The have found another Goldilocks world!

[Juvenal]

Even at a speed of 300 miles per minute, or 18,000 MPH, it would take over 3 million years to get there, so, other than scientific curiosity, I don't see the point.

A light sail boosted by lasers could achieve light speed in one year at 1 g, neglecting relativistic effects.

[shunyadragon]

Even at a speed of 300 miles per minute, or 18,000 MPH, it would take over 3 million years to get there, so, other than scientific curiosity, I don't see the point.

The point of introducing the article is over the years they are discovering of exoplanets in a similar zone as the earth, and over time we will have a range of earth like planets that could possibly exist.

[JimL]

The point of introducing the article is over the years they are discovering of exoplanets in a similar zone as the earth, and over time we will have a range of earth like planets that could possibly exist.

I have little doubt that within the 14 billion lightyear expanse of this universe there are many goldylocks planets out there, there just don't seem to be any close enough to be anything more than a curiosity to earthlings.

[rogue06]

I have little doubt that within the 14 billion lightyear expanse of this universe there are many goldylocks planets out there, there just don't seem to be any close enough to be anything more than a curiosity to earthlings.

Considering that we'll likely be able to see them in various stages of development this means that we might learn a great deal about the formation of our own planet.

[JimL]

A light sail boosted by lasers could achieve light speed in one year at 1 g, neglecting relativistic effects.

But anything travelling at light speed would be torn to shreads.

[rogue06]

Sorry. Had to correct the thread title. It's "Goldilocks" not "Goldy Locks."

[Juvenal]

Sorry. Had to correct the thread title. It's "Goldilocks" not "Goldy Locks."

Every party has its ...

[rogue06]

Every party has its ...

It was for me older little twin brudder from anudder mudder.

[Juvenal]

But anything travelling at light speed would be torn to shreads.

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.

[QuantaFille]

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.

I think he's referring to the fact that anything with any mass at all would explode if it hit a speck of dust at that speed. No black hole necessary.

[QuantaFille]

Sorry. Had to correct the thread title. It's "Goldilocks" not "Goldy Locks."

Thanks. That was bothering me.

[Juvenal]

I think he's referring to the fact that anything with any mass at all would explode if it hit a speck of dust at that speed. No black hole necessary.

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.

[JimL]

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.

But anything traveling at the speed of light would experience singularity like conditions, no?

[QuantaFille]

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.

I wasn't taking him quite so literally. Basically the gist of it is, it doesn't matter whether you can ever attain such speeds, as you will end up in little tiny bits before you get close to light speed. And by the way, how would something traveling at that speed maintain radio communication with a receiver/transmitter at its point of origin, anyway?

[Juvenal]

But anything traveling at the speed of light would experience singularity like conditions, no?

No.

I wasn't taking him quite so literally. Basically the gist of it is, it doesn't matter whether you can ever attain such speeds, as you will end up in little tiny bits before you get close to light speed.

Interstellar density is around one atom per cc, primarily protons, with a rest mass of about 1000 MeV/c^2. For a fairly generous living area 10m by 10m traveling at c, that works out to 3 x 10^16 MeV/s, or about 2 kW, enough to power two toasters, continuously, but not enough to rip your living space to shreds.

Or, instead of toasting your bread using a slice as wide as your living area, you could gather those protons from a much larger area with a magnetic scoop and redirect them, turning them into fuel.

And by the way, how would something traveling at that speed maintain radio communication with a receiver/transmitter at its point of origin, anyway?

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.