[FunkyGanja]

Originally Posted by merlin478 as long as there is beer and weed im there!!!!

I second that!

I just hope we don't ruin that planet in the same way we have with our primitive ways. technology has progressed far enough for us not to make the same mistakes.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by japsander Even "safe" plants are not exempt from meltdown. There are too many variables that can cause disaster. As I was saying earlier, instead of spending billions on research that will not benefit us for decades/centuries, it would better be used in developing safer power generation that would in turn make up for the lost time by giving them better/more effective options. I understand that space travel etc is a race of sorts but I would rather run a race steadily and train myself up beforehand rather than pump myself up on steroids to take shortcuts that could be very harmful Energy transference could be used to power its own development in creating more Along the way through the solar system/galaxy, more could be deployed in series to make a sort of fuelling station along the way If it blows up, its in space, if nuclear plants meltdown it creates death and mutations that would affect not only those in the current generation but in future generations. It seems to me like it's a "make do" source of power and not a truly future friendly solution. We don't seem to have any real contingency for power or what would happen in case of disaster

You are right...it is a "make do" source of power...but it is currently the best one we really have. Sure, it would be great if we had reactors on the moon beaming back power to earth...but we don't, and even if we put such projects into top gear, we wouldn't have such systems for a very long time. We can do nuclear now.

One thing you are not necessarily correct on is the meltdowns...modern plants can actually be built to be meltdown-proof. If a reactor is designed correctly then there is no way for the materials inside to get to temperatures hot enough to melt down. There can still be leaks, there is still waste, but meltdowns can't happen unless you drop about a hundred kilos of C4 right into the reactor pit. There are just two problems with such reactors...the first is that they don't make as much power as meltdown-capable reactors so you need more of them. The second is that they didn't exist before 1977, so none of them exist in the US.

[FunkyGanja]

Originally Posted by KillerBug ...meltdowns can't happen unless you drop about a hundred kilos of C4 right into the reactor pit.

All it needs is for it's cooling system to fail and methods of controlling the fission reaction are no longer present. As i understand, if the neutron flux is above (no equal to) 1 (approx. 2.5 for U-235) meltdown is imminent as the rate of fission increases exponentially.

Obviously if you were to drop a sh*tload of C4 it would cause a meltdown but the reason for a meltdown is much simpler than people make it out to be.

Once we are able to harness energy efficiently, then we will be able to sustain our energy uses. Nuclear fuel and fossil fuels are obvious non-renewable energy sources but are there any ways that such amounts of energy can be created (not the right term because energy is constant)?

This is our ethical dillemma.

IMO, our energy uses are a waste anyway. Why do organizations need to leave their lights on when nobody is there? why does my school set it's air-con onto 17 oC when it's 16 oC outside??

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by FunkyGanja All it needs is for it's cooling system to fail and methods of controlling the fission reaction are no longer present. As i understand, if the neutron flux is above (no equal to) 1 (approx. 2.5 for U-235) meltdown is imminent as the rate of fission increases exponentially. Obviously if you were to drop a sh*tload of C4 it would cause a meltdown but the reason for a meltdown is much simpler than people make it out to be. Once we are able to harness energy efficiently, then we will be able to sustain our energy uses. Nuclear fuel and fossil fuels are obvious non-renewable energy sources but are there any ways that such amounts of energy can be created (not the right term because energy is constant)? This is our ethical dillemma. IMO, our energy uses are a waste anyway. Why do organizations need to leave their lights on when nobody is there? why does my school set it's air-con onto 17 oC when it's 16 oC outside??

New reactor designs space the uranium farther apart and have more fixed control rods...you can drain the water out and pull up all the movable control rods and it might melt down...but the movable control rods are all spring and gravity set to be inside the reactor...they only come up when you apply power to them, and they are all on different motors so even if one jams, the rest go back to safe position. You would actually have to try to do it, and it would still take a very long time.

It would be great if we could waste less power...but such idealism doesn't translate to the real world, and even if it did, we would still need a huge amount of power just to meet basic needs...nevermind charging millions of electric cars. We need more power sources; this country had rolling blackouts last year...now we have even fewer power plants and even more energy use, so more blackouts are guaranteed.

Yes, we need good permanent solutions for the next century...but we also need passable temporary solutions for next year. Either that, or there will be power rationing...and we all know that the wasteful corporations will get all they need while everyone else gets the shaft. The power can't come from coal or gas; the regulations against those are the reason the plants had to close to begin with. The power can't come from solar because people simply couldn't afford the costs of power from such a grid. The power can't come from turbines because the companies making them are already at maximum capacity and sold out for a decade in advance (in addition to various other issues with wind). Could it come from a global orbital reactor array? Maybe...but not next year. For now it will come from every source available including overloaded reactors reactors that seem designed to fail.

[Mackdanny]

How many light years away is this thing again?

[hamtah]

Funny thing I should mention right about now, depending on the light years away. The thing is, the planet's light we saw was 20 million years old, so the scientists which saw the planet or at least saw the light, we looking at it if it was 20 million years ago (considering it is 20 million light years away).

Now to put this in normal words, the planet's light takes 20 million years to reach us, so that light we see now is 20 million years old.

Solar System wise, the Sun is 8 light minutes away from, which means it takes light 8 minutes to reach the Earth. Now if by any chance the Sun will explode, it will take us about 8 minutes to find out.

What does this all mean? Time Travel. It is very unlikely, but it MAY be possible.

[FunkyGanja]

Originally Posted by hamtah What does this all mean? Time Travel. It is very unlikely, but it MAY be possible.

I don't mean to offend you but from my point of view, that's like saying traveling from Australia to the USA (and arriving on the previous day) is time travel.

Time travel will be considered successful when a body of matter can altered so that it may be present not in our relative time on earth but the time continuum of life from the furthest past to the infinite future.

Who's to say it isn't possible? If Albert Einstein hadn't spent all his time talking about nuclear weapons, then we might have a real-life Doctor Who!!

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by FunkyGanja I don't mean to offend you but from my point of view, that's like saying traveling from Australia to the USA (and arriving on the previous day) is time travel. Time travel will be considered successful when a body of matter can altered so that it may be present not in our relative time on earth but the time continuum of life from the furthest past to the infinite future. Who's to say it isn't possible? If Albert Einstein hadn't spent all his time talking about nuclear weapons, then we might have a real-life Doctor Who!!

We are all time travelers...as I type this I am traveling forward in time. By the same logic, if you were to move forward faster in time relative to your aging and thought processes, it would also be time travel. The rate at which one moves forward in time is effected by gravity and by speed...but moving back in time is a whole other can of worms.

That said, it is possible to see the past...just look up into the night sky and you will see light that is millions of years old, some coming from stars that may not even exist anymore.

[TizzyT]

Originally Posted by Tomal It has sun dude, the water [oceans] is liquid there so temp has to be similiar to the temp on Earth, if there is a water there is a life - trees, animals and all other thingies

Sun or more correctly star = yes
oceans = yes
life = can't be validated just by water

That planet is actually hotter then the earth to quite an extent. There is still water because gravity made water boil at different temperature because the pressure is different.

[japsander]

Originally Posted by KillerBug That said, it is possible to see the past...just look up into the night sky and you will see light that is millions of years old, some coming from stars that may not even exist anymore.

Exactly, and that is the reason where time travel (backwards) is theorised as quite possible.
Travelling faster than lightspeed would mean that you could reach the point of origin before the light was emitted, I.e. the past but it would do you no good as you would not be able to change anything unless you could travel faster than 10x speed of light as you would first need to
A. Wait for the visible information to reach your origin to see what needed to be changed and then e.g 10 light years
B. Travel over 10x faster to get there to compensate for the 1x time (10 years) it took for the original visible information to reach you so when you arrived at the destination, you would be.
A. In the future as far as your departure planet was concerned but
B. In the past as far as your destination planet was concerned (relative to yourself of course)

Actually 10 light years / 10x speed = 1 light year so my math is off by quite a bit but I carry on regardless :-)

(With the correct math applied to speed)Both time lines would in fact not have changed whatsoever but you would have crossed over from one to the other..

Even if the above came to fruition there would be other issues.

If you travelled to change a specific event and was successful, you would not have the reason to instigate the travel in the first place so it couldn't happen right?
Would you travel even faster to get home at the same time you departed?
If so then it would be highly likely you would meet yourself preparing to set off, and that's where paradox,s come into play

I love thinking about stuff like this but it gives me a headache.

Many have debunked the theory on the fact that no matter how fast you travel from point a to b you cannot beat the "time barrier"

Imagine 2 cars on a 100 mile stretch of road.
Both cars set off at exactly the same time.
No matter how fast car a goes, car b has already departed so you cannot get there before it.

My head hurts >.<
Hope I haven't rambled on too long

Edit.
Off topic (ironically)
I love the fact that an "off topic" thread has stayed on topic longer than the typical topical threads in this forum :-)