Moontanman

Some place I read... I think.. that humans could possibly adapt to 2gs but I am not sure where. But as I have said, why bother with planets at all? We could pack 40 5 mile long 1 mile thick Mckendrick cylinders into an area about 15 miles in diameter covered in a couple hundred meters of regolith and ices to protect from small meteors. It would look like a 15 mile wide sphere but inside it would house 30 or 40 habitats inside in a geometric pattern. I'm not sure about waste heat dissipation. That might limit the number of cylinders. All we would need that we don't have now is controlled fusion... That would be 628 square miles of living space, full earth gravity and atmosphere...

Mt you tube channel is tiny and about aquariums, if you want space and technology check out Isaac Arthur's Channel...

Actually some are pretty close even by strict standards but the standards assume quite a bit and ignore other possibilities. Super Earths for instance might very well be better than the Earth for life and could expand the habitable zone considerably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

I don't think that problem really does solve the fermi paradox. It assume a planet must be just like Earth but life on Earth has adapted to the Earth. No reason to assume that life elsewhere couldn't adapt to somewhat different conditions..

Why would we want to send microbes out into space if life already exists there? Given the correct conditions life is inevitable at according to Jeremy England Again, distance is meaningless given time and traveling for tens of thousands of years is the point. But the travel isn't done by one ship. The idea is that one ship can reproduce it's self by "living off the land" or in other words using material it encounters in space, which is not as empty as people think" and planets become unnecessary. Planets, being deep gravity wells, could and probably would, be avoided in such a scenario in favor of cosmic debris like oort cloud objects. These objects also exist between stars as well but even dust could be collected to harvest volatiles that would be lost over thousands of years of travel time. See O'Neil cylinders and or Stanford torus Probably correct but it's not impossible or even particularly unlikely...

Why do you think we would need to get humans out of the solar system? It is quite possible to build self contained habitats inside the solar system that would equal millions of earths in surface area. Wouldn't that be at the risk of infecting other planets with our microbes? I see no reason to assume that... Well I guess you can think anything you want but are you asserting there is no other life in the universe? Not impossible, not even difficult, see the first part of my answers, such habitats could slowly travel all over the galaxy stopping to make new habitats even if there are no other planets. BTW if you lend credence to UFOs then this could be the source, other civilizations could already be growing in the oort cloud or kuiper belt and we would be none the wiser. Me either..

Can these aliens generate electricity? There might be some chemical process they could use to generate electricity, there should be metals and metalloids available to them, sodium, calcium, aluminum, possibly even copper. Extracting these metals would be a hassle from the chlorine, hydroxides and sulfides dissolved in the ice surface but I think we have far to little info on the chemistry of the surface of Titan to be making pronouncements at this point... On Earth, native metals, copper, silver, and even gold, are precipitated out by bacteria that use them to extract chemical energy, these processes could be at work on Titan with different metals. The might make space ships out of calcium and sodium. I'm not a chemist but it seems to me that the ice should contain many possible metal compounds that dissolve in water and would be present in ice. Maybe they wouldn't have a need for the iron...

It occurs to me that we have a category where we can post anything we want as what we are listening to now... just saying...

I apologize, I got the author wrong! It was Harry Turtledove! I love the novels by Goodkind as well, the Richard and Kahlan novels great but I saw the TV series first on those... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series

I think I agree with both of you on the basics, simply posting a video would not be productive, but posting a video about what you want to discuss and quoting from the video and listing the time stamp for what you want to discuss is possibly a better idea but videos are problematic for many reasons and quite good for many as well. The wave of "fake science news" broke a while back and you tube did some demonetizing that helped and hurt the situation but as we fight the tsunami of fake news media the format of your tube videos is spreading bullshit faster than a mechanical field fertiliser. Reading is a wonderful format for fiction and draws in far more readers than science and yet fiction is in danger of being usurped by videos and CGI technology. As an avid reader i used to criticize the way books were often distorted when transferred the the medium of TV and movies but not so few actually read that movies made from books are not questioned at all and books we were all sure could never be made into movies will be if they are popular enough to or if the movie makers stop just repeating the same material over and over and they realise the depth of the material that could be made using books that before now simply couldn't be made into movies. The movie Avatar came damn close to rivaling what I see when I read a good book, can science compet as the medium becomes the message? Do we need video science? people like Bill Nye and his influence, mainly know for the video medium, was and is much bigger than it would have been with out video...

I have conceded your point on the problem of policing them and maybe that is undoable here but my intent is not that (at least now) but more to discuss the role videos are playing and how we can if and we can figure away to begin to support the ones that are good science and deal with the ones that are not. This forum may very well not be the time and place to do so but at some point, and I think that point is either fast approaching or here, but we as a science community have to at least discuss the problem of the advance of the video medium. Almost anything can be shown to be true in pretty detailed CGI. I know of a couple of the worst but I won't post them due to not wanting to run up their views. What can be done? Can anything be done?

I am going to poke the bear one more time on this, i hope all who were interested enough to comment on this thread will comment on this short science video. Video is IMHO the next wave of education and the ease of making such videos requires that the scientific community get on top of it as quickly as possible. “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking Dimissing, ridiculing, or even ignoring this situation will allow what is known as pseudoscience to continue to gain control of the narrative and now that anyone with a pulse and a keyboard can make a video we need to start giving our support to those who make real videos as opposed to those who make pretend reality videos and pass them off as real. many people are at the forefront of this new medium and a few are doing their best to keep the medium as honest as possible. Thunderf00t, potholer54, and AronRa are at the forefront of this debunking but AronRa's message is being diluted by his Atheist activism IMHO. Here is the kind of Videos that are beginning to crop up, this is a classroom assignment if i read it correctly.

I am beginning a reread of the world war series by Terry Goodkind....

I'm 64 but my math skills are limited and my mind operates on analogy very good. I struggled for years trying to understand why FTL is not thought to be possible but one video cleared it up for me in a few minutes...

I am beginning to hear rumors of how 5G technology in cell phones and other tech will result in all sorts of death and destruction or at least kill off birds or may just give your ears a suntan. Is there any truth to these rumors?

"he's dead Jim... get his wallet... "

This would be true but it assumes a lot and even our own "goldilocks zone" only applies to the earth since both Mars and Venus lie within the zone. Especially Mars but a super earth with a deep dense atmosphere could expand that zone quite a bit and a smaller planet with a less dense atmosphere could could support life at least to the orbit of Venus.

I may not be communicating this very well but let me try again. One of the reasons science turns off so many is that reading the papers or even reading about science is a big dull boring chore for many if not most. I remember being in school and many kids just couldn't connect what they were reading with reality. Videos do this quite well and pretty pictures are much easier to pay attention to than pages of text.

Yes that the point of this. We say habitable zone as though it would apply to every star and planet while the size and atmosphere of the planet dictate the habitable zone as much or more than the star...

I was just being sarcastic, I understand the what and the why but I think ignoring the issue is a mistake. Education is going in the direction of video medium, good or bad, video is taking over even fiction.... Resistance is futile... Individuals can now make mini movies of equal or better quality than we see on TV. Assimilation is going to be glorious!

Damn, anyone else want to stomp me? There are videos that are just the equivalent of scandal rags, then there are videos that deliver real science quite often with the contents in print and links to papers. thunderf00t comes to mind as well as isaac arthur, Potholer54, the list of really good informational channels would take at least a page and that is just the ones I know of... Yes there are many more than are just fluff but I strongly disagree with print being the best way to convey information. It might be for us, I love to read, I read very fast with almost 100% recall, or least I did when I was young, I'm not sure i know shit from shinola in recent years but I have to say that while science forums and the internet have expanded my horizons by many orders of magnitude but youtube has as well. many people have problems reading and visual representations of concepts do a much better job. Just like there are numerous sites that proclaim to be science forums but are really disinformation at some point you have to figure out who is worth listening too... I've been doing it for about 20 years now, I still get punked occasionally but I can spot the chumps most of the time... yes figuring out who is real and who is bs can be difficult but it's not a crap shoot and good channels generally continue to be good if not get better. I know the channel PBS space time has expanded my ability to think about thinks that I could never understand the math involved. AronRa's video series on evolution opened my eyes to a new level of understanding. The future is video and that depends on separating the wheat from the chaff, probably too much for this site but it is going on and will have to continue... Potholer54, who used to be a science correspondent, has some videos that should be required watching, his delivery of facts and humor is classic...

I see your point, this video is science and i was thinking of the videos that give links to papers and such they are talking about but I see the problem with who would police it and how.