That "Earth-like" planet 490 light years away. SO WHAT?

What good is it? With current Apollo-derived rocket technology, it would take what, 3.5 MILLION years to get to it? IF they'd kept Project Orion going and kept up development, they could get there in about 600 years.

On Fri, 9 May 2014 00:11:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

What good is it? With current Apollo-derived rocket technology, it would take what, 3.5 MILLION years to get to it? IF they'd kept Project Orion going and kept up development, they could get there in about 600 years.

Humans will never leave the Solar System. It's not going to happen.
What's good about identifying planets similar to Earth is that it
provides targets for more detailed study (that's what all surveys are
for). Looking at systems similar to our own is an important way of
learning more about how the Solar System formed, possibly how life
formed, and what we can expect in the deep future.

On Friday, May 9, 2014 2:46:33 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 00:11:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA

wrote:



What good is it? With current Apollo-derived rocket technology, it would take what, 3.5 MILLION years to get to it? IF they'd kept Project Orion going and kept up development, they could get there in about 600 years.



Humans will never leave the Solar System. It's not going to happen.

What's good about identifying planets similar to Earth is that it

provides targets for more detailed study (that's what all surveys are

for). Looking at systems similar to our own is an important way of

learning more about how the Solar System formed, possibly how life

formed, and what we can expect in the deep future.

Listen to yourself for goodness sake, the possibility that certain supernova are not the death stars but the birth of solar systems was first presented in this forum. Evolutionary stellar processes and subsequently solar system evolutionary processes have a geometry to it, I saw it 4 years before the images emerged and had a single copyright on that issue back in 1990 -

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sins/pict...ringcircus.gif

There are now only getting around to the idea that stars survive a supernova event but have still to adjust to the idea that the event is a transitional phase in stellar evolution and not the demise of a star.

You are fine with terms such as 'deep future',I am sure it impresses teenagers however what anything worthwhile is be demonstrated you prove yourselves to be merely passing a signpost I passed many years ago.

On Fri, 9 May 2014 07:24:42 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:

Listen to yourself for goodness sake, the possibility that certain supernova are not the death stars but the birth of solar systems was first presented in this forum. Evolutionary stellar processes and subsequently solar system evolutionary processes have a geometry to it, I saw it 4 years before the images emerged and had a single copyright on that issue back in 1990 -

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sins/pict...ringcircus.gif

There are now only getting around to the idea that stars survive a supernova event but have still to adjust to the idea that the event is a transitional phase in stellar evolution and not the demise of a star.

As usual, I really have little idea what you're talking about.

Whether you want to say a star survives a supernova just depends on
whether you want to label the stellar remnant as another phase in the
"life" of a star. Most consider it quite different because it's no
longer fusing.

That said, the Sun will not produce a supernova. It will continue to
evolve, such that life is no longer sustainable on Earth in a few
billion years. There will be no humans then, of course. There will be
no humans in just a few million years. Our own deep future isn't very
deep compared with the deep future of the Solar System.

On Friday, May 9, 2014 3:51:22 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 07:24:42 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

wrote:



Listen to yourself for goodness sake, the possibility that certain supernova are not the death stars but the birth of solar systems was first presented in this forum. Evolutionary stellar processes and subsequently solar system evolutionary processes have a geometry to it, I saw it 4 years before the images emerged and had a single copyright on that issue back in 1990 -



http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sins/pict...ringcircus.gif



There are now only getting around to the idea that stars survive a supernova event but have still to adjust to the idea that the event is a transitional phase in stellar evolution and not the demise of a star.



As usual, I really have little idea what you're talking about.


Like everything else you didn't hear what I said as you need to be nimble enough to take a wider view and move information around to arrive at more productive possibilities. As an empiricist everything is either exploding or dying despite the fact that creation presents transition phases,everything from child to adult to the seasonal cyclical growth and dormancy .

I would say that people find the idea of a certain supernova event as a transition phase to be attractive in creating a solar system rather than the death of a star. I was working on two large external rings and one smaller intersecting internal ring long before they were observed twenty years ago this month ,this structure is an integral part of stellar evolution and a transition phase so before you or others go down the dreary part of a stellar remnant I suggest you take notice that transition events occur everywhere in creation with this one particularly interesting if speculative.





Whether you want to say a star survives a supernova just depends on

whether you want to label the stellar remnant as another phase in the

"life" of a star. Most consider it quite different because it's no

longer fusing.


You are reaching Peterson, I can't even begin to tell you why the rings are there and how they factor into stellar evolutionary processes however the transition of a huge star to a smaller compact one like our Sun allows researchers to consider the origin of elements in the solar system components without looking elsewhere while maintaining the distance between our solar system and the rest within the galaxy during that evolutionary process.





That said, the Sun will not produce a supernova. It will continue to

evolve, such that life is no longer sustainable on Earth in a few

billion years. There will be no humans then, of course. There will be

no humans in just a few million years. Our own deep future isn't very

deep compared with the deep future of the Solar System.

You are missing the point as usual, there is a possibility,using physical considerations, to assume our parent star was much larger during a period of its evolution and minus the rest of the solar system. Indications are that stellar evolution displays a geometry of natural efficiency seen throughout all terrestrial sciences where growth is involved ,although scaling natural efficiency up to a stellar scale is complex it is there prior to stars going supernova -

http://harunyahya.com/image/timeless...ta-carinae.jpg

So you lesson today Peterson is that while galactic nebulae may create a star,the development of a solar system may be a creation of a supernova event hence the transition phase. If you want a stellar remnant after certain supernovae then so be it but it looks quite dull and in line with all the other pronouncements of impending doom,destruction and death you all thrive off so much.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 9 May 2014 00:11:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

What good is it? With current Apollo-derived rocket technology, it would
take what, 3.5 MILLION years to get to it? IF they'd kept Project Orion
going and kept up development, they could get there in about 600 years.

Humans will never leave the Solar System. It's not going to happen.
What's good about identifying planets similar to Earth is that it
provides targets for more detailed study (that's what all surveys are
for). Looking at systems similar to our own is an important way of
learning more about how the Solar System formed, possibly how life
formed, and what we can expect in the deep future.

================================================== ====
That depends on how you define "human", "life", "intelligence". If we create
artificially intelligent robots they will be as much our children as the
biological kind, but without the failings of emotional hang-ups. Humans will
have evolved. In that sense humans will someday leave the Solar system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_machine

On Fri, 9 May 2014 17:14:38 +0100, "Lord Androcles"
wrote:

That depends on how you define "human", "life", "intelligence". If we create
artificially intelligent robots they will be as much our children as the
biological kind, but without the failings of emotional hang-ups. Humans will
have evolved. In that sense humans will someday leave the Solar system.

Yes. But I think the fact that we don't observe such things strongly
argues for the position that technological intelligence is
self-limiting and short lived.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 9 May 2014 17:14:38 +0100, "Lord Androcles"
wrote:

That depends on how you define "human", "life", "intelligence". If we
create
artificially intelligent robots they will be as much our children as the
biological kind, but without the failings of emotional hang-ups. Humans
will
have evolved. In that sense humans will someday leave the Solar system.

Yes. But I think the fact that we don't observe such things strongly
argues for the position that technological intelligence is
self-limiting and short lived.

================================================== ===
It's early days. Not so long ago we used large animals to do our muscle work
for us; we replaced those with steam engines, tractors and shovels, then
diesel engines, and now we have adding machines to replace clerks who did
our accounting for us. We've only just scratched the surface of what a
computer is capable of. The breakthrough in AI will come when a computer has
access to an expert system and designs its own learning programs. Today we
can not only write a program to play tic-tac-toe and never lose, we can
write a program that LEARNS to play tic-tac-toe by trial and error, as a
child does. I know this because I've done it, the machine plays every
combination their is, in a tree, then clips any branches that lead to a
loss. Intelligence is the ability to adapt what we already know in a strange
situation. We knew birds could fly and needed wings, so the Wright brothers
built wings, but technological flight was self-limiting and short lived ...
until it improved.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Fri, 9 May 2014 19:13:07 +0100, "Lord Androcles"
wrote:

It's early days.

For us. But it seems likely that technological civilizations existed
elsewhere in the galaxy billions of years ago. If they were stable,
they should be evident to us.

On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:46:33 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 00:11:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA

wrote:



What good is it? With current Apollo-derived rocket technology, it would take what, 3.5 MILLION years to get to it? IF they'd kept Project Orion going and kept up development, they could get there in about 600 years.



Humans will never leave the Solar System. It's not going to happen.

How depressing. I remember all the proposed propulsion methods, from Orion to "solar sails" and nothing came from any of them.