EARTH-LIKE PLANET DETECTED AROUND PROXIMA CENTAURI!!!!!! ht

I'll bet you believed No Man's Sky was going to have multiplayer, too.

4 light years away, holy shit

we can literally communicate with it, with only 4 years of delay

This is exciting but depression because 4 light years is a crazy long distance and we'll likely not be able to see if it has life or not

Quick, let's go rape it over before it gets away.

File: Radec Toasting.jpg (335KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1920x1080px

I hereby propose we name this new world Vekta

HOLY SHIT! AN EARTH SIZED PLANET AROUND A FUCKING FLARE STAR!

I'm not holding my breath for ayys.

>>8267000
It's in the habitable zone with similar characteristics to earth

>>8267003
>It's in the habitable zone with similar characteristics to earth
There is no such thing as a habitable zone around a red dwarf. At that distance the planet becomes tidally locked. One side of the planet gets scorched, the other side is frozen solid. Then there's the whole "flare star" thing.

>>8267035

What about the ribbony bit in the middle?

>>8267035
It was habitable in the past, where are those aliens?

>>8267069
Sandblasted by several hundred mile an hour winds, assuming that it even has an atmosphere.

>>8267073

Was it? When did the flares start in the star's history?

File: 1434335721401.gif (75KB, 207x199px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 207x199px

it's time brothers

>>8267035
Dehydrate dehydrate!

Three body series is a must read. It involves first contact with ayylmaos in the alpha centurai system

File: 1433697870260[1].jpg (42KB, 700x479px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 700x479px

>believed to be Earth-like
>that could allow it to have liquid water on its surface
>1,400 light-years away
>The report gave no further details.

>>8267346
>I can't read - the post

>>8266916
WHAT HTE UFCK WHEN IO DGET TO MOVE THERE AND FUCK ALIEN BABES?

>>8267377
>>>/x/

>>8267380
>confusing 1400 lightyears and 4 lightyears
Like how is that even possible?

>Tidally locked
>Even if it miraculously happens to have decent conditions the red dwarf will constantly fuck the planet with extreme temperature changes that can happen in a matter of minutes

Why are we even scanning red dwarfs? Shouldn't we be focusing on orange/yellow dwarfs?

>>8267381
>But at a distance of 1,400 light-years away, humankind has little hope of reaching this Earth-twin any time soon.
Even if you replace it with 4 light years away it's still impossible to reach there.

>>8267389
Nuclear propulsion sources like fission fragment rockets can do a flyby in a couple of decades after leaving earth. It's a long wait, but it's doable. It would just be like how we're still tracking Voyager even though it was launched in the 70's.

>>8267389
>In comparison, the exoplanet orbiting Proxima Centauri, if confirmed, is just 4.24 light-years away.

>>8267424
>if we make science fiction real we can go there

>>8267428
The technology has been operational and tested on the ground in various forms since the 60's. We just have to send it to space.

Hello retard.

Grays are from zeta reticuli you cucks

>>8267431
Show me the rocket in the working that can travel 4.2 light years distance in a couple of decades in your next post or don't ever come back from >>>/x/

File: 1410381859352.gif (542KB, 311x283px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 311x283px

ok everybody stop for a second

what source are they quoting? is it a rumor? is it the 1st of april in some place of the world yet?

>>8267438
How old are you? Are you that idiot that keeps posting that "this is what singularityfags believe" image in inappropriate threads?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/04/04/rocket-powered-by-nuclear-fusion-could-send-humans-to-mars/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket

kys kiddo

I bet there ain't nothing on that planet, just lifeless rock like Mars. We'll never find any ayylmaos.

>>8267445
Hah. I think he's doing the same thing on /mu/ in Grimes threads.
"this is what grimesfags actually believe"
"this is what grimesfags actually believe"
"this is what grimesfags actually believe"
Every post. Some of the commentary he makes is entertaining and has a some degree of truth though.

>>8267488
"grimesfags actually believe this", rather.

>>8267440

Nah it's some report that's being prepared by the ESA, the news has leaked. Expect a proper announcement and vapid news articles soon.

>>8267504
what I fear is that they'll sell some shitty super earth as "earth like"...

File: 1467500114145.jpg (161KB, 1126x1500px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1126x1500px

>>8267491
You rang?

>>8266951
Apparently a bunch of billionaires plan to invest in a project that essentially involves flinging space kites with cameras toward AC at approximately 20% the speed of light using some laser shit on the moon. So it would take the kites approximately 20 years to reach the solar system, take pictures as they pass through, and then another 4 for them to transmit the photos back to earth.

>I have a bachelors degree in popsci

File: elon.jpg (72KB, 620x353px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 620x353px

>>8267557

the pnly billionaire that is actually delivering is Elon (even if he seems to be heading straight into bankruptcy)

all those others billionaires that invest into space are useless, they all get stuck in the planning phase

>>8267000
oh well.

>his smile and optimism: gone

>>8266944
>>8266951

there are two types of people... xD

>>8267304
Reading it right now.

>>8267440
There was an effort since a decade to find this planet and it culminated in Red Dot search initiative couple of months.
The results are from HARPS.

I am in contact with a very knowledgeable figure in astronomy world and I asked him about it to which he answered "I can neither confirm nor deny". Which means confirmation.
For the record he knew in advance about couple of discoveries.

AYYS CONFIRMED!
AYYS CONFIRMED!
AYYS CONFIRMED!
AYYS CONFIRMED!

>>8267557
We will probably be able to build hypertelescopes in 20 years that will be able to image this planet.

>>8267438
Faggot kill yourself there are plenty of rockets that can do it they just have never been developed.

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=5964&pid=232111&st=30&#entry232111
>Seems, they found a hint to a small deviation of Proxima Centauri's trajectory close to the limits of statistical evidence.
The press tends to make a sensation of exciting preliminary hypotheses. So, let's wait, how statistically significant the findings actually turn out to be.

File: 1460544478361.jpg (68KB, 600x827px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x827px

>>8267383
>Why are we even scanning red dwarfs?
Because "we" aren't trying to satisfy your Buck Rodgers/Star Trek fantasies.
We'll probably never find Earth v2.0 orbiting a red dwarf, but there could be *something* living there.

>>8267389
>Even if you replace it with 4 light years away it's still impossible to reach there.
No distance is "impossible".
We'll be capable of reaching Proxima Centauri long before we reach Kepler-452b, for instance.

>>8267669
how do you answer this >>8267000

>>8267706
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=34157
And what would be the effect of tidal heating on magnetic fields over the aeons? To find out, Driscoll and Barnes used simulations of planets around stars ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 of a solar mass. Their finding is that tidal heating can help by making a planetary mantle more able to dissipate interior heat, a process that cools the core and thus helps in the creation of a magnetic field.

Thus we have a way to protect the surface of a red dwarf’s planet in an environment that can show a good deal of flare activity in the early part of the star’s lifespan. “I was excited to see that tidal heating can actually save a planet in the sense that it allows cooling of the core,” says Barnes. “That’s the dominant way to form magnetic fields.” A planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf in its early flare phase may have just the protection it needs to allow life.

>>8267709
So we don’t exactly have a panacea that makes all red dwarf star planets in the habitable zone likely to support life. What we do have is a model showing that for worlds orbiting a star of above 0.45 solar masses, the tidal effects do not overwhelm the possibilities for surface life while they do allow the formation of a protective magnetic field. Some of the magnetic fields generated last for the lifetime of the planets.

>>8267709
>>8267711

>used simulations of planets around stars ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 of a solar mass

proxima centauri is 0.123 apparently. Is it good or bad that it's in the low end of the spectrum?

>>8267445
>post evidence
>i-its hypothetically possible guise
You're grasping /x/tard
>>>/x/

File: Alpha_Centauri_cover.jpg (25KB, 256x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 256x324px

>>8266916

Science fiction my ass.

Also this is as close as we get to interstellar colonization, so I don't get the retards saying "4 light years is too much"

File: UEBYjk5.jpg (159KB, 700x1024px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 700x1024px

>>8267035
>>8267000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_star#Proxima_Centauri

> the resulting flare activity generates a total X-ray emission similar to that produced by the Sun.

I think we can handle flares that are as powerful as the ones from the sun. This is of course assuming the planet has an atmosphere and a magnetosphere.

All I'm saying is, don't discard it because of the Sun-level-intensity flares. Now, tidal locking is a real deal breaker.

>>8267764
not really meaningful tho because life on that planet would presumably evolve to live in red dwarf luminosity conditions...

Humans will go there in a few years. Mark my words.

>>8267073
we are the ayyy lmao's

>>8267778
what if america transport niggers and jews there?
than this earth will truly be heaven

File: Nothing But Trash.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>8266916
>3rd party news with clickbait title

>believed to be
>not confirmed to be

>quoting anonymous sources
>instead of citing sources

>no further details
>actual authority on the matter officially makes no comment
>keeps uselessly blogging for 200-250 words

Is this your article, OP?

>>8267794
I can't even find the author of the "news" article, so I can berate them.

>>8267721

DESU a planet in the habitat zone of a smaller star would be relatively closer and therefore experience stronger tidal forces.

This planet would be perhaps the best example of the effect, I'm not sure what would happen when it eventually becomes tidally locked, though.

(Note that if it by some chance had a substantial orbiter like the moon of earth it would be an extremely good candidate) (But we are far away from being able to see the moons of planets)

It could be pretty good, guys.

I'd say a 50/50 chance of life at some point with no large moon and almost certainly a 100% chance of life developing like Earth if this small planet has a similar orbiter.

The amount and persistence of tidal locking and tidal heating is extremely important. Earth would be similar to A planet like Mars and Venus at the same time right now if not for the moon.

>>8266916
>Earthlike planet around Proxima Centauri.

Isn't this half the plot to Proxima by Stephen Baxter?

>>8266951
With nuclear propulsion we can actually get there in about 128 years so a probe would be needed not a human.

>>8267849
Cant we just send there signals on all possible bands and expect a response in 8 years ?

>>8267855
If there's a civ more advanced than us, they already know we're here.

If there's a civ less advanced than us, they wouldn't capture our message

The chance that there is a civ at our level is basically null

>>8267857
we could still try. we also put a golden record on the voyager craft, no alium is ever going to read it but we still did it.

>>8267857
>they already know we're here.

Wrong.

Attenuation is a fucking bitch for communicating across that distance. You'd need a massive transmission space base many kilometers across using many megawatts of energy to blast out an ultra low frequency signal directed at that location to even have the slightest hope of anything reaching it that is remotely intelligible. Then they have to have an antennae array several kilometers in size to catch the signal and be pointed at us. And, vice versa if they are sending signals to us. Hell, we may be awash with millions-year old ultra low frequency communications, but we'll never know until we have an antennae array large enough to catch something with peaks that are 50-100 kilometers from each other.

>>8267857
Theyre not going to recieve our signals unless they focus their high power radio telescopes on us and listen. Even then they would have to catch the right channels to recieve any incoming signal.

When we discovered KIC tabbys star, we listened it for a while, and it took us over 6 months to analyze every frequency to see if theres anything at all.

>>8267865
>>8267868
If they are more advanced they would see our planet and signs of civilization through telescopes already

>>8267800
Original article was published by Spiegel, it is a respectable German newspaper.

>>8267875
There's a limit to that too and we have already come close to reaching it, sadly.

>>8267880
>respectable
>quotes anonymous sources

0 respect

>>8267875
How ? We have advanced telescopes too but we just discovered this planet even though it has been around for who knows how many centuries. Also we wouldnt hear anything from them even if they are sending us signals at this very second unless we direct our dishes to them, listen for quite a while and analyze all the frequencies which take forever.

I think you're a bit naive about the challenges of communication that takes light years and how we transmit these signals.

Most of me is like "shit, even if there was life it's probably long dead now" but then part of me is like

"oh shit, if they're still alive they might be barely hanging on! We gotta go out and rescue them!"

>>8267868

There is something up with the fact that they tried to listen for communications from rabbis star, it's too far away for even signals extremely strong of our type we are looking for, it's ridiculous to deduce anything from it, the signal search was so inadequate they shouldn't have even tried in the first place, because saying 'we heard nothing' is meaningless and misleading

File: 5bb.gif (1MB, 279x219px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 279x219px

>>8267884
>being this retarded

>>8267917
>rabbis star
xD

>>8267726
You have to be 18 to post here

>>8266951
it is literally the closest exoplanet. 8years is a fucking great ping in this context

>>8267880
Thats not true. German here, Spiegel might not be total gossip trash but it is far from serious journalism

File: 1469747773585.jpg (58KB, 719x960px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 719x960px

>>8267929
>it is okay to literally make shit up and post it as fact

>>8268041
unless they claimed there were 1000+ people there, I dont really get this picture

If ayys were real, what souvenir would you bring to them?
Personally I will give them one of my dakis.

>>8268075
A football, I chiseled it myself

>>8268075
Snail shell.
A cassette mixtape.

>>8267657
>>8267950

>xD

STOP

>>8268357
le no =^D

>>8268360
[|:^D3-@--<

File: 213213.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>>8268053
It is staged, that's all. It was filmed before the protest was planned. They stated there was 10s of thousands of protesters. When the protest actually happened there was about 7k.

>>8266927
It doesn't? How come? Please explain, i'm interested.

>>8267674
NIGGER WE DONT EVEN HAVE FLYING CARS OR JETPACKS YET. no way I'm going to rewrite that with caps off.

>>8268505
Cool mr reddit, but consider that those telescopes are already in the working

>>8267891
>>8267882
>There's a limit to that too and we have already come close to reaching it, sadly.
Bullshit.
First of all you have gravitational lensing and then you have hypertelescope swarms.

File: exoearthimager.jpg (33KB, 741x521px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 741x521px

>>8268505
We have the technology. We will build it.

>>8268505
* a 100-pixel image of a planet twice the width of Earth some 16.3 light years away would require the elements making up a space telescope array to be more than 43 miles apart. Such pictures of exoplanets could make out details such as rings, clouds, oceans, continents, and perhaps even hints of forests or savannahs. Long-term monitoring could reveal seasonal shifts, volcanic events, and changes in cloud cover.

EXO-EARTH IMAGER (EEI)


* visible “portraits” of exoplanets can be obtained in 30 minutes of exposure, using a 150 kilometer hypertelescope with 150 mirrors of 3 meters.

* 10 km resolution at 4.37 Light years. That's about what our satellite photos took back in the 1960's. Certainly high enough resolving power to image landforms, islands, forests, whatever else is going on. This would require a hypertelescope array that is 1,500 miles across.

1 kilometer resolution would be a hypertelescope array about 10,000 miles across. That would mean a 100 million pixel image of an exoplanet.

* To resolve 30 foot objects looking 4.37 light years away the elements making up a telescope array would have to cover a distance roughly 400,000 miles wide, or almost the Sun's radius. The area required to collect even one photon a year in light reflected off such a planet is some 60 miles wide. To determine motion of 2 feet per minute — and that the motion you’re seeing is not due to errors in observation — the area required to collect the needed photons would need to be some 1.8 million miles wide.

>>8268670
But why stop here
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=159729;article=102431
Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
mip
Galactic Life Imager
Fri Jul 2, 2010 11:45pm
67.193.52.10

Mission - To image 1-meter-sized features including life, on planets up to 550 lightyears away. This volume of space contains an estimated 89,000 G-type stars like ours, and 1.8 million stars of all types. It would take many decades of operation to survey all of them.

Angular Resolution - To see 1-meter sized features at 550 lightyears requires a pair of telescopes positioned 415-AU apart (415-times the Earth-Sun distance). They can be launched in opposite directions to positions 208-AU from Earth.
Assembly - About 3000 of the small mirror segments can be fitted into a larger triangular sheet with an edge length of about 57 meters. These large sheets can be stacked 54 meters high for transport. The 715 layers that comprise this stack can be unstacked again when the spacecraft reaches the 208-AU destination point, and re-assembled into an expansive array of mirrors, connected edge-to-edge, forming a parabolic reflector 1119-meters in diameter.

>>8267557
>>>/x/

All below quotes are from specialist forum, they have been posted in January and February this year

http://solar-flux.forumandco.com/t1723-proxima-centauri-the-hunt-for-planets
>So I asked on Pale Red Dot's Facebook page and they confirmed that they have tentative evidence of a m sin i ~ 1-2 Earth-masses in the classical habitable zone of the star.
...if it exists at all, the bulk properties are consistent with Earth-like (msin i ~1-2 MEarth and sits where you could comfortably enjoy a bath in a lake ...

>Something interesting I noticed while going through relevant literature: Concerning possible signals, the HARPS-TERRA RVs periodogram show a very marginal peak at 5.6 days that is also barely visible in the CCF values when the outlying RV measurement is removed.

>Proxima's bolometric luminosity is ~0.0017 solar. Mass is 0.123 solar. Thus an Earth equivalent insolation is an orbit at 0.041 AU from Proxima with a period of 8.7 days. If the habitable zone for an Earth-like planet (rather than a massive CO2 greenhouse planet) is in the range of 0.8 AU - 1.2 AU in our solar system, then the orbital period range is 6.2 - 11.5 days.

File: Comparison_optical_telescope_primary_mirrors.svg.png (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2000px

>>8268670
>>8268678
>1119-meters in diameter
>150 kilometer hypertelescope
>Angular Resolution - To see 1-meter sized features at 550 lightyears

That's not how optical astronomical interferometers work. Once you get so large, you start getting shitty problems with the angular resolving power. That starts somewhere around 110-150 meters.

>>8268716
>Once you get so large, you start getting shitty problems with the angular resolving power
That's why you use coordinated swarm

>>8268661
>>8267674
Labeyrie's hypertelescope is a long way off, the technology for formation flying of that precision just hasn't been demonstrated. TPF and Dawin both tried to develop formation flying over 10's of meters with 4 telescopes with a fraction (~1/1000th) of the necessary precision for Labeyrie's hypertelescope (they used longer wavelengths and were small enough to use internal delay lines). Those missions spiraled into multi-billion dollar projects and were cancelled. The technological barriers are real.

>>8268716
>That's not how optical astronomical interferometers work. Once you get so large, you start getting shitty problems with the angular resolving power.
What problems?

File: Diffraction limit diameter vs angular resolution.png (149KB, 528x917px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 528x917px

>>8268726
>>8268776
>>8268716
Angular resolving power for visible light, optical telescopes stops at 100m. You can only go larger using radio telescopes.

>>8268726
>That's why you use coordinated swarm

That is what an astronomical interferometer is and it is still bound by the 100m limit of usability.

>>8268772
> the technology for formation flying of that precision just hasn't been demonstrated. TPF and Dawin both tried to develop formation flying over 10's of meters with 4 telescopes with a fraction (~1/1000th) of the necessary precision for Labeyrie's hypertelescope (they used longer wavelengths and were small enough to use internal delay lines). Those missions spiraled into multi-billion dollar projects and were cancelled. The technological barriers are real.

These missions never "spiraled into multi-billion dollar projects", they were killed on concept stage.

However sometimes it's darkest under the lamplight.
Such technology is already emerging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjX1r-gh8U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teQwViKMnxw

>>8268796
Dude what?

Your argument doesn't make any sense and I think you may have just misinterpreted that image you posted. If you had an optical mirror with a diameter larger than 100m, it would just have a resolving power better than 0.001 arcsec.

The problems with gigantic space-based optical interferometers are generally practical problems. They cost too much, have too little light collecting area to look at dim things like planets, and are physically difficult to construct to the tolerances necessary to take advantage of their theoretical resolving power.

You can increase the light collecting area as much as you like, of course, as long as someone is willing to pay for it, and some of the tolerance problems will likely be mitigated in the future through advances similar to the introduction of Adaptive Optics in ground-based instruments.

>>8268505
But we do have flying cars

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ces-2016-ehang-184-pilotless-autonomous-passenger-drone-a6800596.html

and jetpacks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3AwBSwFV2I

>>8268796
>Angular resolving power for visible light, optical telescopes stops at 100m.

Yes, I asked you why. What do you think this limitation is?

CHARA with VEGA already operates in the visible at ~300 meter baselines. It clearly isn't the case.

>>8268798
No, both went as far as the studies. I never claimed billions of dollars were spent, that was their projected cost.

>>8268848
>What do you think this limitation is?
I think he just thinks the axis of that chart he posted represents some kind of actual limitation, as opposed to just the place where they decided to stop drawing the graph.

>>8268848
You start getting problems with the angular resolving power.

>>8268848
>CHARA with VEGA already operates in the visible at ~300 meter baselines. It clearly isn't the case.

That's not visible light spectrum for the full use of 300m that's radio.

>>8268827
You should probably do some googling. I'm tired of spoonfeeding undergraduates.

>>8268907
Yes, you said that, twice. I'm asking why, again. What do you think this limitation is? Why do you think there is such a limit?

>>8268959
>That's not visible light spectrum for the full use of 300m that's radio.
No. The V in VEGA stands for visible. CHARA is not a radio interferometer and VEGA uses a CCD. It literally cannot work at radio wavelengths.

https://www-n.oca.eu/stee/page1/page31/page31.html

You're talking nonsense.

>>8267389
Try reading it again, dipshit. They were comparing the distance of this new planet to another planet 1400 ly away.

>>8268983
What is it with your reading skills? What part about angular resolving power is so hard for you to understand? Undergrads are cancer

>>8268991
You can't even pretend to respond to your claims being destroyed. And you're not a postgrad, your ignorant comments about CHARA magically switching to radio made that abundantly clear.

>>8269002
4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.

>>8269010
Which guy are you? The one making the claims about resolution or the other guy.

>>8269034
>>8268991

>>8269048
It makes it rather difficult to tell when your post is complete horseshit. You never gave any reference, you didn't even answer the simplest fucking question. No one can debate you because you never even specified what caused this limitation, and you didn't give a source. When presented with hard evidence your claim was wrong you just made a nonsense statement, then falsely claimed people were misrepsenting you (without clairfying what you are saying) and then went off in this rant about debate etiquette.

Try again. What is the physical mechanism behind this limitation? Provide a source for this limit. Why does CHARA clearly exceed this?

>>8268480
No comment from the devs.

Day one of release, against odds of (supposedly) 1 in 18 quintillion, two players ended up on the same planet. Spent hours on Twitch verifying that they were standing in exactly the same spot, yet could not see each other. That's how the world found out the multiplayer was a lie. Cue shitstorm.

>>8269072
Maybe read the thread? Maybe try to understand the "rant about debate etiquette"? Maybe stop lying/strawmanning? I'm tired of spoonfeeding undergraduates.

>send a probe right this second
>arrives 1000 years in the future to find an empty venus/mars like planet

>>8269140
Let's read the thread shall we:

>That's not how optical astronomical interferometers work. Once you get so large, you start getting shitty problems with the angular resolving power. That starts somewhere around 110-150 meters.
What problems?
>Angular resolving power for visible light, optical telescopes stops at 100m. You can only go larger using radio telescopes.
Yes, I asked you why. What do you think this limitation is?
>You start getting problems with the angular resolving power.
Yes, you said that, twice. I'm asking why, again. What do you think this limitation is? Why do you think there is such a limit?
>What is it with your reading skills? What part about angular resolving power is so hard for you to understand?

That's some serious spoonfeeding there. Let's see, no sources and no fucking argument. You rant about etiquette but have refused to answer the most basic question 4 times. You are a liar and you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>>8269121
>odds of (supposedly) 1 in 18 quintillion
That would be for two players alone in the game landing on the same planet by pure chance (no attempt at coordination) in one single landing.

However, with a large number of players, the birthday paradox applies (to an approximation, the "number of days in a year" has a linear effect, and the "number of people at the party" has a squared effect, so 300,000 players should should have a probability measured in thousands to hundreds of thousands of running into each other per jump), and organized attempts to bring players together can reduce the randomness to an arbitrary degree.

>>8269178
I really should have known better than to say that on this board.

>>8269215
I wonder if they actually failed to account for the birthday paradox and social media, and therefore assumed that people would basically never land in the same place at the same time, so it was okay to not implement multiplayer (a very expensive job) while hinting for immersive purposes that it would totally work if by some crazy chance you won a billion lotteries in a row.

>>8267432

Nope. theyre from this planet. Im willing to bet on it.

The planet is tidally locked.

The ayys live on the dark side. Shielded from the rayydiation. They have large dark eyes that work in dark conditions. Their skin has little pigmentation due to melanin being unnecessary.

>>8267857
>If there's a civ more advanced than us, they already know we're here.

Not if they havent looked. I highly doubt our radio transmissions would even be distinguishable from background noise at those distances.

>>8267875

How the fuck could you even resolve any detail at that distance?

File: (SC-TS-A3.01)N00014-70-A-0362-0002.jpg (51KB, 590x478px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 590x478px

>>8268670
>10 km resolution at 4.37 Light years. That's about what our satellite photos took back in the 1960's

Sure Goy :^)

>>8269164
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.

>we will never build nuclear propulsion ship because hippies hate progress unless it involves "social" things

So close yet so far away.

>>8269164
Not him, but are you trolling or is "angular resolving power" just some random gibberish for you?

ITT: Optimists versus pessimists.

>>8269353
>radio transmissions would even be distinguishable from background noise at those distances
Really? Already at 4ly?

Expectations seem totally out of control already. This potential discovery is by the same guys who claimed to have discovered Alpha Centauri B-b, which was later refuted. The only things they'll be able to discern are orbital period, orbital distance, and approximate size. There will probably be no information on surface conditions.

>>8269919
>Just don't loop.
Says the man who repeat "angular resolving power" 3 times when asked why it was limited.

You're insane.

>>8269919
>>8270323
Oh an if you work out the achieved resolution of VEGA on CHARA (0.3 mas) it's a baseline of well over a hundred meters. And no it isn't working in the radio, CCDs aren't sensitive in the radio.

>>8269937
Did you not read the part where I asked him WHY it was limited at 100m baselines?

>>8270335
I did actually

>>8270323
What did I even expect?
You know, once you you get used to talking with graduates and discussions on an academic level, you grow really tired of not just using the appropriate terms to reference something, but instead have to explain every basic principle to someone with no debate etiquette.

>>8270393
I expected you to answer the question and not dismiss arguments without a single reason. You haven't given any term for this limit, stop talking out your ass. You can't talk about debate etiquette when you haven't engaged in debate.

One of us actually is a astro grad student, and it's not you. Now if you're done with your childish games I need to submitting P2 for an observing run.

>>8270452
I didnt ask what you expected, as I know a little undergrad like you wanted to be spoonfed about basic concepts as he doesnt even know simple equations or the limitations of optical mirros. Or you are an "epic troll" and giggling behind your keyboard as I struggle to keep some faith in the /sci/ community.
Either way, nice irony with the dismissing and not answering questions bit. And how can their be any kind of engagement in the debate, when you lack elementary debate etiquette? Please look up the terms you didnt understand and stop the behavior I listed here >>8269919 all together, if you are not trolling and actually want a productive debate

>>8270535
> to be spoonfed about basic concepts as he doesnt even know simple equations or the limitations of optical mirros.
I didn't ask you to quote the diffraction limit. I asked you why this classical limit fails at 100 meters baseline as you stated. Don't strawman this.

>And how can their be any kind of engagement in the debate, when you lack elementary debate etiquette?
But all of those infractions you quote happened after you refused to answer the question.

>>8267776
would they evolve to be thicc?

File: Bitch+please+everyone+knows+that+4chan+is+a+famous+hacker+_746b4c945ce5dccfadb35731fda92af6[1].png (30KB, 206x200px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 206x200px

I don't wanna read the whole fucking thread.

Are there any indications of alien lyfe there at all ?

>>8270590
No. It hasn't even been announced yet, it may not even be a statistically significant detection. All the information they will have if there is a good detection is a lower limit on the mass and it's orbit.

>>8270590
Sure m8. Ayylmajos sent us their nudes and asked about our dick sizes.

Edit : ofcourse not. This is just another /x/ circlejerk thread where people are running wild assumptions based on fictional movies and at the end of the day, there won't be any aliens confirmed again.

>>8270565
>But all of those infractions you quote happened after you refused to answer the question.
>>8270323
>who repeat "angular resolving power" 3 times when asked why it was limited.
Does not compute.
Maybe if you could read and just try to look into things, you would learn about "angular resolution", "math", "rayleigh criterion", "technical difficulties", "astronomical seeing" and many many more.

>Don't strawman this
What did I strawman, exactly?
Wasnt
>he doesnt even know simple equations or the limitations of optical mirros
literally what happened, since you asked specifically about the limitations of optical telescopes? It was.
So, another term for you to look up: "strawman argument"

>>8270656
>Does not compute.
Because it's not an answer. You're saying the angular resolution is limited, I asked why, the answer to that is not "angular resolving power".

>Maybe if you could read and just try to look into things, you would learn about "angular resolution", "math", "rayleigh criterion", "technical difficulties", "astronomical seeing" and many many more.
It is not the Rayleigh criterion, you're claiming that fails at 100 meters. It is not seeing, optical interferometers exceed the seeing by 3 orders of magnitude. This is how Michelson resolved Betelgeuse before space and AO. And the Fried parameter for seeing is 10's of centimeters in the visible not 100 meters. "technical difficulties" isn't a fundamental limit, interferometers with 300 meter baselines ready operate.


Scatter gunning words you think are relevant is not an answer. It's none of those things so what causes your limit?

>since you asked specifically about the limitations of optical telescopes? It was.
No. I asked you about your specific limit at 100 meters. The diffraction limit implies no such cut off. Don't play stupid.

>>8268716
>That starts somewhere around 110-150 meters
Considering certain types of coating, this can even be pushed up to ca. 180m until the size of a single mirror effectively stops adding actual resolution power

>>8270706
>[citation needed]

>>8270694
>>8269072
There are no 300m+ opticals at all. You are confusing baseline and actual size.

>The CHARA array consists of six 40-inch (1-m) diameter telescopes distributed along three arms of a Y-shaped configuration encompassed by a circle approximately 400 meters in diameter.

>>8270694
>>8270694
>Because it's not an answer.
It is literally the answer.


>Scatter gunning words you think are relevant is not an answer
Well, if the other person actually understands the words, it doesnt seem like "scatter gunning".
See
>>8270393
If I get the feeling, I have to talk to somebody, like with a child, I really lose hope to actually get an idea across. Just not my level, sorry.


>>8270694
>since you asked specifically about the limitations of optical telescopes
>No. I asked you about your specific limit
Dont say "no", if you agree.

>Don't play stupid.
see
>>8269919

>>8269140
>>8268991
>>8270535
Odd how this anon took up the argument after I stopped posting here >>8268959 and pretended to be me. He also happens to be incorrect and arguing the wrong point entirely.

>>8270565
He doesn't know what he's talking about, he is parroting.

>>8270733
I specifically said baseline. Aperture size of the telescopes is not what limits the resolution of an interferometer.

File: chara.jpg (404KB, 843x693px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 843x693px

>>8270750
You are talking to >>8268959 now. Not the retard from all the other shit since then. Take a look at this image, then think about it for a while. Compare it with the image in >>8268716

>>8270726
Well, I am referring to new methods of applying the periodic layer system and some material research papers on materials with highly reflective surfaces. But your low effort shitpost doesnt really motivate me to flip through my records where I saved the references. Pretty sure other astrofags will know about this

>>8270746
>It is literally the answer.
No, it's the question. Angular resolution in practice depends on a lot of things in practice as you listed, repeating it isn't answering what the limit is. Seeing would be an answer (wrong in this case but an answer still), angular resolution is just restating the question.

>Well, if the other person actually understands the words, it doesnt seem like "scatter gunning".
I understood them enough to refute them.

> Just not my level, sorry.
Then why bother replying at all?

>Dont say "no", if you agree.
I didn't agree.

>>8270748
Nice try.
>>>/b/
for all your ebin trolling

>>8270756
>You are talking to >>8268959 now.
I'm still the same person. And you specifically mentioned interferometers even if you posted an image of telescopes. The discussion that motivated it was about interferometers.

>>8270770
>forgot to think
>shitposts instead

Yeah, fuck you. I'm not spoonfeeding you tards. I should have hid this >>>/x/ last night.

/thread hidden

>>8270761
Reflectivity doesn't affect resolution.

>>8270772
I wish you hadn't wasted my time with your bullshit claims too but here we are.

>>8270762
>No, it's the question
You asked the question. What are you even on about. Tell me what you dont about angular resolution and I try to spoonfeed you. Ok? you finally talked me into it

>I understood them enough to refute them.
see
>>8269919
>>8269010
Just claiming something is poor argumentation.

>>8270762
>I didn't agree.
You did. I literally quoted what you said and what I claimed you said earlier. Almost identical. No strawman there.

>>8270748
>>8270756
not me, btw. Guy is trying to derail the thread. Or is it you, with yet another sad trolling attempt?

>>8270787
>Tell me what you dont about angular resolution and I try to spoonfeed you.
The same question I've asked since last night:

>Angular resolving power for visible light, optical telescopes stops at 100m. You can only go larger using radio telescopes.
Yes, I asked you why. What do you think this limitation is?

>>8270706
>until the size of a single mirror effectively stops adding actual resolution power
THIS
But pop-sci fags just think you can build them as large you want, because black science man talked about a 10km mirror

Are we still arguing over aliens?

>>8270793
see
>>8269919
stop it. learn some basic debate etiquette and stop shitposting the same stuff.

Really anon, you've just completely contradiction yourself.

Utterly surprised that you can't see the gaping hole in your argument.

Sorry if you can't see it, but if you look hard enough it will be obvious.

Even then, it's a little hard to come back from that.

and please dont feed the "go back to /x/" troll >>8270772
>>8270756
>>8270748
he is spamming /sci/ with his shitposts all the time.

>>8270733
Yeah, exactly. The largest ones are about 15m. But you cant expect brainlets to not confuse simple terms and metrics

>>8270823
If you're not going to even try to defend your bullshit claims there is nothing to discuss. You didn't cite them, you never justified them, you have no argument. You've demonstrated a very deep ignorance of astronomy. Something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>8267389
Go fucking drink chlorine, extra chromosomic faggot.

>>8270848
>Something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly. No evidence of a 100m+ telescope so far. That has never been proven.
I am an astronomer as well.
I'm just a graduated astronomer.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.
I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

Here are some pleb-friendly links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes

http://www.space.com/32984-extremely-large-telescope-construction-contract-eso.html

https://astronomynow.com/2015/06/03/construction-to-begin-on-worlds-largest-optical-telescope/

Informative graphics found in my posts:

>>8268716

and


>>8268796

>>8270794
>>8270829
But guys, dont you know? We are going to have a hyperloop and a space elevator, too. Nothing is impossible! People thought flying wasnt doable, back in the days!
#ifuckinglovescience
:^)

>>8270779
It indirectly effects its improvement

>>8270873
>No evidence of a 100m+ telescope so far.
But we were talking interferometers from the first post.

>That's not how optical astronomical interferometers work
As you said.

Your attempts at straw manning this are incredible.

>>8270900
How?

You guys are missing the point, this is not proof that aliens exist in Proxima Centauri, it's proof that planets with characteristics similar to Earth's are very common across the universe so that means our solar system isn't a special case.
Hell, we have three Earth-like planets in our solar system alone.

>>8270959
It isn't evidence of aliens no, but one planet isn't really enough to determine that Earth like planets are common. Kepler has given us the statistics and they are relativity common but a good question is why are there no super-earths in the solar system when they make up the bulk of Kepler's planets. The biases of the technique explains some of it.

>>8270948
see
>>8268796
and check y-axis
(aperture diameter)
also check x-axis
(angular resolution aka the thing you dont understand)
An interferometer (in this context) is just an arrangement of multiple telescopes. That doesnt mean, that they can magically break the limits.
You should probably do some googling. I'm tired of spoonfeeding undergraduates.
You are not the one here, who is in the place to complain about strawmanning. But this is not the first time you misidentified this. I told you to look up the term, but you didnt. I told you about debate etiquette
here
>>8269010
and here
>>8269919
and here
>>8270823
and here
>>8270873

But you didnt bother to read and actually learn something. You dont even respond to my points. You keep looping. You confuse the most basic terms. You dont know math. You keep rejecting rational answers and scientific facts.
Thats irrational.
Thats why I think undergrads are sometimes cancer. It is Dunning-Kruger effect at full force. Please just be open minded and accept the posibility that you dont know everything and that there is still room to learn

>>8271098
>An interferometer (in this context) is just an arrangement of multiple telescopes. That doesnt mean, that they can magically break the limits.
And yet it clearly shows VLTI/PIONIER exceeding the diffraction limit of the 8 meter telescopes (or the ATs if their being used, it doesn't matter). It's plotted on the baseline not the diameter of the apertures because that is what determines the resolution in an interferometer. There can be no way anyone let you graduate without understanding the basic concept of interferometery.

I'm not claiming they break any limits, interferometers obey the Rayleigh criterion (albeit modified) but aperture is replaced by baseline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#Telescope_array

THey are for sure having civilisation more advenced than us, for example one that can have wintersports inside in a gigantic freezer at summer....

>>8267557
>>8267594
Aparantly because they cant plant a snowboard hall...

>>8271127
>he now starts to actually look into a graphic I posted eons ago
I am proud of you. You are starting to learn. But you still making weird points by shifting goalposts and not answering any points in my posts. You dont have to teach me anything about astronomy (since I already know about it), but I'm glad you apparently actually started to look into it.

Btw, the mirrors of the VLTI are about 8m in diameter. So they arent a good example for breaking the limits. Actually, check my list of links here
>>8270873
to see, that there isnt a good example at all.

>I'm not claiming they break any limits
Maybe not. But you are asking stupid questions that imply this and overall confuse basic terms, so I cant tell if trolling or dunning-kruger.

>interferometers obey the Rayleigh criterion
Oh, nice. As hinted here
>>8270656
So you finally read my post and actually googled some terms. Great, you are making progress.

ITT: some anon thinks that the baseline is the actual size of the optics

>>8271171
>Btw, the mirrors of the VLTI are about 8m in diameter. So they arent a good example for breaking the limits.
It EXCEEDS the resolution of an 8m as I said, if you would read. Look at the plot, it exceeds the 10m resolution by an order of magnitude. This will take a lot longer if you don't read. You didn't even read what you posted.

>But you are asking stupid questions that imply this
You don't read what's being written.

There is no way you got an astro degree without knowing what an interferometer is.

>>8271203
Of course it exceeds it. This is because they can use those 4 telescopes as an array (although they are mostly used seperately). Reminder that I am the one who posted the graphic you are refering to. I read everything, so I dont know what you are on about. Meanwhile you keep missing to adress points I am making.

>You don't read what's being written.
>There is no way you got an astro degree without knowing what an interferometer is.
Baseless claim, since I am the one teaching you about interferometers and telescopes.
Anyway, nice stawman and ad hominem.
I told you about debate etiquette
here
>>8269010 (You)
and here
>>8269919 (You)
and here
>>8270823 (You)
and here
>>8270873 (You)

But you didnt bother to read and actually learn something

>>8271228
Dude, you are getting trolled. He is pretending to confuse baseline witch actual diameter. Just look at this shit >>8269164
and tell me he isnt pulling your leg?
How retarded are to still fall for his shit?
Dont feed them
Not even once

>>8267000
>The star's magnetic field is created by convection throughout the stellar body, and the resulting flare activity generates a total X-ray emission similar to that produced by the Sun.
>X rays
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA X rays can't kill ayys you fucktard. They must have an atmosphere.

>>8271228
> Of course it exceeds it.
So why are you making any reference to 8 meter mirrors?

You're not making any points. You claim there is some fundamental limit that prevents interferometers from achieving resolution above 100 m. You refuse to say why and haven't addressed why CHARA has beaten your limit.

>>8269010
>>8269919
This is some weak pasta

>>8271257
>So why are you making any reference to 8 meter mirrors?
because it is clearly under 150m

>You claim there is some fundamental limit that prevents interferometers from achieving resolution above 100 m
I dont. And angular resolution is usually measured in arcseconds and lower is better. It is about the aperture diameter as stated here
>>8271098

You still refuse to adress any points I made in previous posts nor actually considering anything. In fact you keep acting more and more childish, which led other people to share my suspicion about you just trolling:
>>8270883
>>8271192
>>8271241
>>8271261

>>8271330
Two of your posts are literally whats in my pastas file

>>8271257
not him, but CHARA just uses normal sized telescopes in an array to get better resolution. You dont need every point in the baseline covered to archive this effect. Multiple telescopes just work together in pretty sophisticated ways.

>The CHARA array is an interferometer formed from six 1 meter telescopes arranged along three axes with a maximum separation length of 330 m.

>>8271339
Nice try.
>>>/b/
for all your ebin trolling

>>8271343
You're just proving my point by baiting

>>8267346
>>8267381
>1,400 light years
They were talking about kepler 452b. This article is was written for easy digestion. And you still couldn't fucking read it coherently.

wow

>>8267431
with the current NASA administrator and the likely next one, bold projects like nuclear thermal engines might as well be science fiction.

>>8271563
>with the current NASA administrator and the likely next one, bold projects like nuclear thermal engines might as well be science fiction.

Nuclear thermal engines, distressingly enough, are underpowered for interstellar travel.

>>8268703
This actually looks kinda harsh. Is it possible to live on something like this? Not lmaos, just something small?

Two words: EM drive

>>8267764
The problem with flares is when we look at distance of the planet necessary for life such as needed for liquid water any flare will destroy such life because you're much much closer to the star when they go off.

If instead we calculate the distance necessary to endure the flares (and this is simple due to the inverse square law) then under normal conditions for the star the planet is much much too far away.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I can't see flare stars being viable for life.

>>8271574
If general Nuclear Thermal Engines are considered too risky and expensive to develop, I don't see any hope for more advanced/abstract Orion type projects.

What to use for a power source that can last 200 years and still provide dozens of megawatts hours at the end of the mission?

We should send a nuclear thermal rocket probe. That can accelerate up to at least 1% c, before having to turn around and slowdown. load it with every science instrument we can think of and a radio transmitter that can reliably broadcast huge amounts of data back.

>>8267389
Fuck you're dumb

Reminds me of this sci-fi short story

http://mysite.du.edu/~treddell/3780/Asimov_Nightfall.pdf

File: 1471229073764.jpg (233KB, 500x598px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 500x598px

>>8270823

Was the original question ever answered or was it just two autists arguing over the proper etiquette to tickling an anus with a feather?

>>8271961
>>>/x/

>>8272364
>original question
????

>>8271330
BTFO

>>8272368
good point

>>8272596
that's the sun from the teletubbies

>>8272599
if it were the sun, it would be flat
nice try tho

File: sisko mug.jpg (22KB, 646x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 646x400px

>>8266916
>>8266944

It's not real, another "unconfirmed" planet from the same European observatory with a history of "discovering" BS planets. NASA will quickly debunk their shit.

>>8272596
It s a lie UFO not exist

>>8272624
kek. the whole thread is dildos. people are talking as if its a real planet cuz theyre too lazy to even read the sources

>>8272629
Be nice. They just got excited. ;_;

>>8272638
I used to be excited too. But after being let down 5000 times by NASA and the inexistence of aliens, I now hate everything that reminds me of those days where I naively followed those threads.

>Der Spiegel
fgt pls

File: kekcat.jpg (111KB, 497x640px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 497x640px

>>8270823
I see what you did there

>>8267035
The moon is in our sun's habitable zone but isn't habitable. It just means the Earth would be at the right temperature for liquid water if it were teleported into the same orbit around the star. The planet that's there could have no water, an atmosphere like Venus, or thousands of other problems making it lifeless.

File: infographic_unbelievable_time_required_to_cover_immense_distances_of_space_1918.jpg (288KB, 1280x834px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1280x834px

Anyone worrying about the seemingly insurmountable distances to other stars, have a look at this picture about Solar System travelling time, from about 100 years ago...

They said it would take 755 years to get to Saturn, but 80 years later- it took under 7.

Well, they say it would take thousands of years to get to the nearest star...

But what will they say in 100 years from now?

20 years? 5 years? 1 month?

>>8273139
>cherrypicking
>taking a cartoon with fucking space planes and boats seriously

>>8273139
This comparison doesnt really work. I hate it when people make this argument

>>8273139
this graphic was made by someone who doesnt understand orbital mechanics

>>8273184
Seems pretty accurate to me you quantumnigger.

So can we build Galactic Life Imager or not?

>>8272644
NASA didn't let you down.

The American public let NASA down.

File: 1471106055241.jpg (549KB, 1024x818px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 1024x818px

>>8266916
When this is confirmed, my happening tolerance will be sky high. How will I ever be able to afford maintaining this addiction?
>TFW i will be giving bj's on the corner just to afford a happening fix this time next year.

>>8267379
hey, me first !

File: 462648964298246894628946289.gif (2MB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 499x499px

>>8274407
>>8267379
You'll have to wait since if it is in the star's habitable zone, it is likely tidally locked and the stellar wind has removed any possibility of an atmosphere.
>From wikipedia : The TV documentary Alien Worlds hypothesized that a life-sustaining planet could exist in orbit around Proxima Centauri or other red dwarfs. Such a planet would lie within the habitable zone of Proxima Centauri, about 0.023–0.054 AU from the star, and would have an orbital period of 3.6–14 days.[73] A planet orbiting within this zone will experience tidal locking to the star, so that Proxima Centauri moves little in the planet's sky, and most of the surface experiences either day or night perpetually. However, the presence of an atmosphere could serve to redistribute the energy from the star-lit side to the far side of the planet.[27]

Proxima Centauri's flare outbursts could erode the atmosphere of any planet in its habitable zone, but the documentary's scientists thought that this obstacle could be overcome (see continued theories). Gibor Basri of the University of California, Berkeley, even mentioned that "no one [has] found any showstoppers to habitability." For example, one concern was that the torrents of charged particles from the star's flares could strip the atmosphere off any nearby planet. However, if the planet had a strong magnetic field, the field would deflect the particles from the atmosphere; even the slow rotation of a tidally locked dwarf planet that spins once for every time it orbits its star would be enough to generate a magnetic field, as long as part of the planet's interior remained molten.[74]

>>8271574
Bussard Ramjet
Extra credit if you can fuse your interstellar dust on the order of trillionths to billionths of a second and so you don't have to bring it up to your speed. Get that sexy ~.8c

>>8271257
>>8271330
Someone got so rekt, he cant even answer anymore. wew

>>8274394
>4 light years away
Nothing is happening, especially not in your lyfetime ;^)

>>8270823
>reading every capital letter in this post

>all those obvious pastas in the other posts

Wow, that other retard must be a huge newfag

>>8274987
thanks for reminding that all /x/tards are trolling underage retards.

now back to >>>/x/

>>8274989
Didnt troll anyone. Just saw it. But how triggered are you exactly? lmao

File: laughingretarda.gif (2MB, 355x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 355x360px

>>8274987
>reading every capital letter in this post

>>8275027
>laughing retard
how dare you O:<

oh boy
Newfag btfo

File: Ted_Cruzaider.jpg (582KB, 1810x1046px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1810x1046px

Me

KIC 8462852 <<--- Alien life more possible by this...

>>8275532

It is far more relevant that THE CLOSEST STAR TO US may be habitable.

Of studies find it suitable for human colonization it will start another space race guaranteed.

So what if we find out there are intelligent aliens around KIC, it wouldn't matter because 1500 LIGHT YEARS!!! Makes it irrelevant unless FTL is possible, if it was those Aliens would all ready be capable.

Making it even more irreverent and perhaps even dangerous to contact KIC.

>>8274981

Wrong.

We could receive direct observational evidence in less than 20 years with current tech, using tiny laser pushed probes like Hawking is funding and now WE COULD NOT HAVE A MORE PERFECT CANDIDATE for that plan.

We have the tech to get there now if we used some form of generation ship (May not even require more than one extra generation to be raised on-board!)

Not to mention promising tech with low thrust and high efficiency. Then we have the possibility of a Alccibiere effect being an actual Harnessable force.

Things are looking up more and more every month at our rate of technological advancement.

>>8275571

earth like planet ≠ habitable

>>8275582

Go ahead and show me a better opportunity you condescending contentless faggot

/standardscifagtalk