The have found another Goldilocks world!

[Watermelon]

First, thanks for overlooking the arithmetic error.

It's 0.683 years to c/√2 at 1 g.

And no, tearing and blasting are fundamentally different. A collision at those speeds is effectively a nuclear blast. No tearing involved. The extraordinary tidal forces from near approach to a black hole would rip an object apart. No blasting involved.

What about that bending space and making it closer idea? Is that still a thing? This journey sounds a bit dangerous for me.

[JimL]

What about that bending space and making it closer idea? Is that still a thing? This journey sounds a bit dangerous for me.

It's not a thing, at least not now, the bending of space, aka wormholes, are only theoretical at this point.

[JonathanL]

It's not a thing, at least not now, the bending of space, aka wormholes, are only theoretical at this point.

Well, so is traveling at near lightspeed.

[Sparko]

Traveling, shreds, and you're confusing light speed with falling into a black hole. Accounting for relativistic effects, anything traveling at c/√2 would take as many years to arrive as there are light years to travel.

1.367 years at 1g.

How do you figure? The faster the light sail moves the more relative mass it gains meaning the less the laser can push it (not even counting the power of the laser weakening as distance grows.)

[QuantaFille]

Light speed lag would quickly make conversation pretty boring, but communication shouldn't be an issue. We regularly gather data from stars moving away from us at those speeds.

But how do you get a signal that travels at the speed of light, to something that is also traveling at the speed of light?

[Juvenal]

What about that bending space and making it closer idea? Is that still a thing? This journey sounds a bit dangerous for me.

Don't wear a red shirt.

[Juvenal]

How do you figure? The faster the light sail moves the more relative mass it gains meaning the less the laser can push it (not even counting the power of the laser weakening as distance grows.)

Yes, you'd have to boost power to maintain the same acceleration. Keep in mind this was a rebuttal to the idea that travel between stars would be limited to trivial speeds on the order of a few tens of thousands of miles per hour.

But how do you get a signal that travels at the speed of light, to something that is also traveling at the speed of light?

You don't.

[QuantaFille]

You don't.

I know. It can send data back, that part I understand. So I asked, how do we maintain communication with a receiver/transmitter (which means two way) and you said it shouldn't be an issue. That's what confused me. I think you think I meant, how do we collect the data. I was thinking more like, what if you need to send the probe instructions? But you'd have to make it entirely autonomous.

[Sparko]

I know. It can send data back, that part I understand. So I asked, how do we maintain communication with a receiver/transmitter (which means two way) and you said it shouldn't be an issue. That's what confused me. I think you think I meant, how do we collect the data. I was thinking more like, what if you need to send the probe instructions? But you'd have to make it entirely autonomous.

The faster the ship goes, the more time slows down for them. Any signals from them would be frequency shifted down by that amount and any messages or data from them would be that much slower. The reverse would be true for any messages sent to them. They would see the frequency as being higher, and the messages would sound more and more like chipmunks.

A ship traveling at the speed of light would experience no time at all. Their journey would be over instantly for them.

[rogue06]

Don't wear a red shirt.

[Juvenal]

Well, so is traveling at near lightspeed.

https://home.cern/science/accelerato...adron-collider

[JonathanL]

https://home.cern/science/accelerato...adron-collider

I thought that it would have been obvious that the implicit assumption in my post was that traveling at near lightspeed velocities is currently only theoretical for things such as spaceships, unmanned probes or other objects which are "suitably macro" (to make up a phrase that encompasses all objects which we are currently unable to accelerate to near-lightspeed levels.)

As you've amply demonstrated with the above reply, that was thought was incredibly stupid.

[Juvenal]

I thought that it would have been obvious that the implicit assumption in my post was that traveling at near lightspeed velocities is currently only theoretical for things such as spaceships, unmanned probes or other objects which are "suitably macro" (to make up a phrase that encompasses all objects which we are currently unable to accelerate to near-lightspeed levels.)

https://www.compoundingexpert.com/pr...ons/butt-balm/

... that was thought was incredibly stupid.

QED.

[shunyadragon]

We have found a better candidate for an earthlike world closer to ours than ever before.

Source: https://gizmodo.com/potentially-habitable-earth-sized-exoplanet-spotted-in-1842901445

Potentially Habitable Earth-Sized Exoplanet Spotted in the Kepler Reject Pile

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Another goldilocks planet found closer an earth like than ever before. . . but there is a problem. There are likely many earth-like planets everywhere, but at what stage are they in their development of their solar system. It depends on how mature the sun is. In our solar system both Venus and Mars were potentially living earth-like planets but no more. Earth-like planets have a life span as the sun matures, and eventually earth will no longer be an earth-like planet.