Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:One in a million habitable, sure.

Good thing theres like 999999999999999 to the 999999999th power planets available for the 1:1,000,000 ratio ...

100,000,000,000 is the number of stars. About every other star has a planet. so that's 50,000,000,000 and then the 1:1,000,000. That's only 50,000 planets. I think the 1:1,000,000 thing is off, but so it the "999999999999999 to the 999999999th power".
Conclusion: even if it was 1:100,000,000, it would not be worth preforming exterminatus on every planet that bugged you.

buddy Fail. You're saying every star has 1/2 a planet. Our own star has 8. Probably not the galactic record holder either.

Actually, our system is pretty rare design, what with only one star and all. Also, I'm saying, that every two stars have one planet. Reading fail. I will clarify my numbers though. But don't forget that at one point, when humanity first colonized the stars, we had terraforming devices.

Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

Okay. Redoing math.
400,000,000,000/2 = 200,000,000,000

200,000,000,000 / 1,000,000

Okay, 200,000 planets. Happy?

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

Okay. Redoing math.
400,000,000,000/2 = 200,000,000,000

200,000,000,000 / 1,000,000

Okay, 200,000 planets. Happy?

No! I'm not happy! Do it with an everage of 8 planets!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

Okay. Redoing math.
400,000,000,000/2 = 200,000,000,000

200,000,000,000 / 1,000,000

Okay, 200,000 planets. Happy?

No! I'm not happy! Do it with an everage of 8 planets!

No, because that isn't the average! And why don't you do it hmm?

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

Okay. Redoing math.
400,000,000,000/2 = 200,000,000,000

200,000,000,000 / 1,000,000

Okay, 200,000 planets. Happy?

No! I'm not happy! Do it with an everage of 8 planets!

No, because that isn't the average! And why don't you do it hmm?

I did! It worked out to 3.2 million habitable planets. 1 million of which are Imperial. Sounds perfect to me.

Read this National geographic article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
They've found an almost earthlike planet and that system has at least 5 planets that they can see but could have many, many more! Planets are very common. It's habitable planets that are rare.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

Okay. Redoing math.
400,000,000,000/2 = 200,000,000,000

200,000,000,000 / 1,000,000

Okay, 200,000 planets. Happy?

No! I'm not happy! Do it with an everage of 8 planets!

No, because that isn't the average! And why don't you do it hmm?

I did! It worked out to 3.2 million habitable planets. 1 million of which are Imperial. Sounds perfect to me.

Read this National geographic article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
They've found an almost earthlike planet and that system has at least 5 planets that they can see but could have many, many more! Planets are very common. It's habitable planets that are rare.

But it is habitable planets that we are talking about, no?

Grotzooka wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, every two stars have one planet. That's half a planet per star. I ment it mathmatically not literally.
We really don't know how rare our system is in real life. All stars that have been dim enough for our meager technology to even be able to detect planets have all had planets. And we can only detect giant planets bigger than Jupiter. Nonetheless, it would seem planets are quite common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw there's probably more like 300,000,000,000 stars

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

That's old people are saying more like 400 Bilion now:

http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html

Okay. Redoing math.
400,000,000,000/2 = 200,000,000,000

200,000,000,000 / 1,000,000

Okay, 200,000 planets. Happy?

No! I'm not happy! Do it with an everage of 8 planets!

No, because that isn't the average! And why don't you do it hmm?

I did! It worked out to 3.2 million habitable planets. 1 million of which are Imperial. Sounds perfect to me.

Read this National geographic article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
They've found an almost earthlike planet and that system has at least 5 planets that they can see but could have many, many more! Planets are very common. It's habitable planets that are rare.

But it is habitable planets that we are talking about, no?

Yes...like I said there's probably about 3 million of them.

For example, most of these planets have to be in the "Goldilocks zone", not to hot and not to cold. They need access to water and an atmosphere, a large moon (to redirect more of the meteors) and a large nearby planet (see above). Take 3.2 million as a liberal answer.

Klawz wrote:For example, most of these planets have to be in the "Goldilocks zone", not to hot and not to cold. They need access to water and an atmosphere, a large moon (to redirect more of the meteors) and a large nearby planet (see above). Take 3.2 million as a liberal answer.

That's after taking into account the 1 in a million rule! That's a pretty "goldilocks" ratio. Anyways, the point is we both agree habitable planets are rare and that its not wise to go around blowing them up because a couple fire warriors landed on it.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:For example, most of these planets have to be in the "Goldilocks zone", not to hot and not to cold. They need access to water and an atmosphere, a large moon (to redirect more of the meteors) and a large nearby planet (see above). Take 3.2 million as a liberal answer.

That's after taking into account the 1 in a million rule! That's a pretty "goldilocks" ratio. Anyways, the point is we both agree habitable planets are rare and that its not wise to go around blowing them up because a couple fire warriors landed on it.

Yep. We stole an entire page just to show that we're both right. Fun.

Klawz wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Klawz wrote:For example, most of these planets have to be in the "Goldilocks zone", not to hot and not to cold. They need access to water and an atmosphere, a large moon (to redirect more of the meteors) and a large nearby planet (see above). Take 3.2 million as a liberal answer.

That's after taking into account the 1 in a million rule! That's a pretty "goldilocks" ratio. Anyways, the point is we both agree habitable planets are rare and that its not wise to go around blowing them up because a couple fire warriors landed on it.

Yep. We stole an entire page just to show that we're both right. Fun.

Yeah well I'm pretty sure tommorow someone will start a thread named "Why don't they just virus bomb Ork planets?" lol

Also, Astronomers admit our methods for finding and looking at planets are very lacking, usually looking for wobbles in orbits, or slight dimming on background light from starts.

If you think with that you can form an accurate picture of how may planets there are in the galaxy thats pretty laughable, i doubt weve seen anywhere near .00001% of the planets in even our arm of the milky way were inhabiting, let alone the entire galaxy with such meager observation methods.

Grotzooka wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Zed wrote:They have an entire caste devoted to space flight/combat, and technology miles ahead of Mankind's. Good luck bypassing that.

Their technology is not more advanced, it is just more widly distributed through their society.

I don't know about that...
Just the fact that they've got actual AI and don't rely on dead things combined with machine parts is pretty advanced.
Also battlesuits, railguns, plasma guns that don't fry you to a crisp...

Hey, remember the last time Humanity had AI?

*Screams and cries of anguish and pain, monotone chants of "crush the fleshlings" echo through the cosmos, humanity is at brink of EXTINCTION*

Yeah, it wasn't very good times, not good times at all :(

The Tau will learn this harsh lesson soon enough.

Kroothawk wrote:Folks, you are aware that half the eastern fringe is populated by Tau, right? And even the First Sphere contains a.o. the planets T'au, Tau'n, Sa'cea, Vior'la, Dal'yth, Bork'an, Fal'shia, and D'yanoi. And you are aware that the Damocles crusade tried to invade the Tau Empire but failed miserably, right? So the "just walk in, throw a grenade and end the Tau Empire" is nothing more than a childish dream.

If you have read your Codex you'll see that the reason the Damocles Gulf Crusade was called of was more pressing problems.
And I KNOW that the war turned into a bloody meat grinder, countless lives lost and nothing gained, but it was not the first WW1 situation the Imperium had experienced, and certainly it will not be the last. I'm not saying the Imperium could just "KAA PLOOOW!!!! BOOOM!" the Tau to death in no time, but if they really wanted to do it, they could in the end drown the Tau Empire in dead Guardsmen. Literally.
But why kill a bunch of friendly near-pacifist(for 40k standards), blue ant-communists? even if they commit tech-heresy? As long as they kill Tyranids, I'm happy.

Imperium has 99 problems and a Tau ain't one.