How Many Earths Could Be Out There?

A. We will in a decade at the most.

Actually, we'll know sometime next year or the year after, when they launch the Kepler mission. It was supposed to be launched sometime in the next 3 or so months, anyway it was delayed.

They're looking at over 100,000 stars in the direction of Cygnus for signs of any Earth-like planets in that direction. They'll be able to see the planets as 10 x 10 pixel dots, but more importantly they'll be able to do spectroscopic analysis of the planet's light to see what atmospheres they have. They'll be able to detect water, carbon dioxide, methane and all the other gases.




[edit on 20-9-2006 by GhostITM]

Actually, we'll know sometime next year or the year after, when they launch the Kepler mission. It was supposed to be launched sometime in the next 3 or so months, anyway it was delayed.

They're looking at over 100,000 stars in the direction of Cygnus for signs of any Earth-like planets in that direction. They'll be able to see the planets as 10 x 10 pixel dots, but more importantly they'll be able to do spectroscopic analysis of the planet's light to see what atmospheres they have. They'll be able to detect water, carbon dioxide, methane and all the other gases.
[edit on 20-9-2006 by GhostITM]

man thats pretty amazing i was thinking much longer then that but now i cant wait to see this, i wish they could get better pictures of these things..but thats gotta be one big telescope ..which we dont have..and it would have to be in space...which probably wouldnt ever happen untill many years down the line...soon though i feel very son we are going to be advancing beyond belief!!!
:.Kiliker.:

[edit on 9/20/2006 by kiliker30]

[edit on 9/20/2006 by kiliker30]

Originally posted by GhostITM
Actually, we'll know sometime next year or the year after, when they launch the Kepler mission. It was supposed to be launched sometime in the next 3 or so months, anyway it was delayed.

Yeah, I did'nt know when it was supposed to be launched,
so I was being safe and saying a decade at the most.

Was'nt there another one that was canceled?

[edit on 9/20/2006 by iori_komei]

Hey,
Can anyone please give me the site to this so i can look up on it and browse around abit more? "The" site ,A site..which ever.
Thnx
~Kiliker

The mission that was cancelled was the TPF.....the Terrestrial Planet Finder, due to launch in 2015. But Bush has squeezed NASA dry, now they can't launch it at all.

Here's sites about the Kepler mission....

www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov...

planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov...

and here is a couple of sites for the Terrestrial Planet Finder.....

en.wikipedia.org...

planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov...

Just as a little aside, in the Wiki page about the TPF, see the entry "Keid".....that is the proper name for the star 40Eridani.

40Eridani is the home star of the planet Vulcan, in Star Trek




[edit on 21-9-2006 by GhostITM]

Originally posted by GhostITM
5%......and that is confirmed from radial velocity observations of the Sun-like stars. They've made observations on thousands of Sun-like stars and that's what it shows. Large, Hot Jupiters impart large radial velocity motions on the stars they orbit. The majority of Sun-like stars don't have excessively large radial velocity displacements. Nor do they show the expected doppler shifts (>3m/sec) of their spectral lines which also denote large, close orbiting planets such as Hot Jupiters.

You show an impressive inclination to spew jargon Ghost.

Unfortunately, I understand what the jargon means. For the rest of the people reading along, let me summarize in layman's terms:

Scientists search many stars to see if they wobbled (due to the influence of another significantly massive object nearby), and out of their search they had a 5% success rate in finding massive objects effecting those stars.

What Mr.Ghost didn't mention is that planets any smaller than Jupiter are extemely difficult to detect. And the method he mentions above does not work for smaller planets because the "wobble effect" they exert on the star they orbit is negligable from our standpoint. We are slowing refining the technology to detect these smaller planets, but until large leaps in that technology come about we are very limited.

Main Point:
A 5% success rate in finding Jupiter-like planets orbiting stars DOES NOT mean the other 95% are earth-sized planets. It is a SUCCESS RATE, not a percentage of total mass effecting a star.

Originally posted by GhostITM
Read my answer to backtoreality, above. You'll find that what I have quoted is not made up. That is the 5% and such. However, the numbers of planets/stars are based on the estimates of the total numbers of stars within this galaxy, which is thought to be 400 billion. If you want the figures for the numbers of the various types of stars in the Galaxy it's O,B, giants and supergiants (

Originally posted by GhostITM

Originally posted by backtoreality
Large Jupiter-like "still born stars" are not the exception at 5%, they are the majority--dare I say by far. I found the figures to be offensive because they were presented in a factual way for someone who was asking a really good question (i.e. showing imagination, intelligence, curiosity, etc).

Large Jupiters are not "stillborn stars". You are talking about Brown Dwarfs, not planets. The cutoff point for a planet/brown dwarf is 13 Jupiter masses. The figure of 5% is not including brown dwarfs, it's only the figure for planets. Most brown dwarfs are solitary, just like their larger M class cousins. And you can have a look at all the observations and surveys done so far, plus simulations of their formation. You'll find that I'm correct.

If you took offense at that figure, you need to learn something about astronomy. And before you go castigating what I said, you can have it on notice.......I have 35 years of experience as an amateur astronomer. I think I know a little bit more than you do about what I'm talking about.

If you had 35 years of experience as an English teacher, then I would have taken offense.

Notice that I did not state Jupiter was a stillborn star. My exact quote can be found above where I stated "Large Jupiter-like still-born stars". The "Jupiter-like" designation was to distinguish Earth-LIKE planets (i.e terrestrial) from Jupiter-LIKE (gas giants).

Amateur astronomers have made considerable progress in the last 15 years or so, but there is a reason why despite their gusto they maintain the "amateur" title: a full and complete education.

Cheers!

Originally posted by backtoreality

You show an impressive inclination to spew jargon Ghost.

Unfortunately, I understand what the jargon means. For the rest of the people reading along, let me summarize in layman's terms:

Scientists search many stars to see if they wobbled (due to the influence of another significantly massive object nearby), and out of their search they had a 5% success rate in finding massive objects effecting those stars.

What Mr.Ghost didn't mention is that planets any smaller than Jupiter are extemely difficult to detect. And the method he mentions above does not work for smaller planets because the "wobble effect" they exert on the star they orbit is negligable from our standpoint. We are slowing refining the technology to detect these smaller planets, but until large leaps in that technology come about we are very limited.

Main Point:
A 5% success rate in finding Jupiter-like planets orbiting stars DOES NOT mean the other 95% are earth-sized planets. It is a SUCCESS RATE, not a percentage of total mass effecting a star.

You are the type of person who thinks he knows more than he actually does, and when someone comes along to explain to a person or a group of people points in a particular area of knowledge you seem to get off with arguing that you know better than those that have studied those areas. Quite frankly, I don't have the time nor the inclination to argue with you, so I'll put the matter straight here once and for all.

Firstly, I only use the technical terms that are needed to explain to people what is being found and how it's being done. I am a scientist, so I use the "jargon" that I'm comfortable with. Except I try to make it as easy to read as possible.

Your so called "success" rate is not a success rate at all. It is the observed fraction of Sun like stars that have Hot Jupiters in orbit around them. No if's or buts, and if you want to speak to someone currently researching in the field I'll give you Geoff Marcy's email address. He'll set you straight if I can't.

Yes, planets smaller than Jupiter are harder to detect, especially when they're in long period orbits. However, the numbers of Saturn and Neptune/Uranus sized planets that they've found so far show that the smaller the planet, the more common it is. As for Earth like planets, they can detect them using other methods than the radial velocity/doppler shift method.......namely the transit method and gravitational lensing. They're fast approaching the point where they'll be able to detect them using the doppler shift method too. The smallest planet they've detected using this method is 7.5 Earth masses..... the one orbiting Gliese 876 (16ly away). Nearly all the giant planets found so far have been in orbits less than Earth's and most considerably less than Mercury's. You need to catch up on what the technology can do and the observations being made.

Lastly, I never said that the 5% of Sun-like stars will have Hot Jupiters and the rest Earths, or to put it in your words 95% of the rest will have Earths, or the total mass of anything affecting a star. Read what I said instead of trying to put words into things I never even mentioned. I tell you what, it's obvious from what you write that you actually know very little about what you're talking about.

Until you've actually taught astronomy in schools and taught classes at university level (which I have), you should be a little bit more circumspect. And while we're at it, talking about Earth-like planets and Hot Jupiters, the most recent research shows that it's possible for small terrestrial (hence earth-like) planets to form in the accretion disks around stars that spawn Hot Jupiters. So go figure that one out, if you even have the inclination to do so.

If people want to follow up what I tell them to verify what I say, that's good. I encourage them to do so. You'll find that in the instances that they have, they've come back thanking me for the what I've told them. At least they're learning something from me and their own inquiries. I'd doubt if you'd even be bothered to learn anything except what you read off the press wires at some sites like CNN or space.com. Or maybe from a few astronomy magazines (good though they are). If you think you know better than I do, or better than others who also have extensive backgrounds in astronomy and other sciences, put your money where your mouth is and go do your MS or PhD in those areas. Lets see how far you get.

Like I said at the beginning, I quite frankly couldn't be bothered with arguing with you. Since you think you know better than I do, you tell everyone (without googling the answers, or looking at Wikipedia or any other site, or copying from a book) what you know. The next time someone asks about how white dwarfs form and what are the thermodynamic properties of degenerate matter in stellar cores, I'll let you explain that to everyone. Or whatever else happens to come up. You know best. You're the expert here...... you can explain everything from now on. But like I said, no Googling, or Wiki etc, unless you're grabbing data. Do it from your own acquired knowledge that you already learnt.

Originally posted by backtoreality

Again Ghost, you are completely wrong.

This is the problem with getting information from a websearch but not knowing how to interperate that information. This is by no means a breakdown of the percentage of types of stars around any random star. Certain class stars are more populous in certain areas of the galaxy. That is not how you present your Googled data. The fact that each "neighborhood" of the galaxy has it's own unique characterists means that large swaths of the galaxy are not capable of having anything resembling an Earth nearby. Your data is simply presented without adequate explanation.

Go and read any upto date, modern textbook in astronomy, like "Universe" by Kaufmann and Freeman, or "Stars and Their Spectra" or any other textbook by Jim Kaler. You might actually learn something.

Websearch!!!!!.......Please, don't amuse me by making out like you think you know where and how I come by my information. You're only belittling yourself the more you make out like you think know the facts yourself. If you know so much, you explain it to everyone. I never mentioned anything about concentrations of stellar types, I gave the broad figures for the Galaxy as a whole.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by GhostITM]

Of course there are others out there.

We became so other must have became.

Originally posted by backtoreality

If you had 35 years of experience as an English teacher, then I would have taken offense.

Notice that I did not state Jupiter was a stillborn star. My exact quote can be found above where I stated "Large Jupiter-like still-born stars". The "Jupiter-like" designation was to distinguish Earth-LIKE planets (i.e terrestrial) from Jupiter-LIKE (gas giants).

Amateur astronomers have made considerable progress in the last 15 years or so, but there is a reason why despite their gusto they maintain the "amateur" title: a full and complete education.

Cheers!

(Mod edit - personal jab) All you've ever managed to do is try and make out that I don't know what I'm talking about by trying to make silly little comments like your first sentence there. Or by your own unsubstantiated rhetoric. The only thing you should be offended by is the your own total lack of knowledge, where you seem to think that you do know something about what you're talking about.

I know what you stated in that post. Jupiter-like, stillborn stars. If you care to read the literature they're nothing like Jupiter, except for their physical size so far as linear measurements go. They don't even form in the same manner, nor are physics of their interiors the same. They may superficially look like Jupiter in many respects, especially when they're rather cool, but that's about it. You're supposed to be so smart.....more knowledgeable than I am by your own estimates or at least from your rhetoric...... you explain to everyone about brown dwarfs. In full detail. None of this "layman's terms" garbage. Frankly, I doubt if you'd even know where to start.

Give you some good advice...... don't even bother trying to make like you know anything. It's abundantly clear that the only way you can make any headway with arguing is to put people down by accusing them of being at fault with what they know. You talk about a full and complete education........you don't know what most amateur astronomers have as an education or what they know about their passion in life. Full or otherwise. So don't go spouting off about their lack thereof.

What's your level of education, then. What qualifies you to make comment about this?

Like I've said in previous posts...... no point in arguing with people like yourself. It's a total waste of time, for me and for the other posters at this site trying to actually learn something instead of hearing prattle and nothing of substance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit

Remember to attack the thinking rather than the thinker.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by GhostITM
Like I've said in previous posts...... no point in arguing with people like yourself. It's a total waste of time, for me and for the other posters at this site trying to actually learn something instead of hearing prattle and nothing of substance.

So, you are contradicting yourself?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit

Remember to attack the thinking rather than the thinker.

That's the best Mod Edit I've seen in a long time.


I will not write out half a book in response to your rantish questions, but I will give a very concise reply. The problem I have with your previous posts is that you mix your amateur knowledge (direct quote from yourself) with your personal politics. True science is presented in a straightforward way, letting the data do the talking. This is in contrast to presenting what I consider to be very misleading data in order to try to sway the auidence into believing what the author believes.

This is not to say that a plain English summary cannot also be presented, but it must be solely based on the data, fully allowing for and taking into consideration any possible discrepancies.

With that in mind, we must explain that this branch of astronomy is still in its' infancy, and the techniques have yet to be refined to the point at which we can accurately and with any great consistency detect planets that would be able to harbor life in the terrestrial sense.


[EDIT: one of many spelling errors]

[edit on 22-9-2006 by backtoreality]

There are an infantent amount of Earths with similaritys like ours, but ours will always be truly unique. That is if the theory of alternate dimensions is real.

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
There are an infantent amount of Earths with similaritys like ours, but ours will always be truly unique. That is if the theory of alternate dimensions is real.

Very deep.

However, if there are alternate dimensions, wouldn't that just raise the possibility of another planet exactly like ours in every single way--thus, NOT making our planet truly unique??

This is getting to become some serious stuff man,
thanks to all of you guys i've learned a hell of a lot more on this subject.
:.Kiliker.: