Was listening about this on the radio this morning. Its only 600 or so light years away from us.
Just looked up the speed of light, 669,600,000 miles per hour. So, say we invented something that didn't run out of fuel or food. At speeds we can travel, we'd be there in somewhere around 7 million years?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:08 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Just think, if there's intelligent life there and we communicate with it, we'll be talking to people from 600 years ago, so whoever's on that planet now would be 600 years more advanced than what we find.
In another discussion someone did some calculations and figured out that if we had a ship that could constantly accelerate at 1 G, even though the trip would take 100's of years, the astronauts would only age 12. (no, I didn't check the math - just going with it for now). So a round trip brings you back here about 1000+ years into the future, but you're only 24 years older. Heck, I'd do that just to see our future. Seeing the other planet is just a bonus.
IP: Logged
12:42 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
In another discussion someone did some calculations and figured out that if we had a ship that could constantly accelerate at 1 G, even though the trip would take 100's of years, the astronauts would only age 12. (no, I didn't check the math - just going with it for now). So a round trip brings you back here about 1000+ years into the future, but you're only 24 years older. Heck, I'd do that just to see our future. Seeing the other planet is just a bonus.
Isn't the aging slower in space idea irrelevant, because we cannot go fast enough? I don't nkow alot about it. Isn't 60% the speed of light required? Even then it is just perception?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:13 PM
Celthora87GT Member
Posts: 1485 From: New Berlin, WI Registered: Dec 2010
Isn't the aging slower in space idea irrelevant, because we cannot go fast enough? I don't nkow alot about it. Isn't 60% the speed of light required? Even then it is just perception?
From what I've heard, this phenomenon has been observed with the space shuttle. Only milliseconds are saved (or lost), but it proves that 60% c is not required.
Yeah, Einstein predicted relativistic time dilation and it's been prove since with many experiments using very accurate time keeping.
Regarding the planet, it's not actually known if it's Earth-like, we don't know what it's like. We only know the likely range of diameter (about 1.5 that of Earth) and that it's in the zone around its start where water would be most likely to remain liquid. These are calculated observations based on observing the light from the star changing in brightness as the planet passes between the star and us. If the planet has any water and a relatively thick atmosphere then the water would probably be liquid on some part of it.
Oh, a side note WRT traveling at relativistic speeds: The faster you go the greater your relative mass, so if you approach the speed of light your mass will approach infinity. The more mass you have the more push you have to have to continue accelerating, so at nearly the speed of light you'd need essentially unlimited power to continue accelerating. Also, time would stand still for you while the folks back home got old, died, then the sun got old, and died.
IP: Logged
01:51 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Yeah, Einstein predicted relativistic time dilation and it's been prove since with many experiments using very accurate time keeping.
Oh, a side note WRT traveling at relativistic speeds: The faster you go the greater your relative mass, so if you approach the speed of light your mass will approach infinity. The more mass you have the more push you have to have to continue accelerating, so at nearly the speed of light you'd need essentially unlimited power to continue accelerating. Also, time would stand still for you while the folks back home got old, died, then the sun got old, and died.
So going speeds we can go, for the amount of time we could though. How much of a time gap are we talking?
IP: Logged
02:02 PM
Xyster Member
Posts: 1444 From: Great Falls MT Registered: Apr 2011
So going speeds we can go, for the amount of time we could though. How much of a time gap are we talking?
Right now? Infinity. We don't have technology to get a significant amount of mass out of the Sun's gravity well, and won't have for the foreseeable future due to a lack of expenditure on research and development in space.
IP: Logged
04:20 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Right now? Infinity. We don't have technology to get a significant amount of mass out of the Sun's gravity well, and won't have for the foreseeable future due to a lack of expenditure on research and development in space.
I mean the amount of time "lost" or "gained". Like .001 second?
Isn't the aging slower in space idea irrelevant, because we cannot go fast enough? I don't nkow alot about it. Isn't 60% the speed of light required? Even then it is just perception?
Your point is correct. While we can measure small differences, it take a huge speed before it's perceptible unless it's a chick-flick. Then time slows way down just sitting there.
We can measure the difference just placing a clock at the top of a tall tower.
IP: Logged
05:04 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Does google maps have a street level view of this new planet yet? If no I call a hoax here. If I can't see it on google it doesn't exist.
Bing, Google and Yahoo maps arent all that accurate. My cousins 1.5 million dollar house doesnt even show up on it and the area zooms in close enough to determine car makes. Hes lived there 2 years. My own house shows the Corvette and minivan I got rid of 2 or 3 years ago sitting in the driveway.
Just think, if there's intelligent life there and we communicate with it, we'll be talking to people from 600 years ago, so whoever's on that planet now would be 600 years more advanced than what we find.
In another discussion someone did some calculations and figured out that if we had a ship that could constantly accelerate at 1 G, even though the trip would take 100's of years, the astronauts would only age 12. (no, I didn't check the math - just going with it for now). So a round trip brings you back here about 1000+ years into the future, but you're only 24 years older. Heck, I'd do that just to see our future. Seeing the other planet is just a bonus.
We're really going to need to come up with a FTL, Warp, Wormhole type drive system ... yayaya.. the physics say no can do..
***Umm didnt we just discover, ohh poop a particle that can move faster than light.. Ya.. The Earth aint flat.. .. Sorry kids we're getting into Science/theology world.. Dark matter, antimatter.. etc.. (Our theory says can't exist.. god says.. hell ya!)
If you limit yourself to a+b= ab.. You're ignoring about a thousand / billion events that could adjust/alter that equation. Yes.. Quantum physics.. brain.. splode.. ack..
BTW.. many many yrs since Schrodinger brought the cat into the equation.. so.. cat is dead .. end of live cycle and lack of feeding .
IP: Logged
09:33 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Right now? Infinity. We don't have technology to get a significant amount of mass out of the Sun's gravity well, and won't have for the foreseeable future due to a lack of expenditure on research and development in space.
A *manned* spacecraft, maybe not. But Voyager 1 and 2 are doing a good job leaving the solar system. We probably *could* leave the solar system in a manned spacecraft, but not in any practical sense.
IP: Logged
10:08 PM
Dec 7th, 2011
Shill Member
Posts: 2166 From: Spokane, WA Registered: Apr 2009
Yes, why I included "going speeds we can go, for the amount of time we could" in my post.
The maximum we could experience would be nearly 1 second for example? Virtually irrelevant.
The time difference is sufficient that GPS satellites have to account for it.
[quote The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit. [/quote]
If you limit yourself to a+b= ab.. You're ignoring about a thousand / billion events that could adjust/alter that equation. Yes.. Quantum physics.. brain.. splode.. ack..
hmmm - "a+b" did not equal "ab" when I went to school, must be some new math.
...that being said, I am sure I saw a show on tv where they discovered a transwarp corridor near the earth - couldn't we just use that?
