...how have I not heard of this before? My dad was one of the people sued by this kid, and it appears to be pretty high profile.
...my dad is an asshole, apparently....
+1
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2013
Goddamn, this is a cool idea:
One of the key questions for astrobiologists is where in the universe life might have taken hold. Their standard approach is to look for places that are warm enough to keep water in liquid form and so allow chemistry similar to our own.
That’s given rise to the idea of circumstellar habitable zones—regions around stars that are not too hot and not too cold but just right for liquid water. Goldilocks zones as they are sometimes called.
Abraham Loeb at Harvard University in Cambridge says there is another mechanism that creates a Goldilocks zone but in this case the zone is in time rather than in space. He says this mechanism would have created a Goldilocks zone that filled the entire universe for a few million years soon after the Big Bang. If he’s right, that means life could have evolved some 10 billion years before it cropped up on Earth.
one of the things I really like about cosmology is that there "epoch" is a term applied to a timespan of 10-43 seconds.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2013
There was a period 15 million years where the VACUUM OF SPACE was 0ºC-30ºC.
Any rocky planet in the universe was a good candidate for life at this time. WHAT IF WE GET TO PLUTO AND FIND RUINS. WE HAVE TO GO CHECK NOW.
(This is not true, the sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, 5.4 billion years after this time. Our solar system is too new to have had life on pluto unless pluto predates the sun.)
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
There was a period 15 million years where the VACUUM OF SPACE was 0ºC-30ºC.
Any rocky planet in the universe was a good candidate for life at this time. WHAT IF WE GET TO PLUTO AND FIND RUINS. WE HAVE TO GO CHECK NOW.
...were there any planets then?
Our solar system didn't exist yet so no probably not but let's let the public get some misconceptions about this going for a while and get funding back into space programs.
our sun didn't exist for billions of years yet
but anyway I read more of the article and yeah it is in the reionization period since he mentions 15 million years after the big bang
and his answer to "Well was there anything except hydrogen and helium in the universe then?" is "maaaaybe"
and the answer to "the universe is hot and turning itself into plasma could life survive that? is eeeeeeeeh
Today I:
Graded all the lab reports for my class
Analyzed some of my new (and old) data and found some statistical significance
Compiled a presentation for our lab meeting tomorrow
Made lentil soup for lunch tomorrow
packed for my trip back home
or was it for 15 million years in which case the point is moot because that's way too short anyway
It was 15 million. At best we find some fossils of single cells if anything formed and then survived at all.
Edit: Wait, it happened 15 million years after the big bang and lasted "several million years".
we won't find anything at all, but... that's gotta be a typo. There wasn't any stars at 15 million years after the start.
I don't know, I am not a cosmologist but this guy seems to think it was possible for there to have been some heavy element formation at that time?
Loeb is optimistic on this point. He calculates that the first stars, which would have been tens to hundreds of times more massive than the Sun, had a lifespan of about 3 million years. And although they would not have formed immediately after the Big Bang, he calculates there ought to have been time enough for heavy element formation in 15 million years.
So the conditions were certainly possible that would have “triggered the formation of rocky planets with liquid water on their surface,” he says.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
or was it for 15 million years in which case the point is moot because that's way too short anyway
It was 15 million. At best we find some fossils of single cells if anything formed and then survived at all.
Edit: Wait, it happened 15 million years after the big bang and lasted "several million years".
we won't find anything at all, but... that's gotta be a typo. There wasn't any stars at 15 million years after the start.
I don't know, I am not a cosmologist but this guy seems to think it was possible for there to have been some heavy element formation at that time?
Loeb is optimistic on this point. He calculates that the first stars, which would have been tens to hundreds of times more massive than the Sun, had a lifespan of about 3 million years. And although they would not have formed immediately after the Big Bang, he calculates there ought to have been time enough for heavy element formation in 15 million years.
So the conditions were certainly possible that would have “triggered the formation of rocky planets with liquid water on their surface,” he says.
no it's gotta be a typo. The first stars were still far off at 15 million. But 150 million is one figure that gets quoted. The people writing the article aren't cosmologists either.
or was it for 15 million years in which case the point is moot because that's way too short anyway
It was 15 million. At best we find some fossils of single cells if anything formed and then survived at all.
Edit: Wait, it happened 15 million years after the big bang and lasted "several million years".
we won't find anything at all, but... that's gotta be a typo. There wasn't any stars at 15 million years after the start.
I don't know, I am not a cosmologist but this guy seems to think it was possible for there to have been some heavy element formation at that time?
Loeb is optimistic on this point. He calculates that the first stars, which would have been tens to hundreds of times more massive than the Sun, had a lifespan of about 3 million years. And although they would not have formed immediately after the Big Bang, he calculates there ought to have been time enough for heavy element formation in 15 million years.
So the conditions were certainly possible that would have “triggered the formation of rocky planets with liquid water on their surface,” he says.
no it's gotta be a typo. The first stars were still far off at 15 million. But 150 million is one figure that gets quoted. The people writing the article aren't cosmologists either.
or was it for 15 million years in which case the point is moot because that's way too short anyway
It was 15 million. At best we find some fossils of single cells if anything formed and then survived at all.
Edit: Wait, it happened 15 million years after the big bang and lasted "several million years".
we won't find anything at all, but... that's gotta be a typo. There wasn't any stars at 15 million years after the start.
I don't know, I am not a cosmologist but this guy seems to think it was possible for there to have been some heavy element formation at that time?
Loeb is optimistic on this point. He calculates that the first stars, which would have been tens to hundreds of times more massive than the Sun, had a lifespan of about 3 million years. And although they would not have formed immediately after the Big Bang, he calculates there ought to have been time enough for heavy element formation in 15 million years.
So the conditions were certainly possible that would have “triggered the formation of rocky planets with liquid water on their surface,” he says.
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
+1
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
He has written multiple books on the early universe and chairs Harvard's department of astronomy. I assume "Loeb is optimistic" is a euphemism for "he filled our reporter's entire recording device with 8 hours of rigorous theory that we cannot even begin to explain in this article".
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Posts
Science is always allowed
not in Apocalypse World, it seems
To be fair, Galaxie is way better, and has led to interesting complications everywhere.
...how have I not heard of this before? My dad was one of the people sued by this kid, and it appears to be pretty high profile.
...my dad is an asshole, apparently....
https://medium.com/p/239bc4cf4ece
Any rocky planet in the universe was a good candidate for life at this time. WHAT IF WE GET TO PLUTO AND FIND RUINS. WE HAVE TO GO CHECK NOW.
(This is not true, the sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, 5.4 billion years after this time. Our solar system is too new to have had life on pluto unless pluto predates the sun.)
...were there any planets then?
Our solar system didn't exist yet so no probably not but let's get some misconceptions out there and get funding back into space programs.
Work hours and days I work just changed.
Oh by the way there was also a bomb threat made at my company and we weren't evacuated. Actually I didn't even know it was going on.
our sun didn't exist for billions of years yet
but anyway I read more of the article and yeah it is in the reionization period since he mentions 15 million years after the big bang
and his answer to "Well was there anything except hydrogen and helium in the universe then?" is "maaaaybe"
and the answer to "the universe is hot and turning itself into plasma could life survive that? is eeeeeeeeh
The universe is only 6000 years old
cause I remembered reionization wrong that was 150 million years after
Is the patch about to get released?
It was 15 million. At best we find some fossils of single cells if anything formed and then survived at all.
Edit: Wait, it happened 15 million years after the big bang and lasted "several million years".
So it took about 1.3k Million years (1.3 thousand, million years) for life to appear after earth formed
So I mean maybe bacteria could have existed (or something similar) for those 15 million but the probability is low
*this post will be misinterpreted by journalists and the headline will read SCIENTISTS SAY STARGATE A DEFINITE POSSIBILITY
Today I:
Graded all the lab reports for my class
Analyzed some of my new (and old) data and found some statistical significance
Compiled a presentation for our lab meeting tomorrow
Made lentil soup for lunch tomorrow
packed for my trip back home
IM TIRED LOL
: /
being thoroughly uncomfortable with a bonafide homicidal maniac as a PC is legit, Simon
we won't find anything at all, but... that's gotta be a typo. There wasn't any stars at 15 million years after the start.
AND ALSO CURE FOR CANCER FOUND
I don't know, I am not a cosmologist but this guy seems to think it was possible for there to have been some heavy element formation at that time?
Science was like a lovable little Rottweiler that's been trained to murder things
sure, sometimes she's got blood on her mouth and a look in her eyes that says 'if you cross me I will destroy you and everything you've ever loved'
but deep down she's a good girl
who wants a belly rub, awww
What happened in this RPG?
no it's gotta be a typo. The first stars were still far off at 15 million. But 150 million is one figure that gets quoted. The people writing the article aren't cosmologists either.
Kurt Russell or MacGyver?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0613
It's right there in the summary for the academic paper and the author, Abraham Loeb is a Harvard professor.
this dude clearly did his PhD in Wishful Thinking
(aka Astronomy)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
GO TO SLEEP
No eddy stay awake OH NO YOU FORGOT TO STUDY THAT ONE THING