Moontanman

This video is a wild combination of sound and imagery, the song was released in around 1973 but the video is much younger. Turn on your woofer!

That was pretty good, it felt very well adapted to the video...

I am suggesting that Earth may not be as perfect as many people tend to believe. M class stars are really too small to have planets far enough away for them to rotate, k stars are bright enough to have a life zone where planets could still rotate and a larger planet than Earth could maintain liquid water further still. better plate tectonics, stronger magnetic field, thicker atmosphere. Earth could be on the lower edge of life friendly planets. Oh yeah, other life, I doubt that other planets would be colonised if we get controlled fusion going.

That was pretty good, it felt very well adapted to the video...

While the idea of a super Earth has been discussed many times many people assume that a super habitable planet is pretty much the same thing and while they might overlap to some extent they are differing concepts. A super habitable planet poses the idea that a planet could very well be better than Earth in several ways to support life. An example would be a planet orbiting a K type star, twice as massive as Earth and around 1.2 to 1.5 times the Earth's diameter. If it lied close to the middle or outer edge of it's stars habitable zone such a planet could maintain habitability for as long as 30 billion years. A denser atmosphere, more greenhouse gases, a stronger magnetic field and longer plate tectonics would suggest a planet better than Earth for life. Some people think such a planet would have vast shallow seas, the land would be represented by numerous archipelagoes and deserts or ice caps would be diminished or not occur at all. These attributes could allow for a larger more diverse ecology. Could we be looking for the wrong stars and planets for life?

WOW! I like old books too, I don't have any rare ones but i still have my high school geometry book. I reference when ever i have to figure volumes and distance.. Interesting link, it is somewhat dated but information is always important. I wonder how much of an actual game changer things like Carbon fiber, nanotubes or graphene would be?

I wonder if the library would have it?

It is an odd thing to think about, used habatat lots, repo an old one or trade one in one a fancier model. Expose the inside to vacuum and sterilize it... Do you know of any reason the OP can't post here anymore?

Depends really on how fast you want to do it, but once you have the infrastructure in place the actual habitats should be relatively reasonable. There is no way to estimate not knowing what type of economy we will have when we start building a dyson swarm. I can see small groups or even individuals owning smaller tori to whole nations owning larger ones. Maybe they will have a used habitat lot like a used car lots we have now...

No, not as far as I know, creating a mini big bang seems extreme. If you wanted another planet and you had the energy reserves for that you could do much better than mini earths. A dyson swarm would allow you to support trillions of people, no new technology really required, just lots of money and time..

The wiki links i posted would be a way to start but if you want the info faster you might want to watch this guys videos. This one addresses that very topic.

As long as it's enclosed we can fill it with soil, water, and air. Pipe in sunlight and then spin it for artificial gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder My personal choice is a rotating torus but the principle is the same.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus

Mini Earths? Mini Earths could not keep an atmosphere and so could not be mini Earths. Are suggesting enclosed habitats?

This place needs a little class... Yes I miss the 80's! no apologies...

Hmmm ummm, freeze fried astronaut...

You do understand that Newton was wrong... right? Einstein corrected him but is still not correct, quantum mechanics points that out. Can you elaborate on that?

I understand that but is it true that time passes faster as time goes by? At least from the perspective of an outside observer? The more I think about the more absurd my question becomes. Perhaps I misunderstand the OP's question.

Isn't it true that time passed slower in the past because time passes slower nearer to a mass than away from it? If so then wouldn't time have passed slower the nearer you get to t=0?

I have learned so much on this forum it's almost embarrassing to think back before the net. I see people who come here wanting to teach us some pet theory and yet refusing to learn the basics of reality. I like all the mods... well except for that James Bond guy . Being willing to seek the truth is far more important than claiming to know it...

An aneutronic reaction is being proposed for a new fusion reactor that would not emit neutrons and it's energy could be turned directly into electrical power with no steam turbines involved. https://www.livescience.com/61298-new-fusion-reactor-uses-boron-and-hydrogen.html?utm_source=notification

If you don't know what a strawman is I would suggest you study some logical fallacies... The eel you mention has nothing to do with lung fish. https://www.britannica.com/animal/lungfish Your diagram ignores the origin of the air and this makes it incomplete and inaccurate...

Swansont is a good mode? Damn my whole world has been shaken to the very core of my being...

I used to build aquariums to grow coral by coating plywood with epoxy, didn't seem to affect the coral and they are very sensitive noxious substances...