoot out during the cold war, or our civilization being a thousand years more advanced.

Progress is not linear.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Maybe one day after achieving light speed people can be put in cryo on the journey there at age 53. That way they can retire at 65 on a new planet. I'm sure though Congress would change Social Security for only Earth.

One major flaw in that. Light speed is unattainable. As long as mass is involved. A.sk Einstein.

Perhaps there is a short cut. Think: Quantum Entanglement; it's a hint.

"No soup for you"
And no shortcuts.
Unless one has a way to transform matter to wave.
Or , zero mass

Sad to see this attitude. We don't know everything. And if we have decided to limit our vision, we won't be going anywhere. Newton never envisioned quantum mechanics.

Why are facts sad to you ?
Who brought up Newton ?
Albert set the universal speed limit , not Isaac

You don't get it. You have closed your mind off to possibilities. You worship Einstein like a God. That limits your thinking. You beiieve in "facts," by God! And you've decided something is impossible because of it. It's not that these "facts" are wrong any more than Newtonian mechanics is wrong because quantum mechanics was discovered--something Einstein did not believe because "God does not play dice with the universe." He described quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance." Spooky? Really? How about explaining it? But he could not.

Sure. If you launch a spaceship toward Alpha Centauri it will take forever and a day to get there. BUt what if there is a "mistake in the equations." What if there is a way around this speed of light issue? What if you can get to the other end of the mobius strip not by traversing it, but by poking a hole and going to the other side? What if Warp Drive is simply yet to be invented?

One thing is certain. Because of your attitude, you'll never find it.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Nah. It doesn't even matter if there's planets out there that are inhabitable for the human species. We'll never get there anyway. Impossible distances to cross, and if we ever got to someplace using science fiction cryo tech, civilization back on earth would've probably be over before we got to this brand new world.

a reply to: schuyler

I'm not sure if you are attempting to be funny, or if you actually believe it's possible to ''punch a hole in the Universe and come out of it the other way'' like some cheap B-side Hollywood movie lmao. How about you put trust in the men whose IQ were far higher than most people who've ever lived, and who spent their entire lives studying all of this stuff?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: johnthejedi24

Yes, I see who you were responding to, and I clarified this in my edit.

In any case, a 50 light year journey will take 50 years for the traveler. A 12 light year journey will take 12 light years for the traveler. To the people left behind these journeys will take 10,000 years and 2,400 years respectively. In other words, time does not collapse for the traveler, but rather progresses at a normal pace. The time dilation occurs between the stationary observer and the moving observer.

Are you sure? Depending on percentage of speed of travel(99.9,99.9999%...etc) time dilation will cause the time until arrival for people on the ship to be lower as I said(days,months years). I thought with extreme near FTL speeds(99.999999+) a person could cross the galaxy in a lifetime, while millions of years pass back home?

1: Traveling at 1c in a standard forum is a NO GO.
Need another method...

2: More important, ive heard, red dwarf emit flares like CRAAAAAZY...
So it might be "alive" for the 5th time, or even 100....

originally posted by: Miccey
2: More important, ive heard, red dwarf emit flares like CRAAAAAZY...
So it might be "alive" for the 5th time, or even 100....

Teegarden's Star seems to be relatively stable for a red dwarf, possibly because it has calmed down in its "older" age of 9 billion years.

i have seen things with my own eyes that don't use any sort of combustion to fly and demonstrated the ability even inside atmosphere to accelerate and maintain extreme levels of speed.

whatever the power source is on these craft is, it must have incredible energy density as well as a way to bend what we consider physical laws i.e stopping instantly even at high speed, right angle turns at very high speeds, no sonic booms at all and whatever the method of propulsion is im sure most people would say would be impossible.

I can imagine that these type of craft could very easily get to LEO with a payload to build a much larger version of itself with stocks of food and whatever else and use its propulsion to basically accelerate at very high speeds indefinitely.

i also think that whatever the triangles and now tic-tacs use as a power source and method of propulsion would afford them a build in EM shield to move dust and rocks out of the way in space.


i think it would be very short sided to think we aren't already on other planets in our own solar system, heck we could get to mars right now with normal methods.

a reply to: tayton

You say if there is life on another planet twice as old as our they would be more advanced?

You make a good point, certain segments of our populations advanced in technology and brought the rest of the world with them. There are tribes still around the globe that have not advanced one little bit from 2000 years ago. They are happy to live how they are and not make progress, there civilizations don't have a R & D departments. Now imagine a whole planet that felt this way in it's culture. It could stay primitive forever.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You make a valid point.

But if humankind is anything to go by if it was a planet wide civilization surely there'd be at least a small number who would question, invent, adapt and seek new challenges and opportunities?

These civilizations on earth tend be remote, very isolated and relatively small in number.

Human development shows that intelligence and evolution doesn't just drive us to point and then stop, it continues to push onwards and evolve.

I'm no expert, just a simple mans take on things.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for the link!

originally posted by: Gothmog
Light speed is unattainable.
As long as mass is involved.

Interesting. So if you counteract inertia, have you counteracted mass?

a reply to: Freeborn

Yes but look at the culture of Native Americans in Canada, USA and Mexico did they show any advancement in maybe 4000 years ? That is a big geographical space, take that culture and add it to the tribes of Africa and you have a sizable chunk of the planet. It's the world powers that advanced technology for more prosperous civilizations after they conquered and subjugated large area's. The Greek and Roman empires are prime examples and Great Britain as well.
A civilization with tribes that are happy with a simple culture might not progress in technology and if they are all equal in power no advancement might be made.
You could have a class "M" planet full of intelligent but simple people that never develop systems of technology based on capitalism or warfare to drive them along like we have seen in our society in the last 200 years.