othing, because the ring would be consistently blocking part of the star so Kepler would see a constant luminosity for that star.
If you look at the spectrum of the star, you might notice that something's odd about it (too much infrared). Don't know if Kepler can do a spectral analysis though.
This way, you could also find things like various implementations of the Dyson sphere.
It might be tomorrow, 5 years from now, or 650 million years from now, but something will happen which reboots Earth (at the very least).
Permanent shutdown will happen a billion years from now, when our aging sun puts out enough luminosity to scorch Earth into a dry, lifeless chunk of rock. (Yes, the sun will do that 3 billion years before it goes red giant.)
Unless we can figure out the kinks in Cryogenics. I mean keeping something frozen in space isn't all that difficult. All that's required is enough power to keep the timer online for the thousands of years it takes to travel the distance, and then wake up when the time is right.
You still need a spacecraft that stays functional for hundreds or thousands of years. That means it needs to be able to repair itself, etc. If you can do anything even close to that, creating a self-sufficient colony on Mars would be a breeze.
Pardon me for asking, but considering our very own planet orbits the sun every 12 months, 23 months on Mars, and something like 130 or 140 for Jupiter, aren't we only starting to scratch the surface in terms of which ones we've seen and which ones just haven't happened to have passed between us and the star since we started looking.
Yes. The longer you look, the more longer-period planets you will find.
On top of that, would an orbit perpendicular to ours be detectible with this technique
Not with this technique, but yes, if the planet is massive enough and close enough to its star, it is possible to detect it by the "wobble" is causes. Also, even if a planet does not transit, it is possible to detect it by observing the radial velocity (i.e. towards/away from the observer) of the parent star by measuring the red shift/blue shift of its light.
However, planets that transit are the most interesting ones right now, because it is possible to detect small planets by this method, as well as analyze their atmospheres by looking at how the spectrum of the parent star changes when the planet transits.
And I don't think aiming outright at system-wide interferometer would get us far; there are many very juicy and much smaller (viable within foreseeable means) projects to be made.
A big radiotelescope and maybe a couple of optical/IR/UV ones on the far side of the moon would be a good start.
People used to say that about the moon. "Escape velocity is impossible to reach!" they'd say. Escape velocity wasn't impossible. It was a puzzle to be solved.
Actually, it was mostly a matter of building a BIGGER freakin' rocket.
We do not have the know-how to create a self-sufficient environment there or anywhere else. We need a nice friendly planet in the Goldilocks zone.
If I were to be, then my money would be on us reaching the technology to create a self-sufficient environment on, say, Mars much earlier than us reaching the technology to send anything other than a robotic probe over interstellar distances.
This is simply because travelling interstellar distances pretty much requires the technology to create a quasi-self-sufficient environment... or warp drive technology.
Sure folks, we joke about instant communication and flying robot overlords being signs that we literally are living in the future, but holy mother of crap, we have a spacecraft, on orbit, sending data down to us right now that is compiling data on systems that we hope to one day explore.
Right now, I'd be happy enough if that compiled list would be used to find targets to point an even BIGGER freakin' telescope at. One that could give us data on those planets atmospheric composition, etc.
What could possibly be a better motivator for our society to start pushing the limits of propulsion technology again?
I think our best bet at getting more information about these planets is pushing the limits of telescope technology again. As in having linked telescopes at opposite ends of the solar system and similar projects. That way, we won't have to make those pesky trips over tens or even hundreds of light years.
In the case of autism, the earlier you get a diagnosis the more effective the treatment will be. So waiting until the child starts showing symptoms isn't ideal. It's better to have a way of testing for autism while the child is still under a year old.
If the autism is severe enough to require treatment as early as possible, then there will be symptoms well before the kid is a year old.
Does that sound to you like basically any kid under the age of 10?
Err.. no. And if you ever did a side-by-side comparison, you'd know.
"Any kid under the age of 10" doesn't scratch wallpaper off the wall until their fingers are bloody, for example. Or spend an hour or two bouncing in circles and shouting "La-DEE la-DEE la-DEE" at the top of their voice.
You're still putting 10 families through the stress of comprehensive testing for autism for no reason for every 1 family whose child actually has the condition.
MRIs are expensive, and autism-like behavior is obvious enough that you can narrow down the group of people you're going to test significiantly before you start testing. Also, for families with one or more kids with behavioral disorders, a 15-minute test usually doesn't qualify as "stress", at least not compared to all the other crap they have to go through.
You know, letting the kid have a Coca-Cola at lunch will actually do wonders for their post-lunch concentration if they have ADHD. No Ritalin is required for most ADHD patients, but caffeine isn't as profitable.
Caffeine tolerance builds up very quickly, and the side effects of the stuff at the dosages you'll need after a month or two are nothing to be sneezed at.
And please don't start suggesting nicotine next. My personal conspiracy theory is that big tobacco is actually behind the whole ADHD "controversy", trying to prevent treatment with medication, since these guys know that unmedicated ADHD patients are twice as likely to start smoking as people who don't have ADHD.
I've also have read some who have said that the reason that a stimulant helps calm these kids down is because it actually fatigues them (due to the stimulation and resulting poorer sleep quality).
Whoever wrote that had no clue.
First of all, in normal cases, even if there's an afternoon dose, it's timed so that the effect has worn off by the time the person goes to sleep. And for really serious cases (those who have serious sleep problems as a result of their ADHD), an additional dose of the stimulant before bedtime can make them sleep better and actually be better rested the next morning.
Oh... lack of sleep worsens ADHD symptoms. I can basically tell every hour too few that my kid has had. In fact, enough sleep deprivation (especially if it is chronic) can even give an otherwise healthy person ADHD symptoms. Try sleeping 90 minutes less than you usually do, for a month or two.
Part of any medication treatment of ADHD are periods (several days to weeks) of no medication, to check and compare behavior to the medicated state and to find out whether the medication should be continued.
Also, most ADHD drugs are so short-acting that even if someone takes two doses a day, there are still _plenty_ of hours left in a day to observe the unmedicated state.
If someone gets "put on drugs permanently" for ADHD, they should sue the bajeezus out of whoever ordered that.
I bet that for the million false positives there's at least an equal million of "false negatives" - kids with actual ADHD who are just labeled lazy and stupid and who'd just have to "concentrate", "work harder", "shape up" and "pull themselves together" (*), and never see a doctor who could actually diagnose and treat them.
(*) Telling someone who has actual ADHD any of these phrases is equivalent to telling a paraplegic to get up and walk. It might work if you're Jesus himself, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.
A "Beware of the dog" sign may have the same effect for a much lower price.
Actually, we found that s "Beware of the bees" sign (with a couple of hives in the back yard) had a much higher deterrent value than a "Beware of the dog." sign.
Most people can gauge the danger of dog, but they have zero clue about bees.
Why not just work a little harder and harness renewable sources?
Pick one:
1. Economical, large capacity electricity storage (which we don't have, nor do we really have a clue about the technology to use for that).
2. Gigantic electricity grids to economically transport electricity over thousands of miles (which are hugely expensive).
3. Give up the notion of electricity supply being reliable. (which we don't want)
A moat of course. A water barrier is quite effective keeping out the vandals and goths, not to mention pesky viking raiders.
No, the moat alone won't help. You also need castle walls to go along with it, a drawbridge and a gate to actually get into your house^h^h^h^h^hcastle, and of course a selection of anti-siege equipment (burning pitch, catapults, etc).
Not a big volume money maker but the chance to do it is there.
The areas affected by contamination are pretty well known and the contamination can definitely be measured in the environment.
Also, if you get caught doing stupid stuff like that, you'll most likely land in prison for the rest of your life, because you're obviously a nuclear terrorist.
Additionaly, uncontaminated wild boar meat fetches a pretty good price. There's absofrickenlutely no point in taking whatever compensation the government offers if the boar you just shot is fit for consumption by humans.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at the spectrum of the star, you might notice that something's odd about it (too much infrared). Don't know if Kepler can do a spectral analysis though.
This way, you could also find things like various implementations of the Dyson sphere.
Permanent shutdown will happen a billion years from now, when our aging sun puts out enough luminosity to scorch Earth into a dry, lifeless chunk of rock. (Yes, the sun will do that 3 billion years before it goes red giant.)
You still need a spacecraft that stays functional for hundreds or thousands of years. That means it needs to be able to repair itself, etc. If you can do anything even close to that, creating a self-sufficient colony on Mars would be a breeze.
Yes. The longer you look, the more longer-period planets you will find.
On top of that, would an orbit perpendicular to ours be detectible with this technique
Not with this technique, but yes, if the planet is massive enough and close enough to its star, it is possible to detect it by the "wobble" is causes. Also, even if a planet does not transit, it is possible to detect it by observing the radial velocity (i.e. towards/away from the observer) of the parent star by measuring the red shift/blue shift of its light.
However, planets that transit are the most interesting ones right now, because it is possible to detect small planets by this method, as well as analyze their atmospheres by looking at how the spectrum of the parent star changes when the planet transits.
A big radiotelescope and maybe a couple of optical/IR/UV ones on the far side of the moon would be a good start.
Actually, it was mostly a matter of building a BIGGER freakin' rocket.
If I were to be, then my money would be on us reaching the technology to create a self-sufficient environment on, say, Mars much earlier than us reaching the technology to send anything other than a robotic probe over interstellar distances.
This is simply because travelling interstellar distances pretty much requires the technology to create a quasi-self-sufficient environment ... or warp drive technology.
Right now, I'd be happy enough if that compiled list would be used to find targets to point an even BIGGER freakin' telescope at. One that could give us data on those planets atmospheric composition, etc.
I think our best bet at getting more information about these planets is pushing the limits of telescope technology again. As in having linked telescopes at opposite ends of the solar system and similar projects. That way, we won't have to make those pesky trips over tens or even hundreds of light years.
If the autism is severe enough to require treatment as early as possible, then there will be symptoms well before the kid is a year old.
If your breathing sounds like "laDEE laDEE laDEE laDEE ..." (at about 2/second), yeah, maybe.
Err .. no. And if you ever did a side-by-side comparison, you'd know.
"Any kid under the age of 10" doesn't scratch wallpaper off the wall until their fingers are bloody, for example. Or spend an hour or two bouncing in circles and shouting "La-DEE la-DEE la-DEE" at the top of their voice.
MRIs are expensive, and autism-like behavior is obvious enough that you can narrow down the group of people you're going to test significiantly before you start testing. Also, for families with one or more kids with behavioral disorders, a 15-minute test usually doesn't qualify as "stress", at least not compared to all the other crap they have to go through.
Caffeine tolerance builds up very quickly, and the side effects of the stuff at the dosages you'll need after a month or two are nothing to be sneezed at.
And please don't start suggesting nicotine next. My personal conspiracy theory is that big tobacco is actually behind the whole ADHD "controversy", trying to prevent treatment with medication, since these guys know that unmedicated ADHD patients are twice as likely to start smoking as people who don't have ADHD.
Whoever wrote that had no clue.
First of all, in normal cases, even if there's an afternoon dose, it's timed so that the effect has worn off by the time the person goes to sleep. And for really serious cases (those who have serious sleep problems as a result of their ADHD), an additional dose of the stimulant before bedtime can make them sleep better and actually be better rested the next morning.
Oh ... lack of sleep worsens ADHD symptoms. I can basically tell every hour too few that my kid has had. In fact, enough sleep deprivation (especially if it is chronic) can even give an otherwise healthy person ADHD symptoms. Try sleeping 90 minutes less than you usually do, for a month or two.
My kid drinks a cup of espresso and goes to sleep an hour later. How's that for ADHD?
Also, most ADHD drugs are so short-acting that even if someone takes two doses a day, there are still _plenty_ of hours left in a day to observe the unmedicated state.
If someone gets "put on drugs permanently" for ADHD, they should sue the bajeezus out of whoever ordered that.
(*) Telling someone who has actual ADHD any of these phrases is equivalent to telling a paraplegic to get up and walk. It might work if you're Jesus himself, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.
foreach(cargo_item) if item != PLEX & chance_50_percent put_in_wreck(item) else destroy(item)
Every destroyed PLEX means free money for them. ;)
Most of which are horribly over-complicated. A good self-defense law only needs two sentences at the most.
Actually, we found that s "Beware of the bees" sign (with a couple of hives in the back yard) had a much higher deterrent value than a "Beware of the dog." sign.
Most people can gauge the danger of dog, but they have zero clue about bees.
Pick one:
1. Economical, large capacity electricity storage (which we don't have, nor do we really have a clue about the technology to use for that).
2. Gigantic electricity grids to economically transport electricity over thousands of miles (which are hugely expensive).
3. Give up the notion of electricity supply being reliable. (which we don't want)
No, the moat alone won't help. You also need castle walls to go along with it, a drawbridge and a gate to actually get into your house^h^h^h^h^hcastle, and of course a selection of anti-siege equipment (burning pitch, catapults, etc).
If the radioactive crap from Chernobyl hadn't been blown over most of Europe, do you think the world would have made such a fuss about it?
But if you know any other source that could deposit radioactive Cesium and Strontium over half a continent, I'd be interested to hear it.
The areas affected by contamination are pretty well known and the contamination can definitely be measured in the environment.
Also, if you get caught doing stupid stuff like that, you'll most likely land in prison for the rest of your life, because you're obviously a nuclear terrorist.
Additionaly, uncontaminated wild boar meat fetches a pretty good price. There's absofrickenlutely no point in taking whatever compensation the government offers if the boar you just shot is fit for consumption by humans.