Newfound "super-Earth"

reply to post by seeker1977


Based on how Kepler works we simply may be observing sun spots.

Assuming we are detecting planets, how can we say with certainty how far the planet may be from its sun? The thing is we can't say much with any certainty. NASA even states that for this to work " assumptions have to be made ".

reply to post by Illustronic


apparently I did, my bad my friend...
I appreciate accuracy and precision-

I was more focused on what your overall implicated message was-
sorry about that love

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by seeker1977

 

Based on how Kepler works we simply may be observing sun spots.

Assuming we are detecting planets, how can we say with certainty how far the planet may be from its sun? The thing is we can't say much with any certainty. NASA even states that for this to work " assumptions have to be made ".

edit on 4-2-2012 by Max_TO because: (no reason given)

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

I doubt a sun spot causes a consistent gravitational wobble

Originally posted by JOBEone
reply to post by 6minutes212

 

I mean just think, we could have future generation's on other planets some day. Hopefully they won't destroy them the way we have done to our home now!!

Yeah imagine todays people moving to another planet, the moment they stepped off the ship they would have that planet screwed... Hopefully sometime in the future, the very distant future.

reply to post by Duceis


Kepler works by measuring light not gravitational wobbles .

The Transit Method of Detecting Extrasolar Planets: When a planet crosses in front of its star as viewed by an observer, the event is called a transit. Transits by terrestrial planets produce a small change in a star's brightness of about 1/10,000 (100 parts per million, ppm),

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by seeker1977

 

Based on how Kepler works we simply may be observing sun spots.

Assuming we are detecting planets, how can we say with certainty how far the planet may be from its sun? The thing is we can't say much with any certainty. NASA even states that for this to work " assumptions have to be made ".

This was not discovered using Kepler, which (as you alluded to) uses the transit method for finding planets.

It was discovered using the Carnegie Planet Finder Spectrograph. This instrument detects gravitation influences using a Doppler shift method. The planet was also verified using a different gravitational wobble method.

Kepler does use certain methods to rule out sunspots, such as waiting for the planet to transit multiple time. However, those multiple transits take time. That's one reason why Kepler usually calls a potential new planet a "candidate", because more time is needed to confirm its existence using Kepler (and to rule out something like a sunspot).

However, once Kepler finds a candidate, other methods can be used to verify/confirm the existence of a planet, such as the way this planet was found -- through gravitational influences.

reply to post by Max_TO


The assumptions here only have to do with the possibility of supporting life. That planet is a fact as confirmed from multiple methods, this particular planet would have been found a long time ago however they will not publicize it as an actual find until confirmed. Candidate planets have been publicized however that is not the case here.

Another fact here is that it is in a spot where liqued water can exist, however that does not mean it does exist. It is still assuming a lot to say life as we know it may live there but they are only saying that to this point it is the best candidate for life as we know it to exist.

This is great news, the discovery is amazing. GJ 667's luminousity is said to be 0.3% of our sun, that would mean it is like sun through clouds on Earth. However, if they already have better technology, they'd better start using it. We're not going anywhere, nor our probes with such speed.

Originally posted by seeker1977
reply to post by Max_TO

 

No one is saying this isn't speculation, the idea is that for life as we know it that requires liquid water. There is no one saying that this planet definitely harbors life, just that at this time it is the very best candidate as a posibility.

Life does not require liquid water necessarily, the existence of organisms in arsenic or other hostile environments should tell that. But water increases the chances.

reply to post by Imtor


Notice my comment was life "as we know it", of course there may be many other forms of life but all life that we know requires water.

That recent report regarding life being sustained on arsenic was never actually proven. I'm not saying I doubt the possibility just that as far as we have observed and proven to this point water is absolutely mandatory for life on our planet. With what we have seen where there is water life is in abundance so the chances of another planet having water is awesome.

But it will never be explored cause our government is too scared :/

reply to post by Imtor


Don't forget that the main reason we search for "life as we know it" is NOT because we think that is the only kind of life there is, BUT RATHER because it is the kind of life that we will most easily be able to recognize as life.

Life as we DON'T know it may be very difficult for us to recognize or even notice. It is immensely easier to look for the kind of life that we know about than it would be to look for life that we have no idea what it looks like or how it reacts/interacts with the world around it.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Imtor

 

Don't forget that the main reason we search for "life as we know it" is NOT because we think that is the only kind of life there is, BUT RATHER because it is the kind of life that we will most easily be able to recognize as life.

Life as we DON'T know it may be very difficult for us to recognize or even notice. It is immensely easier to look for the kind of life that we know about than it would be to look for life that we have no idea what it looks like or how it reacts/interacts with the world around it.

edit on 2/6/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Ah yes, what is life as we know it?

I often wondered what if we found a planet identical to ours but it was 2x as large, and orbited its sun twice faster and had a moon 2x larger than our current moon? Would the inhabitants experience life at a different rate than us? I suppose the only constant would be at an atomic level but to be honest I have no idea.

A more direct mindtrip is finding a planet 100% identical to Earth but "only" 1 million years older. What would those inhabitants be like?

There is some chemistry involved in detection of life but I hate the 'organic' explanation for life. Apparently you only need hydrogen and carbon to define 'organic, and that's where all of this craze comes from in finding 'organic' molecules in comets and meteorites. Carbon is a very versatile long chain forming element, it provides a very stable and receptive element to build on.

So does silicon, and many other elements and that is not overlooked by NASA or any other life origin chemists.

Its not so necessarily true we only look for long molecular chains of hydrocarbons, gasoline is a hydrocarbon and it is not life. Oxygen and carbon alone can kill life. We are largely hydrogen bonded carbon strands with a good amount of nitrogen and oxygen. Add a bit of salt and sugar and that is our DNA for a greater part, atomically.