What is Digg?103 Comments
- PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -4/+86i'd say it's a few billion years past being 'new'.
- ericthegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+68It's Krypton!
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -4/+69Back in my day, Pluto was a planet.
- asian1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43And we had to walk to Pluto and back, uphill, both ways.
- arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42Back when I was a kid, it was a dog.
- monkeycatDx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42No picture...at least Pluto had a picture.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Yeah well consider yourself lucky! Back when I was a kid if we kept repeating the same joke over and over again we'd get punched in the face.
- HeavyMessing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Why wouldn't it exist any more? 300 years is nothing in astronomical terms.
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Back when I was a kid, he was the god of the underworld.
- arunforce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Let's send a probe and Terraform it. >:D
- verbose, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24The sun is going to scorch the earth in 2 billion years? Al Gore, I hear sequel!
- blkrvnhwk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Having the same orbit does not necessarily make it habitable.
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1310x the size does not mean 10x the weight. The Diameter could be greater than Earth (and almost certainly is) making things weigh less.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15In the chemically-powered ROCKET shuttles!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Have you heard of a TARDIS.
- slundal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"Time And Relative Dimension In Space" right? Blue box with a doctor inside if I'm not mistaken.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Except this one is 300 light years away... and there are much closer ones too...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13We are outdated.
- ellabee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Always fascinating stuff to me.
- Chakz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12A lot of people don't know that when you look into space you're actually looking back in time. That star could be long gone by now but we're just seeing what was there 300 years ago.
- Chakz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Could More !
- slundal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If we could what?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12QUICK! Destroy it before it produces another lame superhero!
- motang, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Simply fascinating! Would be cool if we could more about this planet.
- xtlosx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7bring pluto back!
- Dotcommer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9LOL! Jesus christ you fail at the internet. And speaking.
- diggydougie, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1210x the size of earth. So a 150lb man would weigh 1500lbs. Time for a severe diet. I only have 300 years to get to my ideal 1.5lb weight.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Closest solar system is 4.4 LY away, but your point stands. Yeah, if you're talking about a beam based teleportation system, that holds true. My money will be on a quantum-coupled system, which bypasses lightspeed restrictions. Some theorists suggest gravity-generating 'engines' could bend the space time continuum in such a way as to avoid linear space travel all together.
- Toast1185, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8He thinks its people
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Wait...it didn't say it was 10x the size of Earth, it said it was about the size of Jupiter. Jupiter is like 1000x the size of earth, but because of its diameter, things only weigh about 3x as much.
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6From Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Adiscover&btnG=Search
define:discover = "find" - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Assuming that transportation device is incapable of folding dimensions and instead transforms all matter to light energy.
- astrobleme, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Buried for bad science reporting. The Bad Astronomer covered this recently http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/03/new-planet-with-earthlike-orbit-nah/
- MacGruber, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5what exactly do you think the word Discover means..?
- slundal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Hobby-Eberly Telescope at the McDonald Observatory" Are you sure it's not just the new happy meal toy?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, you're both wrong and right.
Having an identical orbit to earth in a situation with a 10x more massive star that's already gone inflated-red would most certainly result in a planet that's been consumed by its daddy.
Meanwhile, it's possible that a planet with an orbital year of 360 days, in that situation would be within the 'habitable belt' of its parent Sun. I don't know the math, but it would have to be worked out to know the surface temperature of the planet. - Genjeta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think the word you're looking for is volume.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It will still be there for at least a couple of million years. The star's progress toward enveloping its planets will be slow. It may be there for even as long as a billion years, depending. The chances of it being wiped out by some collision in that time seem low. But there would be no reason for us to go there anyway. When we get the new space telescope, we'll probably be able to find earth-like planets in stable orbits that we can plan on visiting.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's also considering that you are travelling along on the space-time plane. Just because nothing can travel faster than light in space-time doesn't mean you can't adjust space time to make you move FASTER than light.
That's one of the things that solves some of our observations about the universe. It's expanding FASTER than the speed of light. Not because Relativity is wrong, but because space-time fabric CAN expand faster than the speed of light.
Damn, I need more alcohol now.... - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well, for YOU it would be instantaneous / take minutes. For the rest of the universe, it would take ages.
- MrLazySmurf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Its us 3000 years from now.
- emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Here's an interesting bit. That speed of light will never change, even if we find it's wrong. The meter is based on the speed of light, so if we later come up with a more accurate measurement, the speed of light will equal the same in terms of m/s as what it does now - it's the length of the meter that will change.
- exformation, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Earthlike" is misleading. Very. Misleading.
- WNW3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You read my mind
- UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Did anyone on this reply get any facts straight/right? Size has some very little to do with the pull of gravity. It is really about how much mass the object has. The more mass/matter the stronger the pull on other objects. Weight/Gravity is not proportionate to the size of the earth compared to another object btw. (ie, object 10x bigger doesn't mean you weigh 10x more.) Look at a neutron star, it's mass is huge, just dense, leading it to be relatively small in actual size.
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...especially if it orbits a red giant.
- kb9vgr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3infinite improbability drive
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3'Swim 300 light years' ^_^
- lazyrussian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Light travels at 3x10^8 m/s. Say the planet is 10 lightyears away (lightyear = the time it takes for lgiht t travel in 1 earth year), and lets say the planet exploded 10 years ago, we would only be seeing the light from that planet now (10 years later).
- keeganspeck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good idea, horrible utilization.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is