Yeah, that's the simple thing with probabilites...but no, you preferred to dismiss it outright, how all results will be in short orbits, and also for some reason not worthy of our attention (nvm that it would be only more data regarding the prevalence of the only planets that we should, apparently, "care" about) - oh, I'm sorry, you expected this to be easy? (hence also inexpensive)
Then forget about interferometers. Again, better telescopes absolutely need output from something like Kepler mission, to be viable & withing sensible budgets, for starters. It's an absolutely essential step. But for you it seems to be "who cares?"...what, it's only about nice pictures (again, you're kidding yourself, you're not likely to live long enough to see it - look at the best we can get with Pluto with the amount of interferometry which is, compared to geometries involved with any probable telescope & extrasolar planets, around the same league). Heavily blurred pictures are not the really juicy goal, spectroscopy is.
(you're trying to lecture me while talking initially about some supposed wobble in case of Kepler methods?)
Ehhh...it can see any planets. Sure, the probability or transit decreases with greater orbital periods, but those are very simple probabilities from very simple geometry - considering time of observations and number of stars observed, there should be something. With sample size giving also decent idea about the number of such planets overall.
Again, the reason of this mission is not to determie a lot about the composition of atmospheres / etc.; but we will know where to look next. With a an expensive time of an expensive telescope which focuses on single stars (and you're kidding yourself about continents or clouds)
Kepler is operating for over a year now, so no, these planets are NOT "all in short, close orbits" (furthermore, it doesn't operate on the basis of "wobble" at all...)
For a telescope which can pinpoint a star and observe a planet during its transit, making spectroscopy/etc., first we need a nice list of interesting planets, with times of transit, taken out of huge group of stars. Keples is doing just that.
Well, a being with such slow perception as to not notice us wouldn't really be able to perform what we could consider an actual spaceflight. Indeed, I would be very surprised by the existence of such slow intelligence that would either have to concern itself with spaceflight (as an extraordinary form of travel vs. simply a part of its essence, but that puts it outside of the problem & context) or for which it is in any way possible.
On top of that, life spans seem to be basically determined by evolutionary pressures; which for a long time come primarily from...other species, other life. Even if we were to assume that many aliens don't have life times similar to ours (which might be unlikely considering similar scales of chemical and hence all biological processes, within an order or so of magnitude) - then evolutionary pressures (but this time on a galactic scale) would still probably mean that "fast" species inevitably outcompete "slow" ones (if any were to exist). Embryo ship can be easily made to travel much, much faster than stasis or generation ship (especially for "slow" and hence probably quite big beings; even in their case thousands of years is much harder than hundreds; how do you stop all containers leaking everything stored inside?). You can build them without putting such a monumental strain on your planetary system. You can launch them semi-regularly. Things which seem to assure much faster spread.
Fine, dismiss our world. As you almost said, it's a confusion of "in our scale" with what is merely "in our place"; our scale is indeed almost empty. Quantum world - depends how you look at it, either also almost completelly empty or...completelly filled (not in style of solid, more like liquid), and it doesn't really matter if one looks at what we call "vacuum" or some solid matter. Galaxy, groups of them...that's not the cosmological level yet; it becomes quite...swarmed eventually.
Why does it have to be a subset of the term "just planet"? Why not try to take the Sun under pure "class" system? (Sun was a planet once, as was the Moon)
It's not bad as it is - bodies which are very much closer to "just planet" than most of the debris, but not fullfilling certain major orbital & origin criteria (and hence not swarming lists of planets, with their numbers, in the future)
Well, as far as we can tell now - they don't have plate tectonics (maybe Europa, in a way...); they are geologically active, sure, but not with plate tectonics. And that activity isn't a function of their size, but tidal forces.
But we do have it, that's the point. And "planet" simply means one type of planetary bodies already.
Dward planet, terrestrial planet, gas giant (among them distinction between neptunes/jupiters and hot/cold), sub-brown dwarf; iron planet, chthonian planet, carbon planet, ocean planet, trojan planet, rogue planet...there's plenty of different classes.
Now you'd want to replace descriptive and flexible monikers with rigid symbol classifications? OK, so perhaps, maybe, you're used to Star Trek fantasy setting, which also nicely covers most of the latin alphabet...but here, let me show you how it would look in practice:
Class (put in one symbol from this alphabet,;/. & unicode...) Planet Class (put several, if some body is like that) Planet
And you know, the best would be to just settle with what a planet was for Greeks - that includes the Moon and the Sun... - but with Star Trek classification system.
Don't count on any multi-national rush to visit some random Earth-like planet in our relative stellar neighbourhood; most of them will be way beyond reach.
We will start with absolutely closest stars first, really nvm if there seems to be a habitable planet or not. "And then for the next 300 years" (or so) the small unmanned probe will be en route before even getting there (and hopefully done in a way similar to this concept, even if with less advanced tech, to be somewhat capable of mass production & launching, instead of a one-shot effort)
You must qualify it a bit better - there's no such thing as "Centauri system" - "...Centauri" is a moniker of stars in the constellation of Centaurus; only few of them quite close. Or probably the closest, as is the case with Proxima Centauri.
In this solar system we have Venus - very similar in size to earth and made of rock. However it in no way could be described as habitable by even the toughest forms of life found here.
Actually, it could - and it is on the list of potential candidates for life.
There is a level in the atmosphere where the conditions are very Earth-like.
On top of it, the only mode of interstellar travel which seems feasible, with a technology that's almost certainly within the range of advanced civilization - embryo colonisation - would strongly promote ignoring systems where there is another civilization already; maybe even ignoring those with highly developed biosphere.
And we're shifting pretty quickly to methods of radio communication which look more and more like noise, nvm getting weaker and weaker in regards to transmission power...
Magnetic field is in large part about keeping the atmosphere from being blown away by stellar wind, not radiation per se - magnetosphere doesn't stop electromagnetic waves, and as for particle radiation - the atmosphere would stop most of it.
Anyway, it could be that Earht itself is a borderline planet for life, just big enough for plate tectonics (something which Venus lacks, and which probably contributed greatly to its conditions); maybe even slightly too small in itself, but was pushed into habitable range by the collision with Theia (the collision that spawned the Moon)
You're missing one important possible reason - while habitable planets and indeed life might be common (hey, there are over a dozen suspect bodies only in our system), the conditions for complex multicellular life and very complex, competitve ecosystems (possibly promoting intelligence at some point) might be not.
How many billion yers before Earth spawned a moderately intelligent species? How many millenia before that species had even rudimentary technical civilization?
On one hand - "real" vacuum is nowhere to be found. On the other - you are mostly empty space, too; considering the sizes of subatomic particles and "empty" space between them.
We mostly just live in a curious range of size, between quantum and cosmological, that gives a bit nonrepresentive ideas about the universe; it can be easily said to be full of matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Also a solution to free beer or two at a pub. Well, relatively speaking.
Seems the same effect was present, at least in the past, with pink GBA and pink NDS; new ones, too. Hey, if people want you to have a beer on them...
Not in the Netherlands; and most of the world for that matter.
Yeah, that's the simple thing with probabilites...but no, you preferred to dismiss it outright, how all results will be in short orbits, and also for some reason not worthy of our attention (nvm that it would be only more data regarding the prevalence of the only planets that we should, apparently, "care" about) - oh, I'm sorry, you expected this to be easy? (hence also inexpensive)
Then forget about interferometers. Again, better telescopes absolutely need output from something like Kepler mission, to be viable & withing sensible budgets, for starters. It's an absolutely essential step. But for you it seems to be "who cares?"...what, it's only about nice pictures (again, you're kidding yourself, you're not likely to live long enough to see it - look at the best we can get with Pluto with the amount of interferometry which is, compared to geometries involved with any probable telescope & extrasolar planets, around the same league). Heavily blurred pictures are not the really juicy goal, spectroscopy is.
(you're trying to lecture me while talking initially about some supposed wobble in case of Kepler methods?)
Ehhh...it can see any planets. Sure, the probability or transit decreases with greater orbital periods, but those are very simple probabilities from very simple geometry - considering time of observations and number of stars observed, there should be something. With sample size giving also decent idea about the number of such planets overall.
Again, the reason of this mission is not to determie a lot about the composition of atmospheres / etc.; but we will know where to look next. With a an expensive time of an expensive telescope which focuses on single stars (and you're kidding yourself about continents or clouds)
Imagine a beowulf cluster using those!
Kepler is operating for over a year now, so no, these planets are NOT "all in short, close orbits" (furthermore, it doesn't operate on the basis of "wobble" at all...)
For a telescope which can pinpoint a star and observe a planet during its transit, making spectroscopy/etc., first we need a nice list of interesting planets, with times of transit, taken out of huge group of stars. Keples is doing just that.
Well, a being with such slow perception as to not notice us wouldn't really be able to perform what we could consider an actual spaceflight. Indeed, I would be very surprised by the existence of such slow intelligence that would either have to concern itself with spaceflight (as an extraordinary form of travel vs. simply a part of its essence, but that puts it outside of the problem & context) or for which it is in any way possible.
On top of that, life spans seem to be basically determined by evolutionary pressures; which for a long time come primarily from...other species, other life. Even if we were to assume that many aliens don't have life times similar to ours (which might be unlikely considering similar scales of chemical and hence all biological processes, within an order or so of magnitude) - then evolutionary pressures (but this time on a galactic scale) would still probably mean that "fast" species inevitably outcompete "slow" ones (if any were to exist). Embryo ship can be easily made to travel much, much faster than stasis or generation ship (especially for "slow" and hence probably quite big beings; even in their case thousands of years is much harder than hundreds; how do you stop all containers leaking everything stored inside?). You can build them without putting such a monumental strain on your planetary system. You can launch them semi-regularly. Things which seem to assure much faster spread.
Fine, dismiss our world. As you almost said, it's a confusion of "in our scale" with what is merely "in our place"; our scale is indeed almost empty. Quantum world - depends how you look at it, either also almost completelly empty or...completelly filled (not in style of solid, more like liquid), and it doesn't really matter if one looks at what we call "vacuum" or some solid matter. Galaxy, groups of them...that's not the cosmological level yet; it becomes quite...swarmed eventually.
...hence not with "no user-input", requiring deviation from defaults.
Few data connections? It's primarily a telephony network, with QoS geared heavily towards that goal.
Why does it have to be a subset of the term "just planet"? Why not try to take the Sun under pure "class" system? (Sun was a planet once, as was the Moon)
It's not bad as it is - bodies which are very much closer to "just planet" than most of the debris, but not fullfilling certain major orbital & origin criteria (and hence not swarming lists of planets, with their numbers, in the future)
Well, as far as we can tell now - they don't have plate tectonics (maybe Europa, in a way...); they are geologically active, sure, but not with plate tectonics. And that activity isn't a function of their size, but tidal forces.
Yeah, what is wrong with it? It's used just fine... (just for something different than dwarf planets)
But we do have it, that's the point. And "planet" simply means one type of planetary bodies already.
Dward planet, terrestrial planet, gas giant (among them distinction between neptunes/jupiters and hot/cold), sub-brown dwarf; iron planet, chthonian planet, carbon planet, ocean planet, trojan planet, rogue planet...there's plenty of different classes.
Now you'd want to replace descriptive and flexible monikers with rigid symbol classifications?
OK, so perhaps, maybe, you're used to Star Trek fantasy setting, which also nicely covers most of the latin alphabet...but here, let me show you how it would look in practice:
Class (put in one symbol from this alphabet,; /. & unicode...) Planet
Class (put several, if some body is like that) Planet
And you know, the best would be to just settle with what a planet was for Greeks - that includes the Moon and the Sun... - but with Star Trek classification system.
It's probably more like many members of their team being really excited. And many observers.
What the Kepler mission is doing, and any possible outcomes, is mighty exciting after all.
Don't count on any multi-national rush to visit some random Earth-like planet in our relative stellar neighbourhood; most of them will be way beyond reach.
We will start with absolutely closest stars first, really nvm if there seems to be a habitable planet or not. "And then for the next 300 years" (or so) the small unmanned probe will be en route before even getting there (and hopefully done in a way similar to this concept, even if with less advanced tech, to be somewhat capable of mass production & launching, instead of a one-shot effort)
You must qualify it a bit better - there's no such thing as "Centauri system" - " ...Centauri" is a moniker of stars in the constellation of Centaurus; only few of them quite close. Or probably the closest, as is the case with Proxima Centauri.
In this solar system we have Venus - very similar in size to earth and made of rock. However it in no way could be described as habitable by even the toughest forms of life found here.
Actually, it could - and it is on the list of potential candidates for life.
There is a level in the atmosphere where the conditions are very Earth-like.
On top of it, the only mode of interstellar travel which seems feasible, with a technology that's almost certainly within the range of advanced civilization - embryo colonisation - would strongly promote ignoring systems where there is another civilization already; maybe even ignoring those with highly developed biosphere.
And we're shifting pretty quickly to methods of radio communication which look more and more like noise, nvm getting weaker and weaker in regards to transmission power...
Magnetic field is in large part about keeping the atmosphere from being blown away by stellar wind, not radiation per se - magnetosphere doesn't stop electromagnetic waves, and as for particle radiation - the atmosphere would stop most of it.
Anyway, it could be that Earht itself is a borderline planet for life, just big enough for plate tectonics (something which Venus lacks, and which probably contributed greatly to its conditions); maybe even slightly too small in itself, but was pushed into habitable range by the collision with Theia (the collision that spawned the Moon)
You're missing one important possible reason - while habitable planets and indeed life might be common (hey, there are over a dozen suspect bodies only in our system), the conditions for complex multicellular life and very complex, competitve ecosystems (possibly promoting intelligence at some point) might be not.
How many billion yers before Earth spawned a moderately intelligent species? How many millenia before that species had even rudimentary technical civilization?
On one hand - "real" vacuum is nowhere to be found. On the other - you are mostly empty space, too; considering the sizes of subatomic particles and "empty" space between them.
We mostly just live in a curious range of size, between quantum and cosmological, that gives a bit nonrepresentive ideas about the universe; it can be easily said to be full of matter.
http://www.kyon.pl/img/16587.html ? (alternatively even http://www.kyon.pl/img/14160.html ... ;p )
Do other passengers at least get more lax treatment, at judgment, as a reimburstment?
MicroSD also goes to 32 GB.
...though OTOH it didn't point out that the delay will be likely due to Microsoft; which it should.