New 'super-Earth' discovered by scientists

[BringHarmony]

Did you even bother to read this yourself? To break it down in simple terms, from the point of view of the traveler & the observer watching the traveler, the time is the same from their individual perspectives. Relativity comes in when the traveler has traveled an enormous distance while the observer observes that the traveler had barely moved...

Errr... do you know what the word reference mean?
Time of reference?
Frame of reference?

Relativity comes in when the traveler has traveled an enormous distance while the observer observes that the traveler had barely moved...

Simply put. You are WRONG!
Lets do one thing. Find the equation of time dilation and try explaining it. Let see, how you came to this moronic conclusion. Here is a hint. Velocity and distance are NOT the same.

Leave it dude, science is beyond your capability.

 

[GumNaam]

A force isn't made up of particles...a force has carrier particles...
U will never find that gravity physically consists of graviton just like how electromagnetic force isn't physically made up of photons(the carrier particle of electromagnetic force).

Besides...what exactly is ur argument here? What does a COMPLETE understanding of gravity have to do with space travel? We understand gravity enough to escape earth, enter into orbit of other planetary bodies, use the gravity of other planets to boost or slow down speeds of satellites(and maybe manned crafts someday), predict the orbit and position of planets, moons, and other celestial objects, etc. This is enough of an understanding as far as space travel is concerned. The challenge is being able to cross those astronomical distances in a relatively short amount of time. The challenge is shielding against radiation in space. There are many more but a more detailed understanding of gravity is not one of them.

So just to be clear, we can't "recreate", we can only simulate it & the best way we know how to simulate it on a long term basis is through centrifuge. but the fact it that we don't really know what gravity itself really is...we only know it's characteristics or behavior. I dunno know if I'm able to articulate this clearly but maybe this can help...

No we would not. There is a difference between acceleration and velocity. Quick acceleration can have harmful effects...like that experienced by pilots. If there was a spaceship that could be accelerated to let's say 50% the speed of light...if u accelerated it slowly enough, there wouldn't be any problems. Once the max speed(50% speed of light) is reached...u wouldn't even feel it...no one would. Constant velocity cannot be felt. Roughly the Earth's mean orbital speed is 30 km/s. This means u, me, and everything on Earth is being zipped across space in the orbit around the sun at 30 km/s...r u or any other life form(or inanimate object) being torn apart? No.

So when u say that some fast speed(which is velocity without the direction) will tear us apart...that is not right...bcuz it wouldn't. It is the acceleration...which if done too suddenly at a rather large magnitude...that can have harmful effects but that can be easily avoided by accelerating and decelerating at an acceptable rate.

I'm assuming that we would want to schedule to the maximum reachable speed as fast as we possibly can while keeping the already enormous amount of time required to reach the super earth from getting any bigger, not accelerate as slow as possible which would make the whole endeavor to reach super earth just not worth it the time & effort.

Did u read the article before u posted it? Read the article first...then compare it to what I said(in my last post).

A force isn't made up of particles...a force has carrier particles...
U will never find that gravity physically consists of graviton just like how electromagnetic force isn't physically made up of photons(the carrier particle of electromagnetic force).

Besides...what exactly is ur argument here? What does a COMPLETE understanding of gravity have to do with space travel? We understand gravity enough to escape earth, enter into orbit of other planetary bodies, use the gravity of other planets to boost or slow down speeds of satellites(and maybe manned crafts someday), predict the orbit and position of planets, moons, and other celestial objects, etc. This is enough of an understanding as far as space travel is concerned. The challenge is being able to cross those astronomical distances in a relatively short amount of time. The challenge is shielding against radiation in space. There are many more but a more detailed understanding of gravity is not one of them.

No we would not. There is a difference between acceleration and velocity. Quick acceleration can have harmful effects...like that experienced by pilots. If there was a spaceship that could be accelerated to let's say 50% the speed of light...if u accelerated it slowly enough, there wouldn't be any problems. Once the max speed(50% speed of light) is reached...u wouldn't even feel it...no one would. Constant velocity cannot be felt. Roughly the Earth's mean orbital speed is 30 km/s. This means u, me, and everything on Earth is being zipped across space in the orbit around the sun at 30 km/s...r u or any other life form(or inanimate object) being torn apart? No.

So when u say that some fast speed(which is velocity without the direction) will tear us apart...that is not right...bcuz it wouldn't. It is the acceleration...which if done too suddenly at a rather large magnitude...that can have harmful effects but that can be easily avoided by accelerating and decelerating at an acceptable rate.

Did u read the article before u posted it? Read the article first...then compare it to what I said(in my last post).

I'm quoting this from the article...what do you understand from it?

Supplements are another method researchers are investigating. Through large-scale genomics and proteomics studies, scientists have managed to identify specific cell-chemical interactions affected by gravity. We now know that gravity affects key molecules that control cellular processes like growth, division and migration. For instance, neurons grown in microgravity on the International Space Station have fewer of one kind of receptor for the neurotransmitter GABA, which controls motor movements and vision. Adding more GABA restored function, but the exact mechanism is still unclear.

NASA is also evaluating whether adding probiotics to space food to boost the digestive and immune systems of astronauts may help stave off the negative effects of microgravity.

In early days of space travel, one of the first challenges was figuring out how to overcome gravity so a rocket could break free of Earth’s pull. Now the challenge is how to offset the physiological effects of a lack of gravitational force, especially during long space flights.

 

[Yaseen1]

Earth speed is not felt by us as it is very large and have lots of weight on it in the forms of mountain and also has gravity to cancel effect of moving speed of earth but any warpship will be too small and unable to cancel effect of high speed of light on human body which will cause damage to human body and health and change in methods for measurement of time cannot change aging of human body so 110 yrs of earth will result end of human life even though he has lived 50yrs in warpship time equivalent

 

[GumNaam]

Errr... do you know what the word reference mean?
Time of reference?
Frame of reference?

Simply put. You are WRONG!
Lets do one thing. Find the equation of time dilation and try explaining it. Let see, how you came to this moronic conclusion. Here is a hint. Velocity and distance are NOT the same.

Leave it dude, science is beyond your capability.

suppose you and I are wearing the same exact stop watch with unlimited power and synchronized right down to the nanosecond. I decide to stay on earth while you take off for the super earth at warp speed (let's just assume that's possible). Suppose both of our watches also the count on years passed and we have it synchronized to 0 before you start your trip. As soon as you start your journey, both of our watches also kick off. By the time you reach this super earth, what would your watch's year counter indicate? What would my watches year counter indicate? Reference is earth time.

 

[GumNaam]

@BringHarmony well mister physics? It's been over an hour...let's hear it. I really wanna see how within "science" you really are...

 

[Trango Towers]

yes .. now india will send chandryan 3 to this new planet which is just 110 light years away

Hope all indians go. At least open defection will be someone else's problem in another galaxy

 

[newb3e]

Absolutely.
Higher beings, with higher knowledge, did exist in ancient times. All our religious and ancient texts (Torah, Bible, Quran, Vedas), paintings, scriptures, sculptures are testimony to that.

cool info bro!

 

[TNT]

Lolz why would some people comment and pretend to know physics when they don't know anything. Its not humanities or politics or international relations that u can have ur opinion.
I guess its a Pakistani behavior, everyone in Pakistan knows everything and have a solution for every problem.

 

[Cookie Monster]

So just to be clear, we can't "recreate", we can only simulate it & the best way we know how to simulate it on a long term basis is through centrifuge. but the fact it that we don't really know what gravity itself really is...we only know it's characteristics or behavior. I dunno know if I'm able to articulate this clearly but maybe this can help...

Stop posting googled basic level articles and videos in ur response. Instead stick to TOPIC.

This is how the question of artificial gravity(generated through a centrifugal force) vs gravity on Earth came up.

YOU said that "the fact is that the life as we know it NEEDS earth type of gravity to be alive, gravity generated due to centrifuge is NOT enough to maintain our DNA structure on a long term basis."

I told u that that's not at all a fact. Life would be just fine with artificial gravity as it would be with Earth's gravity. Can u dispute this? Show me a research paper that says otherwise. Show me the data of how an experiment was conducted in "artificial gravitational force"(centrifugal force) and the subjects on board(mice, plants, etc.) had detrimental effects in their growth. There is no such thing bcuz it DOESN'T happen. Life in artificially generated gravity would be just as fine as life on Earth.

I'm quoting this from the article...what do you understand from it?

U r quoting an article that doesn't even mention artificial gravity and it's effects being detrimental. Did u even read it? It mentions the loss of bone density and muscle atrophy that occurs in space in "weightlessness". To counter this the astronauts have to regularly exercise...weight bearing exercises.

Now tell me where was artificial gravity and it's harmful effects on astronauts was mentioned? It wasnt...therefore ur argument quoted above in bold is wrong. The article u provided is unrelated to ur argument.

I'm assuming that we would want to schedule to the maximum reachable speed as fast as we possibly can while keeping the already enormous amount of time required to reach the super earth from getting any bigger, not accelerate as slow as possible which would make the whole endeavor to reach super earth just not worth it the time & effort.

What's the point of saving all that time if u have killed the humans on board by subjecting them to something like 50g. Sure u would accelerate faster towards light speed but the astronauts onboard would be dead.

And for the sake of discussion about my earlier point of accelerating to 50% the speed of light...it would take about 177 days to accelerate to that speed at 1G(9.80665 m/s2). That's not even a year. If u accelerated at 1G for about 354 days...u would theoretically reach the speed of light. That's barely a year, which is insignificant when talking about travelling astronomical distances. In short there would be no hurry to save time.

 

[BringHarmony]

suppose you and I are wearing the same exact stop watch with unlimited power and synchronized right down to the nanosecond. I decide to stay on earth while you take off for the super earth at warp speed (let's just assume that's possible). Suppose both of our watches also the count on years passed and we have it synchronized to 0 before you start your trip. As soon as you start your journey, both of our watches also kick off. By the time you reach this super earth, what would your watch's year counter indicate? What would my watches year counter indicate?

Your watch will indicate 115 years have passed (if that planet is 115 light years away and I was travelling at exactly speed of light).

Mine? 0 years!

Don't believe me? Try this:

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/#.XXqHwpNKiqA

BTW, it is impossible to travel at speed of light, for that you will require infinite amount of energy. BUT, if you were to travel very very close speed of light, time past for you will be very very small.

You certainly don't know the concept of time dilation. That is why you are so confused. There is nothing wrong in it, per say. But then, you are ignorant and proud.

 

[GumNaam]

Your watch will indicate 115 years have passed (if that planet is 115 light years away and I was travelling at exactly speed of light).

Mine? 0 years!

Don't believe me? Try this:

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/#.XXqHwpNKiqA

View attachment 579058

BTW, it is impossible to travel at speed of light, for that you will require infinite amount of energy. BUT, if you were to travel very very close speed of light, time past for you will be very very small.

You certainly don't know the concept of time dilation. That is why you are so confused. There is nothing wrong in it, per say. But then, you are ignorant and proud.

so, first...for your sakes, I would go to the point where we physically can't reach the speed of light because although it is correct, it only serves to strengthen MY argument that traveling over such long distances is just not worth it. Secondly, I don't think you are familiar with the concept time reference even though you SAY you are, you are not. Your answer is wrong and here's why. time is getting dilated from YOUR reference. But your watch would also show 115 years. Why? Remember, your watch is still programmed to run according to earth's time reference. During your travel, 1 hour may become as short as microsecond HOWEVER, your is still ticking at the same rate as my watch is. Time inside your watch is NOT getting dilated. in simple words, every unite of time may be changing from YOUR referenced position but your watch, it is STILL running with reference to EARTH time...your watch's 1 second is STILL the same as MY watch's 1 second. you would still travelled for 115 EARTH years. To prove how wrong you are...here's a screenshot from the same online calculator you posted assuming we are going 50% at the speed of light:

and here it is when traveling at the impossible 100% the speed of light, highlighted is what YOUR watch and MY watch would show:

you would've STILL travelled 110 earth years as your watch would indicate.

 

[TNT]

so, first...for your sakes, I would go to the point where we physically can't reach the speed of light because although it is correct, it only serves to strengthen MY argument that traveling over such long distances is just not worth it. Secondly, I don't think you are familiar with the concept time reference even though you SAY you are, you are not. Your answer is wrong and here's why. time is getting dilated from YOUR reference. But your watch would also show 115 years. Why? Remember, your watch is still programmed to run according to earth's time reference. During your travel, 1 hour may become as short as microsecond HOWEVER, your is still ticking at the same rate as my watch is. Time inside your watch is NOT getting dilated. in simple words, every unite of time may be changing from YOUR referenced position but your watch, it is STILL running with reference to EARTH time...your watch's 1 second is STILL the same as MY watch's 1 second. you would still travelled for 115 EARTH years. To prove how wrong you are...here's a screenshot from the same online calculator you posted assuming we are going 50% at the speed of light:
View attachment 579060

and here it is when traveling at the impossible 100% the speed of light, highlighted is what YOUR watch and MY watch would show:
View attachment 579063

you would've STILL travelled 110 earth years as your watch would indicate.

Hahahahhaha bro u clearly dont understand the concept of time dialation. Do u not see the bottom value? Journey time as viewed from the spacecraft is 0. If you r not a student of science or physics, it can be weird for u. Wait till u know about wave particle duality.

 

[GumNaam]

Hahahahhaha bro u clearly dont understand the concept of time dialation. Do u not see the bottom value? Journey time as viewed from the spacecraft is 0. If you r not a student of science or physics, it can be weird for u. Wait till u know about wave particle duality.

my question was what would his watch show...simple. And yes, it is a mind boggling concept, I won't even being to claim that I am in full grasp of it myself. I'm no physicist and these things boggle minds of the best of physicists out there...

 

[BringHarmony]

my question was what would his watch show...simple. And yes, it is a mind boggling concept, I won't even being to claim that I am in full grasp of it myself. I'm no physicist and these things boggle minds of the best of physicists out there...

It will show 0 years.

Its not an imaginary or 'percieved' thing. Time actually SLOWS down relative to the frame of reference. You will most likely be gone when I arrive there and I will be not have aged a day -- If SOMEHOW I were travelling at exactly c , the speed of light.

Here is another fun thing : The ONLY real universal absolute is speed of light in VACUUM. REST ALL THING INCLUDING TIME, LENGTH, MASS are relative to it.

This fun-little-thing ensures that IF we ever created a way to travel really fast, for example close to speed of light, we will be able to go around the universe without dying out.

That said, it is also a curse! If faster you go, harder it will be to go faster. Your MASS increases. Meaning you will need MORE energy to go faster. Near speed of light, you will need infinite energy.

 

[GumNaam]

It will show 0 years.

Its not an imaginary or 'percieved' thing. Time actually SLOWS down relative to the frame of reference. You will most likely be gone when I arrive there and I will be not have aged a day -- If SOMEHOW I were travelling at exactly c , the speed of light.

Here is another fun thing : The ONLY real universal absolute is speed of light in VACUUM. REST ALL THING INCLUDING TIME, LENGTH, MASS are relative to it.

This fun-little-thing ensures that IF we ever created a way to travel really fast, for example close to speed of light, we will be able to go around the universe without dying out.

ok dude, listen...forget everything and let's go back to my original point...

would I NOT be worth making THIS planet a better place to live given the time and resources required to reach 50% the speed of light? PLENTY of research that can be done to make THIS planet a better place instead of going waaay out there in the far flung parts of our galaxy let alone OTHER galaxies with miniscule chances of success...that has been my point in both of these threads.