L. Marcus Posted June 29, 2019 Report Share Posted June 29, 2019 The BBC is showing a new documentary series -- The Planets, presented by professor Brian Cox. Beautiful and awe-inspiring. Just saw the episode on Saturn. tkdguy and DShomshak 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted June 29, 2019 Report Share Posted June 29, 2019 As celestial bodies go, the Earth really isn't very impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted June 30, 2019 Report Share Posted June 30, 2019 Heresy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaJoe3 Posted June 30, 2019 Report Share Posted June 30, 2019 22 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: As celestial bodies go, the Earth really isn't very impressive. It's the only planet in the universe known to harbor life. I think that counts for something. ScottishFox and Beast 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted June 30, 2019 Report Share Posted June 30, 2019 ... As far as other planets are concerned, perhaps life is just a rather nasty rash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted June 30, 2019 Report Share Posted June 30, 2019 On 6/29/2019 at 10:01 AM, L. Marcus said: The BBC is showing a new documentary series -- The Planets, presented by professor Brian Cox. Beautiful and awe-inspiring. Just saw the episode on Saturn. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll look for it on BBC America. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Ruggels Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/behind-the-scenes-at-nasas-newly-restored-historic-apollo-mission-control/ tkdguy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Ruggels Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 and on another topic, pertinant to my Solar system game:https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/space-miners-race-to-an-asteroid-worth-quintillions tkdguy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishFox Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 On 6/30/2019 at 2:03 PM, IndianaJoe3 said: It's the only planet in the universe known to harbor life. I think that counts for something. I was about to say the same thing. There *should* be life on other planets given the known universe is 90+ billion light years in diameter, but this is the only one we know about. If we're really it for life in the entire universe - that would be a terrible waste of space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 On 6/30/2019 at 3:03 PM, IndianaJoe3 said: It's the only planet in the universe known to harbor life. I think that counts for something. Known to the people who live on it. Who haven't even set foot on other planets. Life elsewhere in the universe might consider that a rather provincial perspective. But I stand by my statement: as a celestial body the Earth is unimpressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: Known to the people who live on it. Who haven't even set foot on other planets. Life elsewhere in the universe might consider that a rather provincial perspective. But I stand by my statement: as a celestial body the Earth is unimpressive. Name me one other planet with gummy bears. I dare you. Beast and ScottishFox 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Duke Bushido said: Name me one other planet with gummy bears. I dare you. or Hersey Kisses Duke Bushido 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: Known to the people who live on it. Who haven't even set foot on other planets. Life elsewhere in the universe might consider that a rather provincial perspective. But I stand by my statement: as a celestial body the Earth is unimpressive. we have landed people on the moon and have sent out at least 2 address adverts inviting any who could read our address for naked hot tubbing party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Beast said: have sent out at least 2 address adverts inviting any who could read our address for naked hot tubbing party Ohhhhhh.... _That_ might be the problem..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted July 3, 2019 Report Share Posted July 3, 2019 9 hours ago, Beast said: we have landed people on the moon and have sent out at least 2 address adverts inviting any who could read our address for naked hot tubbing party It's a moon, not a planet. And if methane-breathers found our invites, for them a tub of steaming water would be a fair approximation of Hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted July 4, 2019 Report Share Posted July 4, 2019 So those earthlings threaten to put people into a bubbling vat of universal solvent, and then they wonder why no one responds? Lord Liaden and RDU Neil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, the July, 2019 issue of Scientific American has several articles on matters lunar. My favorite was an article proposing an alternate form of the giant impact model for creating the Moon. Instead of a Mars-sized impactor striking a glancing blow and the Moon forming from the resulting disk of debris, the authors propose a larger impactor hit the proto-Earth head-on, vaporizing the mantles of both to form a huge cloud of rock vapor -- puffed-out mantle merging with spinning disk -- they dub a synestia. The Moon condenses within the cooling, shrinking cloud. They argue this model more plausibly explains why the Moon is deficient in low boiling point elements such sodium and potassium (to say nothing of volatiles such as water), but otherwise its isitopic composition is identical to Earth: The vaporized rock from the two bodies would be thoroughly mixed in the synestia phase, while the Moon would have formed before the synestia cooled enough for the volatiles to condense very much. I can't judge the scientific pros and cons, but it's a spectacular visual, and could make a cool scenario for a SF adventure set in a forming planetary system. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, the July, 2019 issue of Scientific American has several articles on matters lunar. My favorite was an article proposing an alternate form of the giant impact model for creating the Moon. Instead of a Mars-sized impactor striking a glancing blow and the Moon forming from the resulting disk of debris, the authors propose a larger impactor hit the proto-Earth head-on, vaporizing the mantles of both to form a huge cloud of rock vapor -- puffed-out mantle merging with spinning disk -- they dub a synestia. The Moon condenses within the cooling, shrinking cloud. They argue this model more plausibly explains why the Moon is deficient in low boiling point elements such sodium and potassium (to say nothing of volatiles such as water), but otherwise its isitopic composition is identical to Earth: The vaporized rock from the two bodies would be thoroughly mixed in the synestia phase, while the Moon would have formed before the synestia cooled enough for the volatiles to condense very much. I can't judge the scientific pros and cons, but it's a spectacular visual, and could make a cool scenario for a SF adventure set in a forming planetary system. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinecone Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 On 7/9/2019 at 9:39 AM, DShomshak said: To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, the July, 2019 issue of Scientific American has several articles on matters lunar. My favorite was an article proposing an alternate form of the giant impact model for creating the Moon. Instead of a Mars-sized impactor striking a glancing blow and the Moon forming from the resulting disk of debris, the authors propose a larger impactor hit the proto-Earth head-on, vaporizing the mantles of both to form a huge cloud of rock vapor -- puffed-out mantle merging with spinning disk -- they dub a synestia. The Moon condenses within the cooling, shrinking cloud. They argue this model more plausibly explains why the Moon is deficient in low boiling point elements such sodium and potassium (to say nothing of volatiles such as water), but otherwise its isitopic composition is identical to Earth: The vaporized rock from the two bodies would be thoroughly mixed in the synestia phase, while the Moon would have formed before the synestia cooled enough for the volatiles to condense very much. I can't judge the scientific pros and cons, but it's a spectacular visual, and could make a cool scenario for a SF adventure set in a forming planetary system. Dean Shomshak I don't think this is a new concept. Though they may have some new views on how it went. When I last read this theory it was a roughly "moon sized" object crashed into the earth causing an ejecta cloud of moon like size to shoot off the other side...etc. Heck I think "worlds in colision" was the first try of this idea....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted July 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 On 7/2/2019 at 12:29 PM, Scott Ruggels said: and on another topic, pertinant to my Solar system game:https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/space-miners-race-to-an-asteroid-worth-quintillions Thanks. I can use that for my hard SF game as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted July 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 On 7/2/2019 at 3:58 PM, Lord Liaden said: But I stand by my statement: as a celestial body the Earth is unimpressive. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Earth is relatively unique in its shallow seas and tidally locked large satellite. It may not be much to look at but it's a hidden gem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted July 17, 2019 Report Share Posted July 17, 2019 ... though to be fair, our knowledge of Earth-size planets is very limited (most of the known exoplanets are Neptune- or Jupiter-class). TESS probably is the best chance in the near future to improve on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 On 7/12/2019 at 11:48 AM, pinecone said: I don't think this is a new concept. Though they may have some new views on how it went. When I last read this theory it was a roughly "moon sized" object crashed into the earth causing an ejecta cloud of moon like size to shoot off the other side...etc. Heck I think "worlds in colision" was the first try of this idea....? Not really. Velikovsky's crackpot notion was that Jupiter spit out a giant comet that ping-ponged around the inner Solar System. The close passes by Earth caused the miracles in the Old Testament, such as stopping and re-starting the Earth's rotation for the Battle of Jericho and causing the rain of manna. Then the comet settled down to become the planet Venus. All of this violates basic laws of physics, chemistry and a bunch of other science, but whoa, Velikovsky is a psychoanalyst recovering the collective memory the human race suppressed because of the trauma of the events, his evidence is obviously much more reliable than dumb ol' laboratory experiments. <eyeroll> As I mentioned in my post, the authors are not the first to propose a giant impact origin for the Moon. They propose a new mode of impact. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinecone Posted July 19, 2019 Report Share Posted July 19, 2019 Ah, my mistake then. Sorry for any offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.