Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Astrum" channel.

  1. If Pluto is to be considered a planet we'll get an awful lot of planets...
    9
  2. I like how you explained the speed of light here.
    2
  3. There's one detail I don't think you took into account... Space is expanding... So a star with a planet far enough away with enough space between them might end up losing its planet simply because the space between them would be expanding. Assuming a object that is as large as possible without collapsing in on itself into a black hole (the earliest starts in the universe) and a planet (gas giant or something) orbiting it in a universe with nothing else inside it at the absolute limit of the distance possible given the expansion rate of our current universe, how big could said star system be?
    2
  4. Canada is hardly relevant when it comes to northern lights, most of their population is in the south, roughly as far south as northern Italy. Nordic countries are more relevant as we have a decent number of people and city where people live north of the arctic circle.
    1
  5. 1:24:08 You're kind of missing the point there when it comes to working with the water. Dams etc that keeps the water out is working against the water. But planning to let certain areas flood in order to keep others dry, using floating homes etc there helps ensure that the damages from floods is minimal. Green areas able to absorb water etc...
    1
  6. What would the impact on the orbits of the rest of the solar system be of removing Mercury and adding a Dyson sphere? Would any of them be disturbed?
    1
  7. I suspect that the answer to the Fermi paradox is quite simple... They have no idea that we even exist... And there's probably only 4-5 civilizations, including us currently in the Milky Way Galaxy...
    1
  8.  @zanussidish8144  It depends on what estimates you use for the Drake equation. My favorite ones basically indicates 4/5 civilizations due to the outcome from the variables choose basically being one civilization among what's essentially 1/4th the total number of stars estimated to be present in our Galaxy. Of course it could be bigger or smaller. Hence my use of "probably". Those estimates are also partially based on the amount of space where we probably would have detected a civilization if it was there but haven't yet...
    1
  9.  @zanussidish8144  I suspect that even simple life is uncommon, and civilization borderline nonexistent. And that the only rare communication between intelligent lifeforms between civilizations originating from different star systems is signals sent by long dead civilizations because space just is that big. Yes, I agree that with the unbelievable huge number of stars in the universe it's mathematically impossible for life not to exist somewhere else in the universe. But yeah, I expect that for mid to large size galaxies like ours and Andromeda there's probably somewhere between less then one and at most 5 civilizations. With 4-5 being the optimistic view the way I see it... Smaller galaxies like the ones surrounding the milky way is essentially 100% clear of life. The majority of the stars in galaxies are unsuitable. They're often too close to the central black hole leaving them vulnerable to deadly radiation from there (that could still potentially kill us by the way although our distance from ours give us some protection and it's thankfully relatively quiet for now) Or they're too far away from it where the desired chemistry isn't common enough. Or in other words, there's probably a galactic goldilock zone as well as one around each star. Then add all the countless ways a planet can just randomly be sterilized by cosmic events and the chance of them being ready with a civilization capable of of dealing with that in time... Not that big I'd say... Humanity is just one supervolcano or gama ray burst or nuclear war away from extinction... Even our defense against rocks flying through space is... Rudimental at best... Our existence doesn't prove that life is common, just that its chance is nonzero...
    1
  10. 8:14 It would also work to fo this serially instead of in parallel. The chance of getting a 6 if you throw 6 x 6 sided dies or throwing a die 6 times in a row (assuming that the previous results doesn't affect the next one, and you don't know the results of anybof those throws before you look at all of them) should be the same, no? 9:39 Guess that fits my suggestion pretty well...
    1