Closest ever planet which could house intelligent ALIENS discovered

a reply to: GaryN

Hello: it has a magnitude of 10.

It emits visible light.

That's a star.

0.08 AUs (7.4 million miles) is how far the planet is from a star that has a diameter of 216,000 miles (it's 1/4 the size of our sun). Surface temp is only 3,300 kelvins (rather cool compared to our sun).

It's been photographed (because it emits visible light).

It's a M class red dwarf. A small, long lived star that is a lot smaller and cooler than our sun.

There absolutely no reason why a small massed object (even at 4 times larger than our planet, that is still very small compared to the mass and size of the red dwarf), can not be at that distance and orbit it that fast.

In fact: the math says it has to orbit it that fast at that distance.

Do you have evidence and proof of otherwise?

a reply to: swanne

Thank you for that post, I will definitely be reading your thread! I have a basic understanding of physics, but there are many holes, and hopefully that thread will be able to fill some of those gaps. If not, I will ask you and the many other highly knowledgeable people that grace these forums.



LSU0408

At least you actually answer my friend, I myself am guilty of forgetting I have asked a question, and only by chance come across the thread again, only to feel really guilty for being so ignorant as to have missed replies, something I am trying to change.

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: Frocharocha

An 18 Day year? Woah that's fast.

Would that have any effect on the life on that planet?

Seems really really fast... Or is it "all relative" ?

In theory, it means life would evolve much faster and they would be able to move and talk much faster

This is probably the most incorrect responsive ever read on ATS... The fact that you threw the "in theory" in there, just cracks me up lol no, not in theory...

a reply to: Frocharocha

The system star Wolf 1061 is a M3V class red dwarf with only a fraction of our sun's output

iS only .7 % output of our sun which is a G2 class

Most experts think that only stars of F class (slightly larger than sun) or K class (slightly smaller than sub)
are capable of harboring life

a reply to: Frocharocha

en.wikipedia.org...

So I'm trying to keep up here - the wiki doesnt actually state the range of the telescope. How can something 14 light years away be so clear and detailed? Can someone fill me in?

a reply to: Frocharocha

That is pretty tantalizing...

Sadly as we all know we will never see the surface-which is more the reason to preserve this planet in order to let our ancestors travel there. That is fairly close though-maybe in a thousand years we could get there if we started today-unless we unlocked the miracle of FTL or close to FTL travel.

Still if we look hard enough we might see a civilization 14 years in the past. Who needs a DeLorean?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Frocharocha

en.wikipedia.org...

So I'm trying to keep up here - the wiki doesnt actually state the range of the telescope. How can something 14 light years away be so clear and detailed? Can someone fill me in?

The color spectrum helps ;the sky looks blue in the day and dark at night because of light and it can help determine the distance and speed of a planet.

However some of the images you see of exoplanets are artists interpretations and not actual images-it's obviously going to be hard to determine was a planet looks like but the spectrum (and other factors) help determine the artists interpretation.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Frocharocha

en.wikipedia.org...

So I'm trying to keep up here - the wiki doesnt actually state the range of the telescope. How can something 14 light years away be so clear and detailed? Can someone fill me in?

Telescopes don't have a range, they have the resolving power. Even a modest telescope can see something many light years away, as long as that object is bright enough.

In practice, though, astronomers have to deal with what appears as just a dot of light, and try to infer its properties from what that dot of light looks like and how it behaves.

Funny they used the name "Wolf," as in Wolf-359!1 Maybe we shouldn't put an outpost there! a reply to: Frocharocha

originally posted by: Peekingsquatch
Funny they used the name "Wolf," as in Wolf-359!1 Maybe we shouldn't put an outpost there! a reply to: Frocharocha

its because an astronomer by that name compiled a catalog of stars. The wolf catalog has a lot of stars pretty much all designated wolf something or the other. Ditto the gleise star charts. many of these stars do have a traditional name and are named on different catalogs too. so it is not uncommon for stars to have three or 4 names.

upshot: Wolf 359 is not a fictional name of a fictional star but a real star in the wolf catalog. i might add that ST used the name physical location and spectral class for that star from the real star chart.

Was trying to make you laugh, friend -but thank you for the info, I didn't realize it was a real location.
a reply to: stormbringer1701

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

One of the things that also is a consideration of the habitability of a planet is the existence of a moon to stabilize the rotational axis. Without a moon, planets are susceptible to extreme axis swings which wrecks havoc on the environment and the ability for lifeforms to evolve to higher forms. Unstable climates, ice ages, etc cause mass extinctions and lowers the probability of intelligent life developing.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

It might be relative to the species... One could be hundreds of years old yet be equal in life span to humans, then well let your imagination run.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

There's been evidence of extra-solar planets for decades now. Just couldn't "see" 'em, so to speak.

When stellar wobble was first detected the only really plausible explanation of planets orbiting said stars.

There's been evidence/proof for a long time, certainly for most of my life.

a reply to: firerescue

What's that old saying?

"Life finds a way."

I think that the forms life will take will amaze and confound even the most optimistic among us.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Frocharocha

en.wikipedia.org...

So I'm trying to keep up here - the wiki doesnt actually state the range of the telescope. How can something 14 light years away be so clear and detailed? Can someone fill me in?

the star can easily be seen with a telescope since it can probably be seen with a good set of binoculars. But normally planets are no directly imaged. instead the light of the star is processed to obtain data about the mass and velocity and then other data is obtained such as orbital period. In some cases planets can be directly imaged but it is not necessary to obtain the data we have so far. you would need something close to that to separate out the spectrum of the star light that goes through the planets atmosphere which would give us detailed information about the chemistry of the atmosphere and perhaps even whether clouds exist or areas of high contrast such as oceans, continents, cloud cover polar caps or large glaciers or even large areas of vegetation or deserts. some ofthis can be done with as little as one pixel of resolution.

even atmospheric spectrometry would allow us to detect certain markers of biological activity as in; if life exists there. Though it would not rule out life that is so different from ours that it produces different signatures than ours does.

even carbon life just does not give a toss what we think life should be capable of calling home:

phys.org...

do you have any idea what earth was like back then? but there was life. flipping the bird at the environment.

a reply to: sosobad

yeah, the Swannesta had insight knowledge, i'm sure if it the cheeky bugga

and

phys.org...

this means increased probability of good life supporting magnetic fields and also long lived plate tectonics and vulcanism. there are radioactive compounds that normally do not form and accumulate that are rendered stable that help turn a core into a dynamo and also keep it warm. the heavy presence of these compounds can actually allow a planet to retain liquid water on the outside of a stars life zone potentially even in deep space. i have read popular science media articles speculating that orphan worlds in the interstellar void (alone and without a star) could potentially retain enough heat this way to cling to life in a minimalist way.

a reply to: Frocharocha

Why do we assume life can only exist on an Earth-like planet?

How do we know life does not exist on other planets in our own solar system?

We don't.

In my opinion, if life is possible on other planets on our solar system, then this is just a distraction because NASA doesn't want us to know about them so we don't have mass panic.