The star is more stable than ours, and its possible (though entirely unknown at this point) that a planet better suited to life than even our own Earth is orbiting the star. Lots more at the link. Its an interesting idea, and if we can master the kind of energies needed to travel between the stars at FTL speeds, then we'll certainly be able to master the kind of energies needed to build a planet.
What we do is, we first send a frigate there and follow that up with a colony ship if there aren't any monsters in the system. Meanwhile, the people back home build a freighter fleet and research automatic factories and hydroponic farms.
One quarter stronger than earth gravity would catch a lot of people out. It's just close enough but far enough at the same time, deceptively "not too much" more than Earth's, that people would get over-comfortable with it early on and end up hurting themselves. Like say jumping off a wall from a height that would be OK on earth... but neglecting to think that not only are they one quarter heavier, but since gravity is an accelerational field, they're also going to be hitting the ground faster. So the two factors multiply off eachother and they end up hitting the ground with quite a bit more KE than if they'd jumped from the same height on earth. Perhaps enough to make the difference between a slightly heavy landing and a brutal leg break.
Hate to find out Alpha Centauri B in fact DOES have an Earth-like planet orbiting it just to go there & find out it's a real life:
That depends - when does the bible say the end of the world is supposed to kick in? According to every preacher that wants your money (last chance to buy salvation! Act now before it's too late) it could be tomorrow!
Yeah, but it's due to be demolished any day now to make way for the intergalactic hyperspace bypass...
Well, the neighborhood is projected to get really shitty between 500 million to 1 billion years from now, and what with the market for used planets being what it is these days, we should probably start thinking about moving sooner, rather than later. (We're kinda underwater on our mortgage, too, but don't tell anyone. We don't want to scare off potential buyers.)
It was supposed to kick in within the lifespan of the people who heard Jesus speak. Didn't happen. How Christians kept it going after that would make a Voyager writer stand in awe.
Unless you can come up with a version of the gospels where John turns into a lizard and has salamander babies with Judas, they've still got NOTHING on Voyager.
It may have happened already - symbolically/metaphorically. That's the accuracy default setting - we just interpreted the story wrong.
WHAT? Whole careers are based on Jesus coming like "a thief in the night" and scaring people into sending in a "love offering".
The "kingdom of God" referred to does not refer to the second coming of Christ but to the establishment of his church upon the Earth in the aftermath of his ascension into heaven.
The early followers understood it exactly as Dicky says. That's a retcon, absurd on the face of it, and which Christians ever since have not been able to agree on in their competing efforts to square the circle.
Totally OT but: I doubt that when Jesus (or rather Matthew) made one of the greatest wordplays in history he meant an actual church as we know it. Like in, organized religion since Jesus the Jew rather obviously found the notion abhorrent. Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum... You are the rock and on this rock I will build my church, to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It's written inside the dome of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. I love that sentence since petros means 'rock' in the original Greek and the cathedral is built on a hill above the ancient Circus of Nero where St. Peter allegedly died. One sentence, many layers. Including the whole notion of the Pearly Gates and whatnot. As for the kingdom of God: I do read that like Diacanu. He promised it in their lifetimes in our versions of the Bible. We'd need an unaltered version in the original language to know for sure.
Nah, I think Dayton is right about this regarding a more Earthly result (not in the larger sense, but in what the myth was supposed to mean). Doesn't matter, the Kingdom of God on Earth didn't happen either. Jesus was saying that he would deliver the Jews from Roman oppression, which he certainly did not achieve.
Don't agree with that either, although I'll concede that it could be debated, unlike what later Christians suggested.
On topic, I doubt we will ever find a world must suitable for our habitation than the one on which we evolved.
The "kingdom of God" referred to does not refer to the second coming of Christ but to the establishment of his church upon the Earth in the aftermath of his ascension into heaven. - Dayton The never ending loopholes.