E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA / JPL-Caltech / T. Pyle
An artist's rendering shows a typical close-in Earth-size planet, Kepler-20e, which is about 0.87 times as wide as our planet but orbits its parent star more closely than Mercury orbits our sun.
A simulation based on data from NASA's planet-hunting Kepler mission has determined that about one out of every six stars has an Earth-sized planet, which would translate to at least 17 billion such worlds in our Milky Way galaxy. And that's not even counting the alien Earths we'd want to live on.
These 17 billion planets would be circling their parent stars more closely than Mercury orbits our own sun — which means that, in many cases, the planets would be too hot for liquid water to exist. A few such worlds already have been found, including a "lava planet" known as Alpha Centauri Bb that's just 4.3 light-years away from us.
Someday, the type of simulation that astronomers used to estimate the number of hot Earths can be used to estimate how many habitable Earths could provide a home for life as we know it in the Milky Way. But not just yet.
"For an estimate of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone, it's simply too early to call," said Francois Fressin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, or CfA.
Fressin and his colleagues lay out their estimates for Earth-sized planets, as well as bigger worlds, in a paper that's been accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal. Their research is being discussed today at the American Astronomical Society's winter meeting in Long Beach, Calif.
The estimates are based on a list of 2,400 planet candidates that have been detected by the Kepler probe since its launch in 2009. Kepler looks for planets in a patch of sky overlapping the constellations Cygnus and Lyra, by checking for the faint dimming of a star as an alien world passes across its disk. One of the challenges is to make sure the dimming is really caused by a planet, rather than some other phenomenon such as an eclipsing binary star. Another challenge is that Kepler is sure to miss some planets, because those planets are not in a position to block the light of its parent star, as seen from Earth.
Now that the Kepler mission has been churning out detections for more than three years, there's enough of a database to arrive at some statistical conclusions about the total number of planets in the Milky Way — at least 100 billion. There's also enough data to determine what the breakdown of detections should be, and even how many of those detections will be wrong.
"We have a knowledge of false positives that's good enough that we can do a study from scratch," Fressin said.
The simulation suggests that the false-positive rate should vary depending on the size of the planet candidates, from a low of 6.7 percent for small Neptune-scale planets to a high of 17.7 percent for Jupiter-type giants. The false-positive rate for close-in planets between 0.8 and 1.25 times as wide as Earth is 12.3 percent. When all these factors were added to the calculations, the astronomers arrived at a breakdown for five types of planets currently detectable by Kepler:
- 17 percent for Earths with orbital periods up to 85 days.
- 26 percent for super-Earths (1.25 to 2 times as wide as Earth) with orbits up to 145 days.
- 26 percent for small Neptunes (2 to 4 times Earth's width) with orbits up to 245 days.
- 3 percent for large Neptunes (4 to 6 times Earth's width) with orbits up to 418 days.
- 5 percent for giants (6 to 22 times Earth's width) with orbits up to 418 days.
The results indicate that for every size of planet except for gas giants, the type of star doesn't matter. Earth-sized planets should be just as likely to form around red dwarfs as around sunlike stars. That runs counter to what was previously thought.
"Earths and super-Earths aren't picky. We're finding them in all kinds of neighborhoods," the CfA's Guillermo Torres, a co-author of the study, said in a news release.
The researchers emphasized that these are just minimum estimates — and that as Kepler provides more planet candidates at smaller scales and wider orbits, the numbers could increase. Eventually, such simulations could spit out a long-sought number: the tally of Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way expected to have conditions capable of supporting life.
"This result is a significant step towards the determination of eta-earth, the occurrence of Earthlike planets in the habitable zone of their parent stars," they wrote in their research paper.
More about the planet search:
- Kepler mission adds 461 potential planets to list
- 'Exocomets' are common across the Milky Way
- 2013 might be the year for first 'alien Earth'
- Alien planets face danger from binary stars
- Cosmic Log archive on the planet search
In addition to Fressin and Torres, the authors of "The False Positive Rate of Kepler nd the Occurrence of Planets" include David Charbonneau, Stephen Bryson, Jessie Christiansen, Courtney Dressing, Jon Jenkins, Lucianne Walkowicz and Natalie Batalha.
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
only a matter of time before we find the 'one' that harbors our strain of life. hopefully, there are less idiots there.
You talkin' about Kolab? I suspect there'll be at least a few idiots there..
On a more serious note, since these worlds are thousands of light years away, couldn't many of these hot earth-sized planets have evolved to a more temperate climate by now? I do realize that within our own galaxy all stars are withing 100k light years and that is a small amount of time on the cosmic scale but still much could happen in that amount of time.
Climate normally does not evolve that much over the course of a few thousand years. Unless someone there decided to start pumping a lot of stuff into the atmosphere, that is (but that's a different topic, lol). Mostly the temperature is going to be generated by how close the planet is to the star, how large the star is, and how hot it is burning. If the planet is orbiting as close to its star as mercury is to ours, you won't see it moving to a different orbit that is more temperate in just a few thousand years. And if it does move that far/that fast, then it's not likely to stop and would almost certainly be exiting the system before anything could stabilize.
Amen Sebreb.
maybe the liberals can pass a law banning aliens from burning fossil fuels in there space ships !
As the article mentioned, there is an element of error. Take a smaller planet further out from a sun. It takes less time to transit because of it's distance, yet blocks the same light, for the same amount of time, as a larger planet closer to the star.
As I clicked the 'comments' link for this article I thought to myself , "I wonder if someone will find a really lame way to make a partisan argument out of an article that has nothing at all to do with politics; an article that is not even slightly controversial." When someone mentions 'liberals' or 'conservatives', etc., in a discussion about deep space exploration by an unmanned spacecraft, it shows that the person has a very limited way of thinking, or doesn't think for himself at all. He instead simply lets the politicians, the media, his peers, etc. do his thinking for him, then repeats their rhetoric, without regard to what he is commenting on. I'm sorry, its just pathetic.
Kepler can only see the results of planets "Transiting" across the face of their star. There is nothing to say that orbits must occur that allow crossings. The further away from the star, the less likely a "Point of View" transit could occur. The "Goldie-locks" orbits might be more numerous than Kepler can see and they could be looking back at us and wondering the same thing. The proof of so many plants we can see proves that most stares have multiple planets so the "Drakes Equation" just went up 100 fold on the possibility of life bearing planets just in the shear numbers of what we can see.
Sebreb. We are spending Billions trying to find a new planet to send all Stupid Republicans to.
yes "wascigarman", and you and all of your buddies are not invited. you are not invited so that you can come over and reap the benefits from those who chose to work and support themselves. we are tired of you and your friends of "entitlement" trying to take things from those of us who earn what we have.
Sorry but there will be no giveaways over here, you can stay behind and mooch off all your friends, and that will not last long since all those who provied that comfort for you will be GONE !
That planet will be in trouble. once Humans arrive.
The planets will be safe from humans, but anything else that evolves on them will likely be just as selfish. That's just how things work.
All good scientific information. Practical info? Nope not one bit. The farthest we have been from earth (man not robots) is 250K est. And right now we can't even do that. So we have covered the distance that light takes to reach the moon in less than 2 seconds. Yea! Good luck getting the money to just return to the moon with current technology. I like the space program but try as you may bet you don't get it in the budget. Even though it creates thousands of jobs in Red States.
wascigarman
I found a place for you to go to with the rest of the Dems around you. Guess where?
It says ESTIMATES and then SUGGEST.
Hardly anything to get hyped about. Our samples are far too small to be making any conclusions. It's like holding an elephant hair in your hand and saying you've found Big Foot.
And then you get morons throwing politics or religion into it. Baboons.
Wow, sounds like the market is GLUTTED with potential property. We'd better strike now while prices are low and inventory is high.
Then we can sit back and just bide our time until the buyers beat a path to our doors. Ka-ching!
I've got an option on some nice beachfront property on a nice little planet in the Alpha-Centauri system that I could let you have for a song. It's cheap now, so buy, and avoid future disappointment and regret.
That's a heck of a lot of real estate. I wonder what's out there? I hope that humanity makes it to some of those distant shores one day. Even if I never see it, it's a worthy goal and an amazing dream.
Indeed, Zen... a dream of mine as well.
I'll join you in that dream, too.
After so many years, and so many missions, I'm of the opinion that microbial life is common throughout the Universe. However, if a planet similar to our own is located, then it too should harbor higher orders of life, although not necessarily "intelligent" life as on the Human scale.
Technologically advanced, machine-building, life could be very, very rare indeed. And that makes each of you all the more special. And the need to take good care of our own planet, all that more urgent.
The only chance we have to live the dream is if "others" are on their way to us. That would be pretty awesome, too.
Hopefully, they didn't miss the planets that can and do support life because they are only interested in the earths that fit our definition of what can support life. Of course, that is what they have to start out with. Even still if we find a planet that does support life and it is trillions of light years away, how are we even going to communicate with them much less get there?
We won't; but it's fun anyway.
The universe is billions of years old, so rest assured we won't be detecting any planets trillions of light years away.
Since we are detecting planets basically on size and mass, it isn't likely that we'd miss planets that can support life even if they are unearth-like, assuming they are in fact detectable by current methods.
We might overlook the possibility that they are habitable at first. But once they are found and catalogued they will always be there in the records to go back and re-examine, once we realize that they could, in fact, be habitable.
Funny, that's what even well-trained scientists said about flight, going to the moon, going to Mars... etc, etc. To assume technology 'cannot' overcome over time is to assume against the patterns of history.
We haven't actually been to Mars. And Earthlings (bugs and birds, etc.) have been flying since long before humans existed. The moon landings remain a signal achievement. But to assume technology 'can' overcome the distances involved here is - well, it's to assume very great deal.
I understand what you're saying Jon, but it's more than just 'technology' this time. Perhaps we will discover some inherent way around the fundamental laws of physics someday, but other than that, simply better 'technology' won't do it. We can't just build bigger, faster ships - things are too far away, and the physics of acceleration make it impossible, even if light speed wasn't a barrier.
So, I do hope we'll find some back-doors to physics, but a ''brute force'' technological improvement won't do it.
you are asking questions that are not yet relevent, and you are basing these questions off current technology.
a hundred years ago people would say "it will take you a week to travel 100 miles", now we can do it in no time. imagine what we will be able to do in another 100 years.
"imagine what we will be able to do in another 100 years."
Going faster than the speed of light is not likely to be one of them.
"Going faster than the speed of light is not likely to be one of them."
Not necessarily so. Check out what NASA is looking into on this subject:
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/
chances are Kepler has missed a few Earth size planets in the goldilocks zone,but not to worry,their are billion and billions of other Earths out their,teaming with life.My question is how many have intelligent life.We may have a estimate in the next few years,with the James Webb telescope.Soon will be able to see what 's in the atmosphere giving us a good idea of whats happening on the surface.
We will detect the presence of life long before we know much about it.I think mankind will be surprised in the end.
That method of detecting planets works much better on close-in planets, not so well for planets further out, and for most stars that "goldilocks zone" is further out. But some of those close-in planets might harbor earth type life if they are in a "tidal lock" with one side always facing their star. In that case, a twilight ring zone would be at the right temperature between a scorching hot sun side and a frigid cold dark side.
i think there would be a gravity problem on a planet like this for life to exsist, plus the planet would tilt back and forth some therefore burning or freezing any habital zone through out it's yrly pass around it's sun.
The existence of large moons like our own orbiting their planets could create the dynamo that keeps the planet spinning rather than get into a stellar tidal lock.
Kepler can only see the results of planets "Transiting" across the face of their star. There is nothing to say that orbits must occur that allow crossings. The further away from the star, the less likely a "Point of View" transit could occur. The "Goldie-locks" orbits might be more numerous than Kepler can see and they could be looking back at us and wondering the same thing. The proof of so many plants we can see proves that most stares have multiple planets so the "Drakes Equation" just went up 100 fold on the possibility of life bearing planets just in the shear numbers of what we can see. CM6969, go to the head of the class.
I'm guessing that they are probably underestimating the number of planets around other stars. Consider that Kepler can only observe transitory events that are within a fairly narrow orbital plane. Any orbital plane that isn't aligned with Kepler is not going to produce observable transitions and won't be counted. Ultimately, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) may help identify more candidates that Kepler cannot observe and help provide a better estimate of the number of stars with orbiting planets (which is starting to look like most of them).
They took that in consideration when they made their estimate.
Our "definition of what can support life" will be radically changing. Stay tuned.
We wont be able to,but for now I think were happy just to be making progress.I think it will become more and more exciting as better telescopes come on line.We will know of a intelligent lifeforms on a distant planet long before we could ever visit or communicate.I do agree with Hawkins,we really shouldn't say hey,here we are,lets go slow,we just don't know what's happening out in deep space.And they might have missed us,but have the technology to get here in a relative time frame.Its funny after looking at the UFO phenomena for the last 50 years,I see nothing that suggest any of these reports are anything but hoaxes,mis identified objects etc.Even the best of the best have proved nothing.
ancient man building mega structures with mega tun blocks with basically no tools no machinery, basic math and no blue prints is all the evidence u need....
You'd be amazed what can be done with mega-time, and mega slave labor...
Don't underestimate the ingenuity of your own species...or overestimate the willingness of ETs to come all the way here, to do nothing better than to stack up big rectangular stones for the locals.
I don't believe this kind of information. 17 billion? Wonder who counted them? It's all hype.
Bilphil... it's calculated using math. If within an inch there are 100 earth-like spheres, then you can extrapolate that there may be 100 x 10 earth-like spheres in 10 inches. Of course it's not exact, that's why it is an estimate.
LaDolceVita1,
Not sure what you are trying to say here - but the math you are representing would be more accurate if you added exponential considerations (since that is how area would be calculated based on the principle of mass and quantity within a specific area of a cube. In the case of density across a specific area of consideration - the constants would be a minor consideration - given that as you approach a more densly populated area of the galaxy - the number of stars goes up exponentially)
This estimate is in our Galaxy Alone. 100 million Galaxies makes you wonder how many intelligent species have evolved, flourished and then died out over the past 12 billion years. It can also make you wonder if we were "Seeded" here from somewhere else. Are we the Remnant of a colony that came here over 100,000 years ago? What if like Australia, we were a penal colony that flourished after being deposited here to keep us "Trouble Makers" isolated. If we are, then I wonder what they think of us now looking to join up with them again?
It's too soon to be concerned with such things anyway. We have plenty to spend our money on right here in the solar system before we need to be concerned about how common Earth-like planets are.
Whatever it is, it's Obamas fault.
No. Obozo will blame it on W. Always has, always will.
"Taking resposibility" is a foreign concept to Dear Leader.
Can't believe that they are "earth like". Too far away to determine that.
We can determine mass and size, and orbit.
These planets are "earth like" in that they have a size that is similar to earth's, and masses similar to earth's.
They are not "earth like" in that their orbits do not resemble earth's.
As for other conditions, we do not yet know.
Note that by these definitions, Venus would count as "earth like", and indeed it is "earth like." We don't call it earth's "evil twin" for nothing.
"Like" is a relative term. There are different grades of it.
There has been a lot of new astronomy related stuff coming out in the last few years. We know so much more, and they are exciting revelations. Too bad it seems the general public cares little for intellectual persuits.
Persuits. Anything like Hillary's pantsuits (the better to hide her cankles)?
I like earth sized planets more than the other ones.
Hundreds of billions of stars in a galaxy. Tens of billions of galaxies. Multiple planets per star. The "universe" (or "this universe") must be teeming with life. So much for the 6-day, Earth-centric creation. I wonder what the "papal presence" thinks of it.
"The "universe" (or "this universe") must be teeming with life"
no it mustn't. only if life builds itself. if it does we will see it everywhere. If it doesn't...i.e., is the result of purpose and intent it may...or may not. so far the observations support the latter.
hey mike, are you saying if life proliferates across the galaxies it must come from us? if so, you seem to have a very closed mind to a very likely mathematical possibility.
for jerryb, it's just a matter of time before they lose their tax-free status ;).
jerryb So much for the 6-day, Earth-centric creation. I wonder what the "papal presence" thinks of it.
Well, it's a common misconception that the Catholics are against science, against evolution, against the idea of extraterrestrial life, and that they all believe in a literal 6,000 year old Earth with a literal 6 day creation - and that they do anything they can to suppress science at any turn. While there are obviously some 'fundamentalist' or 'extremists' that have radical ideas in any religion, the idea that there is a 'war on all science' from the Vatican simply is not accurate.
So, since you asked, this is what the "papal presence" thinks of the scientific explanation of life and evolution, and by extension, of the biblical creation story.
> In 2004, Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on Earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for the theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on Earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
i'm less concerned with the "papal presence", than the anti-science, RWNJ fundies here
Ok....good argument...but let me flip that logic on you....Why would we assume a magical mysterious being did it vs a Biochemical/Chemical/Biological reaction? Sounds kind of like....."What made that noise?......How could it be anything else but a ghost....."
"so far the observations support the latter."
The observations support neither. We have looked at one candidate planet and found life. That is consistent with pretty much any hypothesis, and therefore useless.
ToddC-1160496-(jerryb So much for the 6-day, Earth-centric creation. I wonder what the "papal presence" thinks of it.)
I'm always amused when people say 6,000 year old earth. Since 2,000 years ago takes us to the birth of Jesus Christ, another 4,000 before Adam.So I guess they assume earth just magically zapped into existence suddenly all formed, huh? Lol!
If they are in fact going to use the idea of a thousand years for each day, then they need to take those six days,plus one, which equal a total of seven, because God rested on the seventh, which equals 7,000 years, then add the 4,000 years of man being on earth, from Adam to Christ's birth, bringing us up to 1 A.D. and add those together, plus the 2,000 past it, bringing us to 2000 A.D., which gives us 7,000 + 4,000 + 2,000 = 13,000 years. So, it would be nice if people said the world is 13,000 years old, instead of only the 6,0000 years old. They look silly,otherwise, claiming it is 6,000 years.
That is if one is going to point out that is how the Catholics or others are using the Bible. Although it is plain for anyone reading it,technically, the bible doesn't state how long each day of creation lasts at all.Each could have been a different length of time in fact, and two different versions of creation are given in Genesis. First spiritual, the other material. Not that that really seems to count for any thing to most non believing folks, mind you.
The idea that people could possibly be taught basic truths and moral principals by symbolism, parables, learn much from historical laws and records is beyond many.As well as many religious people also believe in science, the two not being mutually exclusive.
The Catholic hierarchy believes that the bible was not based on modern science.....Please be conscious of that when you make such statements....they really do not carry the belief system you just rolled them into....Just because some backwards catholic politician started saying dumb things during the primary doesn't represent a whole religion....just an fyi
I can only hope that mankind lasts long enough to progress enough into the universe before our Sun goes Supernova, or some asteroid hits the planet.
Either way, we're just barely coming out of the Jungle on this planet.
OK...OK... lets not get ahead of ourselves or behind:
Number of planets they estimate is the best data to date... I think it is under estimating but it for argument sake.. lets take it at face value... LOTS of planets... out of those (using our own solar system) 1 out 10 POSSIBLY could could support life... Judging from the article and data the scientist estimate something like 1 out of a 100 BUT we all agree that the number estimated is short.. and probably there is more. (1 out of a 100 is just my guesstimate.. not a "hard figure")
The "17 Billion hot earths" line, as per the article says that those would NOT (possibly) be able to support life. that is 8.5% UNINHABITABLE out of 200 billion (if my math isn't messed up.. sure the vine will correct me)
That leaves a solid 90%+ to weed out. I don't think that "evolution" all of a sudden will operate any differently so If ANY life is out there (despite the distance) and we could possible "see" them... they maybe could see us IF they developed any where near the time we did. The human race is much more "advanced" than you guys are giving us credit.. we have launched probes and are "activiely listening to signals Firmi's paradox holds up... but we should keep looking, exploring and moving forwarwe
Imagine being a part of a civilization similar to ours (in intelligence and technology), being trapped on a planet that has a dying sun? What would that civilization be like, knowing that it's planet was facing extinction in just a few generations? What would their spiritual beliefs be, would their society be in chaos or would they be able to maintain some kind of order? We always complain about how mankind is destroying our planet, but how would our civilization react knowing that the end was near and there was nothing we could do about it.
Just something to think about. Because you have to figure with all those billions of Earth-type planets out there (just in our galaxy alone), there would be intelligent life whose sun or planet is nearing it's end.
It certainly leaves you in awe of the amazing set of circumstances that had to occur to give us such a beautiful and perfect planet to live on, that in general is relatively safe from natural destruction. (Now if we could only figure out a way to not destroy ourselves!)
II, I follow some of your thoughts. Christians see the beauty and magesty of the universe as evidence of "the glory of God", though. If you realize that we are part and parcel of the universe, though, (in that we are a result of the forces of nature, that made ALL of the universe,) then is it any wonder that the universe seems "beautiful" to us? Isaac Asimov said it like that. An old d.j. in Miami, years ago put it more succinctly, "Good's what you're used to!"
I think that particular situation would impart a sense of urgency that we as humans are lacking, it might mean they focus on things that matter for their survival as a civilization and their species, in other words they would try and do something about it, like focus on generation ships and the like.
And if they couldn't do anything about it, I think that they would try and make sure they would be remembered, by imprinting portions of their system and various probes with copies of what they think would matter to themselves to be displayed.
Well stated, Burn.
It's not the supernova or asteroid I'm worried about. We may have cut back on nuclear weapons in the last 30 years, but we still have the capability to kill ourselves off in many ways.
Not only do scientists have the daunting task of locating "habitable" earth-like planets by to find one in it's evolution to support life. The earth was once a nasty, hot molten lava filled planets with seas of magma. No water, no air as we know it now. Many of these planets could be in either early or late stage evolution. Just because the earth is X years old and has evolved to Y status doesn't mean all planets began when earth did. Many they have identified could be shells of their formal self.
I would estimate there are millions upon millions of intelligent life forms in our own galaxy. Add those up with the billions of other galaxies and you have a universe teaming with intelligent life. We are just so far back in the evolutionary scale that it may still be millions of years before our technology catches up to the ability to travel and find these places.
I find it funny to watch these movies and TV shows that in a matter of 25-50 years they have traveling and zipping around the galaxy with all this technology. When I watch a movie that says "In the year 2105 Scooter took his spaceship and visited Planet Zippo".. better add another 5000 years on there, if not more.
I imagine the estimates for Earthlike planets in the habitable zone will be quite large. It will be interesting to try to determine the ages of some of these planets, although that may not even help determine which ones are more likely to hold sentient life since humans have been here for only a minuscule slice of Earth's history. It's probably therefore very unlikely that we will find other civilizations at a remotely similar point in their evolution. More likely that they'd be way more advanced than us.
I yearn to really know what (and who) else is out there...
might as well move on to the next planet we did a fine job of trashing this one.
Good Grief!!!
I am amazed at scientists and their arrogance - trying to estimate the size of a planet by the dimming of the star as it passes between the star and us - think about it for a second. If a planet is far enough away from the star and small - it would have as much deflection in the magnitude of the light emitted as would a larger planet significantly closer to the star. This is guesswork at best and sloppy science at its worst.
Add to that the concept of a planet moving through the same plane as ours on the same scope of position within the plane of the galaxy - lets see - at roughly ~50light years(LY) deep - that would put a huge majority of the suns and planets in trajectories that would never provide for an intersecting plane, add to that - where does the SOL system fit on the ~50 LY thick plane, above, below or in the middle - too many points that make for this story and the related paper to be too much hype over nothing.
Disgustingly sloppy science!!
REALY sir...
the SCIENCE IS solid...And the planets size can be determined by the Suns wobble as the planet orbits the parent star..Just as our Sun wobbles to the planets that orbit it..We see this because we are here.....Where are you....Afraid..I imagine....Space is vast...and holds many wonders ..some may turn most science and religion on there ears.....I imagine the same type of comment came from the VATICAN when Galileo put forth his WILD Idea about the SUN being in the Center of our Own Solar system...It's Small minds that keep Mankind locked into old ideas...Some of which turn out to be no more..Than fantasy..Like a Earth Centered Universe....we are afraid that we are unimportant..just 7 billion souls on a mote of dust circling a star at the edge of a unremarkable galaxy...EARTH...Humm it can be what we choose to make it...Alive and full of people hungry for knowledge or dieing with the idea we are Masters of something..We cant really define except it makes us feel important...and powerful...I choose reality...what say you
Yea got way to much detail in your piece. Your making people have to think! This is MSN Newvine, can't be hav'in no sense made here!! No No No!!! Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, Data, Warp Fields, Lasers, Fax Machines, Goggle, Facebook! That's what it's all about!!! Other worlds??? Naaa!!!
Well informed, are we, Fed up? Let me guess, you either slept through science in high school, or you went to school in Texas. We've known pretty accurately about the orbits of our solar system planets for about 400 years. The physics, and math relate to the relative size of the bodies (planet and star), the wobble of the star caused by gravity, the distance of rotation of the planet, etc.
Deniers always share two things in common. They think that not only do they know about the discipline in question, but everybody does. They also think that because they would be willing to waste their lives following a fraud (for money, most likely), that therefore-- everybody must be crooked! Both lines of emotion (very little "thought" being involved), tell more about the denier, than those they disagree with, and criticize, in my opinion!
Coloradoboy,
With a Doctoral in Physics (five years ago) and a Masters in Computer Scence (12 years ago), I think I am more than qualified to challenge the statements of the article in question. The scope and scale of which these scientist have been throwing out information is and has been constantly challenged by a larger majority of the scientific community as has a lot of the "SCIENCE" surrounding humanity and its impact on global warming. These "Patterns" have been established over millions of years and the evidence being used to influence the masses is purely for the sake of obtaining more funding to continue questionable research methods instead of applying the funding to "ACTUAL" scientific research that has real value to the scientific community. A lot of real science is quite borring and garners no real interest from the masses even though the results have astounding impact on our lives and futures. Before you state the science is solid - you might take a few lessons from reading the controversy surrounding the science being touted in your statement and the concept of larger factors that have yet to be disclosed as they would ultimately result in the loss of funding and support.
These things are all about money - the sooner you understand that as the paying public, the sooner you will be given the knowledge that as long as they have you "HOOKED" you'll keep contributing.
There are proofs that are easily obtainable - just do a little research on your own - I'm sure you will find enough evidence in the "questionable' area once you read on Messier and his calculations and the recently revised distance theories that have been realized by the scientists who actually took time to consider "ALL of the issues" not just the quick publication to garner fame and funding. All of these things are related and with better science - and real reasearch - the answers will be much more in scale and appropriately labeled. Generalizations are not science - they are guesses and should be held in that consideration.
yep, and "fed up" is clearly one of those anti-science, RWNJ fundies that is out to destroy science and progress in this country.
no, that's the church you keep giving to, they got you hook, line and sinker...
Please, don't get started on a religious rant - I am not religious by any measure of the idea. As for your comment - you might actually take a second to read again - I HAVE my Doctoral in Physics - that sir, is science!
We are like fish in a fish bowl. We have no where else to go if we poison ourselves with pollutants. Not only burning fossil fuels is polluting, our over population will soon use up all the attainable resources. In less than 1000 years all of our fossil fuels will be gone and all of the surface mined resource's used up. Out side of renewable energy and land management, we have no long term future. We need to start now or we will perish.
"FED" UP! . If a planet is far enough away from the star and small - it would have as much deflection in the magnitude of the light emitted as would a larger planet significantly closer to the star.
Yes, but they would have significantly different orbital periods. Kepler is looking for transits, and after 3 'blips' in the luminosity of a star - they can calculate if it's from a close/small plant or a larger/farther plant.
Certainly there is some uncertainty involved, but over the long term, these estimates will be refined. Prior to 1992, the official estimate would have been ''somewhere between 0 and gazzillions'' of extrasolar planets, because we had never found one. Now that's been refined greatly and over the next years, that'll be refined more and more.
There's nothing here to suggest that you actually have a PhD in Physics, that you haven't given any proof to that assertion yet still expect people to take your word for it is simply "pot calling kettle black".
In other words, you are being hypocritical. Of course, the better hypothesis of this particular thread is that you do not have a PhD given the errors in logic on this matter, especially since it's the very thing you are arguing against and such a crucial error such as this shouldn't slip by a man who has dedicated the better part of a decade in pursuit of the sciences.
But, there are bad PhD's out there, so we cannot completely rule it out. Either way it just means that we shouldn't place a high value on what you've said.
Mitchell
Fed Up - why do you keep writing that you have a doctoral? The usual term is "doctorate" or "PhD". Given your mini-rant on global warming, I am ...cynical.
Based on the basic errors in your posts above I don't think so.
I have a doctorate (ScD) in planetary astronomy, and my work is in providing "ground truth" to confirm Kepler's findings.
As Coloradoboy states, within the bounds of what we have claimed to have determined, the science is sound. Perfect? No. We are working at the frontier, making discoveries that back when I was a grad student (a bazillion years ago) I did not think we'd see in my lifetime.
As ToddC points out, the orbital period determines the distance from the host star; something we've known for centuries thanks to Kepler (the man, not the mission) and Newton. Yours is such a fundamental error that your claims of scholarship seem very unlikely.
As far as the accuracy of our methods - when the geometry is correct, by using radial velocity of the star's spectra we can now determine the movement of the star towards or away from the Earth at a rate of only a meter per second; in English, we can now determine a distant star's movement down to the speed of a brisk walk.
Characterizing our work as, "This is guesswork at best and sloppy science at its worst" is inaccurate and ignorant of the facts, "doctor".
Good call, Michael. Perhaps FedUp's B.S. degree stands for something other than Bachelor of Science...and the PHD for "Piling it Higher and Deeper".
Please don't feed the trolls.
The more we learn about the Universe, the more proof their is that we are not just an accident. God does exist.
Sure he ..it exsist....But his reign and scope is more than we can imagin on this world and others that are out there...He cannot be bound in a book he cannot be fathomed by mear words...We cant even get our heads around....IN THE BEGINING.....let alone what creations he's made beyond Earth...we just..Dont know..But who knows the mind of God....What would Jesus Do ??? He would say get it together MANKIND learn to live together...and go check out Gods Creation..We have not seen NOTHING YET..
Utter nonsense! The universe is beautiful and fascinating to us, because we are part of! The natural laws and forces and materials that make up stars, and goldfish, and elephants, make us up, as well. Of course it all looks grand to us, we are made from the same laws and processes and stuff! God may, or may not, have had anything to do with it!
big-ed,
At least I will agree with your comment here - There are a lot of things we have yet to learn - and the universe is a beautiful and fascinating object.
My only contention with the article is the scientists who are advancing the material - they will obtain the desired result which is to renew their funding, but it comes at a great cost - integrity.
What 'more' have we learned that either supports or refutes the existence of God?
Specifics, please?
This isn't a fishing expedition for God out in space. You won't ever find evidence to disprove His existence. Then again,why should He give evidence to those who make no effort to get to know Him first?For one who is capable of creating a planet, or countless others, surely He can keep any evidence of Himself from the science of mankind.
For those throughout time,even in our days, who could have been given evidence of His reality, why would they share it with those who ridicule or fear such things? It is not their job to prove He is real to convert such nonbelievers.
reverse Independence day. destroy our planet then move on to the next one like parasites
Never happen ...We have to get along HERE before we move on anywhere...It's either get along...or Die on Earth...end of Mankinds story...time wise not even a footnote in the history of Earth...
You're both wrong.
Much needs to be fixed, but Earth is far from 'destroyed.' Do a little traveling and see for yourself.
And some people will leave, for elsewhere in the solar system, and ultimately interstellar, when each becomes practical. Not only do we not 'have to get along here' before going anywhere, but not getting along here will be one of the motivations for some to emigrate...
Considering that Mankind's Story began in East Central Africa, arguably it's been a story of nothing but emigration and colonization. There's no reason to believe the story will remain confined to one planet, or that it requires Utopia to go beyond.
I wouldn't say we have to get along here, but will say that the idea of move somewhere else to escape the polluted and ransacked Earth scenario is impractical at best.
The problem is it would take to long to establish a self sufficient anywhere in the Solar System (and the same if we discover ways to travel elsewhere this elsewhere only if we don't discover say a completely habitable Earthlike world out there of course), so much so we might as well act as if we were stuck here on the Earth, but on the other hand those offworld colonies could buy humanity some much needed time and resources to fix things here.
For a long time, Earth's status will determine whatever we do out there.
BTW - for those of you considering my ealier post off base - their stipulation on orbits hinges on a few assumptions:
A. The orbital time is relative to the distance from their sun
B. The masses are constants within a specific orbital Plane
C. Vectors are a constant
D. Solar Masses are within a comparative range relative to our own sun
E. The distance being measured falls within the scale Messier established (which has been found to be off by about 1/3).
F. Other factors are not affecting the light being emmitted at irregular cycles but still within a pattern we have yet to understand (e.g. dark matter waves and other denser matter considerations).
And I still mark you as "no value".
Thanks - I needed a good laugh.
Fed up, you aren't arguing with the posters here, you are calling NASA scientists liars and frauds. The article clearly states, in several sections that the scientists who did the research expect changes (in their estimates) through time, as more knowledge is accumulated. Sorry I mistook you for one of the antiscience deniers that clog up these posts. I can see that you look more like the "crusty, insider, contrarian" type. There are always a few die-hards hanging around various areas of science. The majority usually ends up right, but the "aginners" win a few.
So, hang in there, there may be more, or fewer "earth-like" planets found. The search is hardly a fraud though! And, even if you guys win, the piddling research budgets (they spill more money in coffee at Starbucks, than NASA spends in a year!) will be well worth the costs!
big ed,
Thanks, glad you got it - yes, I am calling these NASA scientists involved in this study/report frauds. The sad part of it is, I am used to working with a few of them and the ones behind this report are definitely trying to get their funding continued from an already strained budget. The only way it works is when you can turn in sensational results. No results, no funding. We watched as the NASA Launch Vehicle Departments lost most of their funding and support and is due to loose a lot more over the next decade whilst the commercialization of space grows and the real exploration and science gets handed off.
I am hopeful that the privatization of space exploration will ultimately result in the sharing of knowledge, my greatest worry comes that through competition - less information will be shared as it ultimately affects the bottom line or worse - the sudden exposure that will certainly come when they make a gross error that will cost lives - as happened with our two lost shuttles and the lives of the crews.
Even though the scientists and engineers knew the problem - it took an investigation and ultimately a revelation about how it was all about the money that exposed NASA for failing to follow safety protocols and sound scientific methods. Don't get me wrong - I know mistakes happen, and through them we learn - hard lessons sometimes - but we do learn. The issues I have are about how the money is being (MIS)directed to support someones pet project instead of being put where it will benefit us the most.
We are definitely no where near going to any other solar system (let alone another galaxy), we have so much more to learn right here before any of this information will be relevant to anyone or anything as important as our own planet and our own solar system. My vote is to put the money where it will provide the greatest result - explore closer to home - find the answers there and develop solid science that backs the expansion to more distant suns and their associated planets - wherever they may be and however they might be configured. If we learn first how to rebuild on something closer to home - there is a chance, a small one, but still a chance that we won't destroy humanity in our ignorance of bigger things.
"FedUP". nobody is going to base funding on conjectures about the number of habitable planets in the galaxy, so your point is irrelevant.
One thing to remember is this, the size of a planet is only one of many, many factors that make the Earth the only life filled planet we actually know of. The spin of the planet, the time and cycle of full orbit, the proper sized moon in proper orbit to keep the planet on proper tilt, the location in the galaxy to be protected from different ray types and asteroids, the distance from star to planet for proper temperatures, the presence of water in the proper forms and quantities, the presence of the proper type of atmosphere. These just scratch the surface. When you have a one one-trillionth percent chance of all currently known necessary factors lining up (and that's if all currently known factors are 1 in 10, which is a dream!), 17 billion planets with dimensions 0.8-22x the earth's size, orbiting in random quantity's of days, is hardly worth noting. This article says only 17 percent are actually roughly earth sized (0.8-1.25 Earth's size), and the orbits are 85 days. This does not fit into the cycle of what you need to have a habitable planet because based on our knowledge, the mismatched climate that would be resultant probably couldn't sustain life.
Mr Kin,
Well stated - I believe you are referring indirectly to what I was mentioning. There are far too many factors that are being "BLACK BOXED" in order to "FIX" the scale to a desirable result.
It saddens me to see that even in my field - there are just too many people who are out to get the fast track on funding even when they know the science they are trying to pass off is little more than pattern fixing to establish a "NEW" standard that will justify their continuation with same or similar (scientific?) methodologies - reavealing miraculous results that fall appart under hard scruitiny.
Mr. Kin, with only one example so far, we don't know if and how much of all those factors are truly necessary and critical...and neither do you.
Even Earth itself might not be the absolutely most perfect and optimum planet for complex life to arise...all we can say for sure at this time, is that it was clearly good enough.
All of those factors don't equate to making a similar planet inhabitable. Your assuming each and every one of those factors would be necessary to support life. In all likelyhood most planets we find aren't going to exactly mirror all conditions of our home world. You actually only need a few factors to be met to provide conditions favorable to supporting life. Looking at the diversity of life on our own planet, you should have learned by now that conditions that are inhospitable to humans are in no way a hindrance in it's ability to support a diversity of life still. We'll pass a lot of things over by only considering places that most faithfully mimic what we're use to in our own experience as a species.
I find it uncharacteristically strange that all of these stories about "ALIEN" worlds keep popping up in the news feeds. Exactly what qualifies a planet as being alien? We never hear any of the other planets in our solar system labeled as alien. When was the last time someone wrote about Alien Mars or Alien Jupiter or Alien Venus? They are all simply different planets, as are the ones under discussion. As an English major, it appears as if the word "alien" is attached to the headline of these stories and sprinkled throughout simply to sensationalize the story or on a deeper, more subconcious level it is part of the conditioning prior to DISCLOSURE. From a sociological and psychological perspective, it would appear that the enormous amount of Hollywood movies beginning with "Independence Day", and continuing on through television series like "Falling Skies" & "Ancient Aliens", with all of the spin-offs have been nothing more but attempts to condition the public for Disclosure.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I think people often refer to Mars as alien. In fact, many people seem to think Mexico is alien.
So...you can't just Google 'alien' and get any number of on-line dictionary definitions of the word...?
"Disclosure" -- as in disclosing whether the ETs are lizard-people or bug-people...?
Possibly the headline writers can't handle words of two syllables, or they don't think their readers can:
ex·tra·so·lar
Definition of EXTRASOLAR
: originating or existing outside the solar system <extrasolar planets>
Alien usually means unknown, in the context of the original poster, we know about those other planets in our Solar System, therefore it is known and not alien, but the extrasolar planets, and in general anything outside our solar system would be classified as alien because we know so little about it, also humorously as another poster said Mexico could be considered alien to some people.
Suspect the language would remain the same even if we discover intelligent life for quite some time, you really only have to look at discovery of the New World to get a good idea of how long.
Anyway I understood the post, its about language and its usuage, the term alien is unlikely to change any time soon simply because of our lack of understanding of the topic.