« The Winds of War, The Sands of Time - Part II | Main | Protesting for More Work, Protesting for Less Work »



Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.



Yes, that is true. You seem more optimistic now than before..

It is exciting to see astronomical observation technology begin to get slightly pegged to Moore's Law. A torrent of fascinating discoveries await us over the next several years.


And whitey is on the moon...

Hehe, sorry, couldn't resist.

This is actually very interesting - what is the difference between transit surveys and microlensing surveys?



Transit is when the planet passes in front of the star, and is detected by observing a temporary dimness in the star. Obviously, only planets that are very large and very close to the star can be found this way (the red dots).

Microlensing is when the background of space seen between the star and planet is temporarily magnified. When this magnification is noticed, it means there are two objects on either side, and since one is the star that is seen, the other must be a planet. This is inefficient, as only that one yellow dot has been found this way.

Neither method will find planets in the green zone. The KSO will do that.


I believe I heard news on this recently. I'm not sure if they've found observable evidence since I have no link to the article, but it's already come to my attention outside of this article that their is high likelihood of their being earth-like planets in other solar systems.

The world pre-empted your prediction, GK. The merit of your articles has just been put into question. What say you to that?


The world pre-empted your prediction, GK. The merit of your articles has just been put into question. What say you to that?

This article was written in March of 2006. The findings after that thus confirm my predictions as correct.

Take note of the timeline of events.


Look likes there's real life confirmation now:


The comments to this entry are closed.