Kepler-22b - An Earthlike planet?

[Sam48]

The concept of life elsewhere isn't optimistic in the slightest (given the enormity of space), but assuming that one of the tiny handful of "Goldilocks zone" planets we've learned much about has life is pretty optimistic, for the same reason (incredible odds of finding a planet with life amongst the billions of possibilities).

My point exactly. We get much to excited about something we have yet to fully discover.

Even then, life is a very loose term. There's a likelihood that basic life could be found elsewhere in our own solar system, let alone on another planet. Now intelligent life is a different matter.

Given the fact that every time someone "discovers" bacterial/molecular life on other planets via our rovers and what not, there's always those who claim it's real, and those who are skeptical regarding its origins. I believe that when proof of other life is discovered in our universe, it will come from an intelligent source.

 

[CMvan46]

Correct, if it happens to be roughly identical to the Earth, then we would be seeing them in the middle ages. For all we know they could be staring right back at us and seeing the same thing.

I just wanted to throw in that this exact thing is what makes the idea of time travel possible. If we were somehow able to beat the speed of light then we could get there possibly hundreds of years early or perhaps an hour early?

 

[PeterJB]

I'm not sure if it works that way. You'd probably get some kind of galactic Doppler effect blue shift type experience. So the aliens would be in fast forward with a blueish tint!

 

[Crispy]

If it was possible we would be able to observe our Earth as it was at an earlier time, which we could learn so much more! In fact, it could be a possibility we could find out how we exactly started, maybe if we went far enough, how our universe started.

Of course that couldn't ever happen. There's only so much length, and by the time we develop such a thing (If it's even possible, which I highly doubt it is) then we would probably be looking at the time Jesus was walking around, or maybe even us, now, typing here on this thread, on GTPlanet.

 

[TankAss95]

If it was possible we would be able to observe our Earth as it was at an earlier time, which we could learn so much more! In fact, it could be a possibility we could find out how we exactly started, maybe if we went far enough, how our universe started.

Of course that couldn't ever happen. There's only so much length, and by the time we develop such a thing (If it's even possible, which I highly doubt it is) then we would probably be looking at the time Jesus was walking around, or maybe even us, now, typing here on this thread, on GTPlanet.

O.o

 

[Sam48]

If it was possible we would be able to observe our Earth as it was at an earlier time, which we could learn so much more! In fact, it could be a possibility we could find out how we exactly started, maybe if we went far enough, how our universe started.

Of course that couldn't ever happen. There's only so much length, and by the time we develop such a thing (If it's even possible, which I highly doubt it is) then we would probably be looking at the time Jesus was walking around, or maybe even us, now, typing here on this thread, on GTPlanet.

Assuming we could travel at the speed of light, we could never catch the light of time that's already gone before us. Therefore, we cannot see into the past.

If I took off in a rocket at the speed of light away from earth, I could look back at earth and watch time in a stand still of how it was as I lifted off. Then if I stop out in space while still observing the earth, I would see time resume from whenever I took off.

 

[Matty]

So therefore time travel is possible right? Like if you went twice the speed light it would revolve backwards?

 

[CMvan46]

So therefore time travel is possible right? Like if you went twice the speed light it would revolve backwards?

Well the thought is that if we could travel faster than the speed of light then we could theoretically beat light there which means we would actually advanced in time. Because this new planet is 600 light years away right now if we could see the planet we would be seeing it 600 years ago.

 

[Dennisch]

Let's forget about breaking the lightspeedbarrier, and use a wormhole. Go through it in seconds, and you are 600 lightyears away from Earth, take your big ass telescope out of your pocket, point it at Earth > Voila. Earth 1412.

 

[PeterJB]

As I said previously, the Doppler effect may cause the light in front to catch up with you, so everything appears sped-up.

 

[Matty]

Well the thought is that if we could travel faster than the speed of light then we could theoretically beat light there which means we would actually advanced in time. Because this new planet is 600 light years away right now if we could see the planet we would be seeing it 600 years ago.

I already stated the second bit in a previous post but if we went twice the speed of light (what is that called anyway? Since twice the speed of sound is Mach 2) wouldn't we see the earth revolve backwards? So if we went that speed for twenty four hours and landed back at earth it would be the day before correct?

 

[bergauk]

I already stated the second bit in a previous post but if we went twice the speed of light (what is that called anyway? Since twice the speed of sound is Mach 2) wouldn't we see the earth revolve backwards? So if we went that speed for twenty four hours and landed back at earth it would be the day before correct?

No.. If we went around the earth for 24 hours at the speed of light and landed, nothing would change except for time progressing 24 hours.

If you hopped in a spaceship, traveled 1 light-year away from earth, turned around and looked back at earth. you'd be seeing earth as it was a year ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this anyone.

 

[Sam48]

If you hopped in a spaceship, traveled 1 light-year away from earth, turned around and looked back at earth. you'd be seeing earth as it was a year ago.

No, you'd be seeing earth as it was when you first took off. The light that radiated from the earth when you took off stayed with you as you sped away at the speed of light, therefore when you looked back the first thing you would see is the light that stayed with you that depicted you lifting off. And if you could travel faster than the speed of light, you could theoretically return to earth before you even took off. This is how it may be possible to travel back in time.

 

[bergauk]

No, you'd be seeing earth as it was when you first took off. The light that radiated from the earth when you took off stayed with you as you sped away at the speed of light, therefore when you looked back the first thing you would see is the light that stayed with you that depicted you lifting off. And if you could travel faster than the speed of light, you could theoretically return to earth before you even took off. This is how it may be possible to travel back in time.

No.. You aren't going backwards. You're still going forwards in time.

Tell me how going forwards in time at the speed of light and then returning to the same point of origin would make you have gone back in time.

It doesn't make sense. It can't make sense. It won't ever make sense.

 

[Sach]

Assuming we could travel at the speed of light, we could never catch the light of time that's already gone before us. Therefore, we cannot see into the past.

If I took off in a rocket at the speed of light away from earth, I could look back at earth and watch time in a stand still of how it was as I lifted off. Then if I stop out in space while still observing the earth, I would see time resume from whenever I took off.

So, you are saying that you would see time "coming at you"?

 

[Grand Prix]

If you were travelling at 99.999% of the speed of light and turned on headlights on your vehicle, the light from them will still speed away from you at the speed of light relative to you. (which is quite mind boggling, but that is what they mean they say C is a constant)

So, even if you were travelling at 99.999% of C the light from Earth would still reach you at C.

Light speed itself is not possible unless you're energy, not matter. And the aforementioned wormholes.

 

[homeforsummer]

My point exactly. We get much to excited about something we have yet to fully discover.

That's human nature. We wouldn't be researching it if it wasn't incredibly exciting.

Given the fact that every time someone "discovers" bacterial/molecular life on other planets via our rovers and what not, there's always those who claim it's real, and those who are skeptical regarding its origins. I believe that when proof of other life is discovered in our universe, it will come from an intelligent source.

No life, bacterial or otherwise, has yet been discovered on a foreign body.

I'm not sure why you believe we're more likely to find intelligent life before find incredibly basic life-forms such as single-celled organisms?

 

[Encyclopedia]

So, you are saying that you would see time "coming at you"?

In a way. The light goes by you making you be able to witness the events that happening. Seeing = Light.


I think.

 

[Matty]

In a way. The light goes by you making you be able to witness the events that happening. Seeing = Light.

I think.

But theoretically if we did go twice the speed of light for 24 hours and landed on earth you would see earth as it was 24 hours before you took off? Meaning you've gained a day?

 

[Encyclopedia]

But theoretically if we did go twice the speed of light for 24 hours and landed on earth you would see earth as it was 24 hours before you took off? Meaning you've gained a day?

You mean fly away from earth in twice the speed of light for 24 ours? I'm a bit confused now I must admit.

 

[Matty]

You mean fly away from earth in twice the speed of light for 24 ours? I'm a bit confused now I must admit.

Well like flew out for 12 hours and back for another 12.. So that you were back within 24hours. So therefore it would revolve backwards and therefore you could go back in time?

 

[Sam48]

No.. You aren't going backwards. You're still going forwards in time.

Tell me how going forwards in time at the speed of light and then returning to the same point of origin would make you have gone back in time.

It is a bit complicated, but here's why it's theoretically possible. The faster you go, the slower time becomes relative to you. So, if you were to speed away from earth at the speed of light and then return to earth one year later (That is, one year relative to you), everyone you used to know would have already died. This is because when you're moving at the speed of light, time is nearly standing still compared to time when we're stationary on earth.

(Start at about 2 minutes)



If that makes sense, then consider the following: What if we travel faster than the speed of light? Now keep in mind that it's not really possible. The amount of energy required exceeds all recourses our earth has to offer. Nonetheless, let's assume you could. At the speed of light, time moves forwards at an incredibly slow pace relative to people on earth. The speed of light is nature's limit. If you break the limit, you are no longer moving forward in time, you are moving backwards in time according to the theory of special relativity. So the clock with the bouncing ball you saw in the video has slowed to the point were it would now bounce backwards because it cannot withstand the fact that it's moving faster than light. This is natures response to the situation. Nature won't really allow you to move faster than light, but if you do actually break 186,000 miles/second, you don't really go faster than light, you simply go backwards in time.

Even though I find this quite interesting, I think it's becoming a bit off topic.

That's human nature. We wouldn't be researching it if it wasn't incredibly exciting.

I understand, I'm simply implying that we're quite excited about something we know very little about.

No life, bacterial or otherwise, has yet been discovered on a foreign body.

There have been a few instances were scientist have claimed to have discovered bacterial life on Mars, but nothing significant.

I'm not sure why you believe we're more likely to find intelligent life before find incredibly basic life-forms such as single-celled organisms?

Two intelligent life forms searching for each other are more likely to meet than one intelligent life form looking for an unintelligent life form who, of course, is not searching at all.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Well like flew out for 12 hours and back for another 12.. So that you were back within 24hours. So therefore it would revolve backwards and therefore you could go back in time?

Once you stop back at earth again it should be 24 hours later if that's how long the travel took. If you look back at earth during the traveling I don't know what you would see though.

I'm way to tired and ill (cold) to be able to think about this.

 

[Sam48]

Once you stop back at earth again it should be 24 hours later if that's how long the travel took.

If if took 24 hours relative to you, and you are going twice the speed of light, than you will go back in time. How far back in time is unknown since while you are traveling at the speed of light, one light hour could be hundreds of earth years. But since light is constant, it works in reverse as well. So, if you're going twice the speed of light for 24 hours, you're actually going back in time for 24 hours relative to you. Of course, when you return to earth, you might actually end up going thousands of years back in time.

 

[Encyclopedia]

If if took 24 hours relative to you, and you are going twice the speed of light, than you will go back in time. How far back in time is unknown since while you are traveling at the speed of light, one light hour could be hundreds of earth years. But since light is constant, it works in reverse as well. So, if you're going twice the speed of light for 24 hours, you might end up going thousands of years back in time when you arrive back on earth.

I probably need to brush up on Einsteins's theory of relativity. When my brain is up for it.

 

[Matty]

If if took 24 hours relative to you, and you are going twice the speed of light, than you will go back in time. How far back in time is unknown since while you are traveling at the speed of light, one light hour could be hundreds of earth years. But since light is constant, it works in reverse as well. So, if you're going twice the speed of light for 24 hours, you're actually going back in time for 24 hours relative to you. Of course, when you return to earth, you might actually end up going thousands of years back in time.

I havent looked at anything to think of that.. Just thought it makes sense? So therefore it is impossible to go forward in time since the light has not yet got there right?

 

[Sam48]

I havent looked at anything to think of that.. Just thought it makes sense? So therefore it is impossible to go forward in time since the light has not yet got there right?

If you are going faster than the speed of light, you can only go backwards in time, never forward in time. If you are going just under the speed of light, you're moving through time at a massive rate (That is, into the future). And if I'm driving down the road in my car, I'm traveling into the future by fractions of a second (Such a small amount, in fact, that it's not even worth measuring).

 

[Matty]

That's what I assumed:tup:

 

[noisiaturismo]

I wonder if there are any Christians on that planet

Do you really thing God has that much time to create even more versions of Jesus?

 

[homeforsummer]

Two intelligent life forms searching for each other are more likely to meet than one intelligent life form looking for an unintelligent life form who, of course, is not searching at all.

It's easier to track an immobile object than it is a moving target

Obviously I'm being flippant, but my point is that simple life is likely to be significantly more abundant than intelligent life (it is on Earth, after all - the biomass of simple bacteria far outweighs that of mammals) so it should be easier to find.