http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Technol ... 06412.html



i thought i would try to explain that life on other planets almost certainly exists

but then i found this article

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133530.htm



and for the haters/TL;DR

intelligent life not existing on other planets, given the abundance of them, is as improbable as me only ever posting ONE bad idea, with every other idea completely revolutionising the way people think.

landswimmer, the fox news of Star Sonata

He's more like jehovah witnesses imo

DITKA, the wannabe landswimmer of starsonata.

There are two types of idiots, dumblanddumber.

Guess which one you are.

The problem with "super earths" as I understand it, is that they are like 5-10x the mass of the earth and says nothing of the climate or elements that make up the planet. It could be 100% frozen Mercury and still be called a "super earth".

But yes, I find Ditka retarded too.

Trolls Trolling Trolls.

And just because planets exist has nothing to do with the possibility of life forming.

Trolls and Drakes aside, it's still an exciting time in astronomy to be finding so many planets outside of our solar system, especially with recent discoveries of Earth-sized and smaller planets, some orbiting binary stars.

Regardless of how many intelligent, civilization-building species there are out there, Humanity is going to have plenty of places to explore in the future* once we get beyond our own solar system.


*If we survive, to any pessimists in the audience.

Sweet, new worshiper for me, Jesus 2.0. But your version is never updated, which just signifies your bland remarks and uncanny love for landdumber

Kepler team has found hundreds of planets, very few in the "goldilocks" zone as it's called by astronomers, the region where liquid water can exist.

Very unlikely. Yet there have been 2-3 possible candidates. Intelligent life, probably not. Maybe some squids floating around though

-

Not really. Gravitational lensing according to Einstein says that light is affected by gravity and bent at an angle when it encounters gravity. He showed this by saying that all the stars would appear to be in different places when a solar eclipse was in effect, because we would see stars but the sun would be directly in between us and the stars, bending the light. When one finally happened, he was right and made front page of the NYT



If there's an abscense of gravity then light wouldn't be affected. The universe is largely empty (no gravity) in between us and other stars, but the light makes it all that way.

So a fun idea but I had a lot of fun this year in my astronomy class learning this stuff sorry

What would work for "cloaking" is... hiding behind a big ass sun/planet as done in stargate

Y'know, I've been mulling over the idea of getting a degree in astronomy at some point in the next 15-20 years. I want to get into my animation career first and work with science advisors on this sort of stuff, but to get my own degree would be cool.

The problem is the math. I've never been very swift at solving number problems; I do equations in my head like an overloaded computer that's meanwhile downloading a terabyte-sized jpg. I'm gonna have to work on that. ಠ_ಠ

The problem isn't that. The problem is the son of bitches professors that have powerpoints and don't draw it out themselves they go 5x too fast.

So true. I went to a conference where the guy presented 100 slides in one hour. The slides were pages of a paper he wrote...