AJ Rimmer
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 6,451
- Reaction score
- 11
Any observation about "planets" is within this galaxy. The nearest galaxy is thousands light year away.
2.5 million light years, actually.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Any observation about "planets" is within this galaxy. The nearest galaxy is thousands light year away.
Oh I wasn't serious either, just having some fun, and considering the possibilities. By the way I AM NOT ZOMBIETURTLE01111!! :stare:I have no clue. I wasn't entirely serious with my post anyway since our global warming isn't going to be anywhere near the extremes of that planet. I'm sure we'd have technology to withstand those types of temperatures and survive there, albeit a harsh existence.
Good to know, thanks for the explanation. That's actually pretty good then!lol. Hollywood science.
"space germs" would have no way of harming us. A bacteria or virus has to evolve in order to be pathogenic to a species - otherwise all diseases on earth would be able to infect all species. This clearly isn't the case. So why would space germs be able to infect us better than, say, bluetongue disease?
Oh I wasn't serious either, just having some fun, and considering the possibilities. By the way I AM NOT ZOMBIETURTLE01111!! :stare:
GOD .2.5 million light years, actually.
2.5 million light years, actually.
Are you implying that a planet's gravitational force is always proportional/relative to it's mass? Well, being that the article said the planet was 6x the size of Earth that's what I assumed.Have fun weighing something like 6x your normal weight.
Not the same object but the principal is the same:
It'll be like Waterworld, but BOILING
If you bothered to check wikipedia you'll see that it states the surface gravity for GJ 1214b is 0.91g. That's far closer to our own than, say, Mars.Are you implying that a planet's gravitational force is always proportional/relative to it's mass? Well, being that the article said the planet was 6x the size of Earth that's what I assumed.
Are you implying that a planet's gravitational force is always proportional/relative to it's mass?
GOD .