Discussion in 'General Chat Forum' started by p1tse, Jan 6, 2014.
It's amazing us humans can calculate such things being so far away. What are your views?
Wonder if they have Tesco's as well?
What kind of views are you looking for?
In what sense do they consider it Earth's 'twin'? At the same weight (they mean mass) but 60% larger, it would have a surface gravity of 3/4 g. That's midway between rocky and gas-giant. It would have huge implications for its atmosphere and climate. It would not be Earth-like.
The Andromeda Galaxy is roughly the same size as our galaxy, The Milky Way, and is 2.5 million light years from Earth. You can see its sun in the night sky with the naked eye. Our galaxies are moving towards each other, so if you stick around for approximately 3 billion years, it should be quite a show. But it's reckoned that as they are so large, there will be no collisions.
Trivia (showing the insignificance of this planet on a universal scale)
It takes a jet plane 48 hours to circumnavigate the Earth on the Equator at 500 m.p.h.
To fly round the Equator of the largest sun known to man at the same speed of 500 m.p.h. would take just over 11 years.
"To fly round the Equator of the largest sun known to man at the same speed of 500 m.p.h. would take just over 11 years."
I think you mean thousands of years read 2000-10,000 years. read that elseware
If so, do they grit their car parks. if they have snow that is?
I must have heard that wrong.
I just calculated it at approximately 173 years to go round VY Canis Major, the largest known star (well... it was a year or so ago, but who knows these days)
"This planet might have the same mass as Earth, but it is certainly not Earth-like," said lead astronomer Dr David Kipping, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics in the US.
Now, call me old-fashioned, but to be a 'twin' usually means that some sort of similarity exists between 2 things? This just sounds like a deliberately poorly-worded headline to me. Is is from the Daily Mail by any chance
edit: Sky News has the same duff headline.
Quite large then!
About 900 years. The largest known stars are about 3 billion miles in diameter (the Sun is about 900,000).
There is only one Gaia.
The right distance away from the sun... distance from the moon - just so. Runs like clockwork - for the moment...
... All by chance? I think not.
Of course it's not by chance, it's by nature.
It runs like clockwork because everything that is running like clockwork has adapted to the environment it's in.
It's by chance that the conditions were perfect for it to happen though. But then again, given the, possible infinite, vastness of our universe, it's not really THAT surprising.
Oh ye of little faith. I still believe it is the only organic celestial body in the cosmos. But then again that's just me...
Impossible, we will find one, whether we ever get there is remote but the only one, not a chance.
Aye, yer reet... 'Science' has all the answers - like being able to label 30% of what space is comprised of.
I imagine it runs like clockwork because we set our clocks by it
So who has the answer to the other 70% ??????
'Dark Matter' apparently... Not unlike the term 'Idiopathic'...
Scientific speak for 'Dunno, haven't a clue'.
No, scientific speak for 'I will ridicule other people's hard work so I can try and look clever but still do nothing.'
"Dunno I havent got a clue" is the entire basis of science. It is all about the investigation of nature.
If you dont even grasp that, then you have no business commenting on science matters at all.
Rob has a rather jaundiced outlook on life that creeps into his postings. We are encouraging him to leave that behind him.
... yourselves and YT it seems...
It would take us 19,000 to 81,000 yars to reach a star that is 4.22 light years away.
So it'll take us around 1 million to 4 million years to get there (200 light years)
and once a planet is 13 billion light years away, about 520000000000000 years.
Nah, everyone knows you just go full belt in a wheelchair and smash into a mirror to get there.
I think you should substitute that for Uraemic...
With what acceleration/deceleration?
If you could get up to light speed very quickly it could be 50 years.
maybe I missed something, but to reach a star 4.22 light years away - travelling at the speed of light it would take.. 4.22 years?
And that's a big "if" it would take immense amount of power to reach light speed. It would take years to accelerate, and then de-accelerate to near the speed of light
Striving for the Speed of Light – Starts With A Bang
I see I was interpreting 'very quickly' as instantaneous
warp speed from 0 to multiple speed of light in star trek, suffer from a few trillion g in g forces lol. Be funny if geordi forgot to switch on inertia dampners when they went to warp.
as for power requirements you'd probably need a sun or black hole as a power source. Certainly not rocket propellent you'd probably use earth's entire water (hydrogen) supply for a space craft to reach near speed of light.
Separate names with a comma.