Wondering About New Planet Estimations

[JimBowie1958]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com

These planets, named Kepler 20-e and Kepler 20-f, have sizes and masses similar to the Earth, and their host star is similar to our sun. But the resemblance ends there. Both orbit very rapidly -- in 6.1 days and 19.6 days, respectively, compared to 365 days for an Earth year -- so both are much closer to their star than the Earth is to the sun.

OK, orbitting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there arent twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com

These planets, named Kepler 20-e and Kepler 20-f, have sizes and masses similar to the Earth, and their host star is similar to our sun. But the resemblance ends there. Both orbit very rapidly -- in 6.1 days and 19.6 days, respectively, compared to 365 days for an Earth year -- so both are much closer to their star than the Earth is to the sun.

OK, orbitting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there arent twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

Well first they measure the amount of light that is coming from the star. So for your hypothesis to be correct, they would all have to be the same distance and the same size, which seems highly improbable. Second, the can also tell when the planet is behind the star, not just in front, this also causes a drop in light , just not as much. Still you could probably make a system where your idea would work, its just now even more improbable. Third, almost no orbits are perfectly circular, the vast majority are elliptical. So what they are really seeing is something like the planet pass in front of the star after 3.1 and then behind it 2.9 days later. So we would have to be at the proper angle to that planets orbit to view it that way.
Finally, bodies with sufficient mass tend to clear out most of their orbit, given enough time.
Is it possible? I guess I would say its not impossible, just highly improbable.
But there are other ways of detecting planets, like watching the star wobble, which is the star moving back and forth as the planet spins around. If both methods were done, it would rule out the possibility of multiple planets in the same orbit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com

These planets, named Kepler 20-e and Kepler 20-f, have sizes and masses similar to the Earth, and their host star is similar to our sun. But the resemblance ends there. Both orbit very rapidly -- in 6.1 days and 19.6 days, respectively, compared to 365 days for an Earth year -- so both are much closer to their star than the Earth is to the sun.

OK, orbitting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there arent twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

Well first they measure the amount of light that is coming from the star. So for your hypothesis to be correct, they would all have to be the same distance and the same size, which seems highly improbable. Second, the can also tell when the planet is behind the star, not just in front, this also causes a drop in light , just not as much. Still you could probably make a system where your idea would work, its just now even more improbable. Third, almost no orbits are perfectly circular, the vast majority are elliptical. So what they are really seeing is something like the planet pass in front of the star after 3.1 and then behind it 2.9 days later. So we would have to be at the proper angle to that planets orbit to view it that way.
Finally, bodies with sufficient mass tend to clear out most of their orbit, given enough time.
Is it possible? I guess I would say its not impossible, just highly improbable.
But there are other ways of detecting planets, like watching the star wobble, which is the star moving back and forth as the planet spins around. If both methods were done, it would rule out the possibility of multiple planets in the same orbit.

Thank you very much.

Is it just me that finds it just amazing that scientists can measure the wobble of distant stars so accurately that they can make a reasonable estimate of the mass of its surrounding planets?

Those telescopes kick some serious botox.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com



OK, orbitting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there arent twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

Well first they measure the amount of light that is coming from the star. So for your hypothesis to be correct, they would all have to be the same distance and the same size, which seems highly improbable. Second, the can also tell when the planet is behind the star, not just in front, this also causes a drop in light , just not as much. Still you could probably make a system where your idea would work, its just now even more improbable. Third, almost no orbits are perfectly circular, the vast majority are elliptical. So what they are really seeing is something like the planet pass in front of the star after 3.1 and then behind it 2.9 days later. So we would have to be at the proper angle to that planets orbit to view it that way.
Finally, bodies with sufficient mass tend to clear out most of their orbit, given enough time.
Is it possible? I guess I would say its not impossible, just highly improbable.
But there are other ways of detecting planets, like watching the star wobble, which is the star moving back and forth as the planet spins around. If both methods were done, it would rule out the possibility of multiple planets in the same orbit.

Thank you very much.

Is it just me that finds it just amazing that scientists can measure the wobble of distant stars so accurately that they can make a reasonable estimate of the mass of its surrounding planets?

Those telescopes kick some serious botox.

Its not just you, I am always amazed by the stuff that they can do. But to be fair, the wobble of the star has to be pronounced, normally when they are doing the wobble method they are finding planets that are very large and very close. They commonly find what they refer to as "hot Jupiters" with the wobble method. Planets about the size of Jupiter that are orbiting about the distance of Mercury or closer. But they are always improving upon their methods, as exoplanet searching has become bigger and bigger with each passing year, as well as the funding for it.

 

[LAfrique]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com

These planets, named Kepler 20-e and Kepler 20-f, have sizes and masses similar to the Earth, and their host star is similar to our sun. But the resemblance ends there. Both orbit very rapidly -- in 6.1 days and 19.6 days, respectively, compared to 365 days for an Earth year -- so both are much closer to their star than the Earth is to the sun.

OK, orbiting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there aren't twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

Nope. I have too many pressing and important matters on my mind.

 

[American Horse]

The radial velocity method relies on the fact that a star does not remain completely stationary when it is orbited by a planet. It moves, ever so slightly, in a small circle or ellipse, responding to the gravitational tug of its smaller companion. When viewed from a distance, these slight movements affect the star's normal light spectrum, or color signature. If the star is moving towards the observer, then its spectrum would appear slightly shifted towards the blue; if it is moving away, it will be shifted towards the red.

Using highly sensitive spectrographs, planet hunters on Earth can track a star's spectrum, searching for periodic shits towards the red, blue, and back again. The spectrum appears first slightly blue-shifted, and then slightly red-shifted. If the shifts are regular, repeating themselves at fixed intervals of days, months, or even years, it means that the star is moving ever so slightly back and forth - towards the Earth and then away from it in a regular cycle. This, in turn, is almost certainly caused by a body orbiting the star, and if it is of a low enough mass it is called a planet.

The success of this method was made possible by the development in recent years of extremely sensitive spectrographs, which can detect even very slight movements of a star. The spectrograph used by Geoff Marcy's team of planet hunters can detect a star moving as slow as 3 meters per second. It is no coincidence that this U.C. Berkeley-based team is responsible for the discovery of over half of the extrasolar planets known to date.

Search for Extrasolar Planets: Spectroscopy - Explore the Cosmos | The Planetary Society

 

[JimBowie1958]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com

These planets, named Kepler 20-e and Kepler 20-f, have sizes and masses similar to the Earth, and their host star is similar to our sun. But the resemblance ends there. Both orbit very rapidly -- in 6.1 days and 19.6 days, respectively, compared to 365 days for an Earth year -- so both are much closer to their star than the Earth is to the sun.

OK, orbiting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there aren't twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

Nope. I have too many pressing and important matters on my mind.

Finding habitable planets is not an important issue to you?

How odd.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Its not just you, I am always amazed by the stuff that they can do. But to be fair, the wobble of the star has to be pronounced, ...

Lol, you seem to have a different meaning to the word 'pronounced' than I do.



Yes, in real life I am a smart ass too.

 

[Montrovant]

Two new Earths and the search for life - CNN.com



OK, orbiting their star in such a short time makes me wonder how the astronomers know that this is a case of only two planets? I am guessing that the star 'blinks' are adequately timed with a two star orbit, but is it possible that this might also be 4 or more stars that have so far happened to be at longer intervals that are offset so that there appears to be one or two orbits when there are three or four or more?

How do we know that there aren't twelve planets there with what appear to us as 36 and 120 day orbits?

Nope. I have too many pressing and important matters on my mind.

Finding habitable planets is not an important issue to you?

How odd.

I'm not sure why that's odd. As far as I'm aware we do not have the means for anyone to reach such a planet in anything approaching a reasonable amount of time. So, while it's interesting and could be important information at some later date, I really don't think it has much impact on the average person's life.

Personally I love it, I'm a sci-fi fan and the idea of other life in the galaxy, or of humanity colonizing other worlds, these are interesting things for me. I realize, however, that the distances involved are (unfortunately) very prohibitive as far as what we can really do or learn.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope. I have too many pressing and important matters on my mind.

Finding habitable planets is not an important issue to you?

How odd.

I'm not sure why that's odd. As far as I'm aware we do not have the means for anyone to reach such a planet in anything approaching a reasonable amount of time. So, while it's interesting and could be important information at some later date, I really don't think it has much impact on the average person's life.

I dont think for a thing to be considered important it has to directly impact their lives. Some things are important because they are critical to our pregeny, though not necesarily our own personal selves.

Spreading out into other star systems I think is critical to the long term survival for the human race, dont you? Staying in one solar system is like putting all our eggs in one basket, almost literally.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's an interesting thought to ponder........

When we point our telescopes other equipment towards a place where we're checking out a planet, it is only then that we direct our lasers and radio wave equipment to point DIRECTLY at it.

Now.........maybe one of these days, when we're looking at a planet and checking it out, that we may see the possibility of being contacted by aliens.

 

[Montrovant]

Finding habitable planets is not an important issue to you?

How odd.

I'm not sure why that's odd. As far as I'm aware we do not have the means for anyone to reach such a planet in anything approaching a reasonable amount of time. So, while it's interesting and could be important information at some later date, I really don't think it has much impact on the average person's life.

I dont think for a thing to be considered important it has to directly impact their lives. Some things are important because they are critical to our pregeny, though not necesarily our own personal selves.

Spreading out into other star systems I think is critical to the long term survival for the human race, dont you? Staying in one solar system is like putting all our eggs in one basket, almost literally.

That could be the VERY far future, if we ever even reach such a point, though. It may not even be possible for us to travel to other habitable planets outside our solar system. The sci-fi nerd within me hopes that isn't the case, but the distances involved and the speeds needed to be reached to travel those distances could mean we never go beyond our solar system.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not sure why that's odd. As far as I'm aware we do not have the means for anyone to reach such a planet in anything approaching a reasonable amount of time. So, while it's interesting and could be important information at some later date, I really don't think it has much impact on the average person's life.

I dont think for a thing to be considered important it has to directly impact their lives. Some things are important because they are critical to our pregeny, though not necesarily our own personal selves.

Spreading out into other star systems I think is critical to the long term survival for the human race, dont you? Staying in one solar system is like putting all our eggs in one basket, almost literally.

That could be the VERY far future, if we ever even reach such a point, though. It may not even be possible for us to travel to other habitable planets outside our solar system. The sci-fi nerd within me hopes that isn't the case, but the distances involved and the speeds needed to be reached to travel those distances could mean we never go beyond our solar system.

Could Warp Drive Become a Reality? | Astroengine.com

Back in 1994, Michael Alcubierre, a physicist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, put together a formalized paper about the possibility of travelling faster than light by warping space-time. Of course, the idea for warping space to make space travel easier on TV audiences had been around for many years before then, but this was the first attempt at turning science fiction into science fact (or at least theory). Basically, the “Alcubierre Bubble” would be a region of space a spacecraft would generate, where space-time is compressed in front, but stretched out behind. The region in the middle (where the spacecraft is) would remain normal. In this case, the spaceship would effectively be stationary, but the bubble would able to travel anywhere in space at any speed.

Now two physicists at Baylor University in Texas think that recent developments in superstring theory may help the Alcubierre Bubble to have a more solid foundation. Gerald Cleaver and Richard Obousy believe there may be a way to change the dimensions of the curled microscopic dimensions we cannot usually experience (as predicted by superstrings and brane theory). If some distortion is possible, then compressing and stretching space-time may be a possibility, allowing the formation of an Alcubierre Bubble.


“The basic idea is that by altering the radius of an extra dimension, it would be possible, in principle, to adjust the energy density of spacetime.” – Cleaver and Obousy.

However, an estimate of the energy required to perform space-time distortion on demand is huge. 1045 Joules would be required to generate a space-time bubble large enough for travelling around the cosmos – to put this into context, the spaceship would require the same energy that would be generated from converting the total mass of Jupiter into energy (?????).

Dont mean to raise your expectations too much, but thought I would share that.

I dont grok the last line though as a joule isnt all that; the amount of work used in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre.

Given the exponential acceleration of technological progress, we might be able to travel to distant stars within the next century, and we might also live to see it ourselves.

 

[Montrovant]

I dont think for a thing to be considered important it has to directly impact their lives. Some things are important because they are critical to our pregeny, though not necesarily our own personal selves.

Spreading out into other star systems I think is critical to the long term survival for the human race, dont you? Staying in one solar system is like putting all our eggs in one basket, almost literally.

That could be the VERY far future, if we ever even reach such a point, though. It may not even be possible for us to travel to other habitable planets outside our solar system. The sci-fi nerd within me hopes that isn't the case, but the distances involved and the speeds needed to be reached to travel those distances could mean we never go beyond our solar system.

Could Warp Drive Become a Reality? | Astroengine.com

Back in 1994, Michael Alcubierre, a physicist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, put together a formalized paper about the possibility of travelling faster than light by warping space-time. Of course, the idea for warping space to make space travel easier on TV audiences had been around for many years before then, but this was the first attempt at turning science fiction into science fact (or at least theory). Basically, the “Alcubierre Bubble” would be a region of space a spacecraft would generate, where space-time is compressed in front, but stretched out behind. The region in the middle (where the spacecraft is) would remain normal. In this case, the spaceship would effectively be stationary, but the bubble would able to travel anywhere in space at any speed.

Now two physicists at Baylor University in Texas think that recent developments in superstring theory may help the Alcubierre Bubble to have a more solid foundation. Gerald Cleaver and Richard Obousy believe there may be a way to change the dimensions of the curled microscopic dimensions we cannot usually experience (as predicted by superstrings and brane theory). If some distortion is possible, then compressing and stretching space-time may be a possibility, allowing the formation of an Alcubierre Bubble.


“The basic idea is that by altering the radius of an extra dimension, it would be possible, in principle, to adjust the energy density of spacetime.” – Cleaver and Obousy.

However, an estimate of the energy required to perform space-time distortion on demand is huge. 1045 Joules would be required to generate a space-time bubble large enough for travelling around the cosmos – to put this into context, the spaceship would require the same energy that would be generated from converting the total mass of Jupiter into energy (?????).

Dont mean to raise your expectations too much, but thought I would share that.

I dont grok the last line though as a joule isnt all that; the amount of work used in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre.

Given the exponential acceleration of technological progress, we might be able to travel to distant stars within the next century, and we might also live to see it ourselves.

I'd love to see that kind of travel in my lifetime. I just always wonder in the back of my mind if either the theories which would be applied to allow for it are wrong in some way, or if the energy requirements would be so great as to make it practically impossible. If FTL travel does not or cannot become real, we would be down to extremely long journeys requiring some sort of cryogenics or suspended animation, or even ships which carry generations of people before they reach new, habitable worlds. Well, unless maybe human lifespans are extended an awful lot, also a possibility not to be overlooked!

As I said, I'm all for research into these kinds of things, but I can certainly see how many people would consider it pretty unimportant.

 

[American Horse]

In the future we might reach a level in the advancement of robotics and biochemistry in which a ship might be launched with human embryos (or some earlier stage), preserved cryogenically that might travel for some hundreds of years across space to a distant planet. Transported to the surface on arrival, and with these advanced human like robots, they might be nurtured back to life from their suspended state, educated in their new environment, and raised to adulthood to establish a permanent human colony there.

 

[deaddogseye]

No thread like this is complete without a reference to everybody's favorite planet -- Uranus (the guy HAD to know what he was doing when he named that planet - dont you think?).

Now you may continue

 

[American Horse]

Consider that at the speed of the fastest space craft we've launched up to now, 150,000 mph, the time to journey to Alpha Centauri, our nearest neighbor, would take 19,000 years.
There are faster ways to propel a craft, but with increased speed comes increased risk of disastrous collisions with even the smallest particles. At 18,000 mph, nominal orbital speed, a tiny paint fleck can do tremendous damage.

A craft with only the eggs of human life, cryogenically preserved, could be maintained with no atmosphere at all since robots require none (see my post #15).

A craft with no atmosphere could even be brought to the surface of an ecologically friendly planet with a compatible atmosphere, with the craft having no atmosphere of it's own up to the moment of opening its hatches. Or an atmosphere could be released into the craft an appropriate number of years in advance of landing if the hull's integrity was fully intact.

 

[Douger]

A craft with only the eggs of human life could be maintained with no atmosphere at all since robots require none (see my post #15).

Hopefully, if a being was to find them, they'd quickly feed them to the nearest carnivore.
Shit in/shit out

 

[whitehall]

Go ahead and wonder. It's 600 light years away. That's 22 million years travel time with today's technology which ain't likely to change.

 

[Douger]

Even if they could, and there was intelligent life ( I din't say "other"), they most likely would have heard the bad news and use some dark matter ray to zap the thing.