Closest Potentially Habitable Planet

[Jorge]

You are way over the top Jorge - BUT - it is true that sometimes discoveries are announced prematurely. I would not begrudge you a wait and see attitude based on this and other false starts. The data backing this discovery is more substantial than what you refer to above, but it's healthy to have some skepticism of new announcements till more research is done. So while you tend to go to irrational extremes over these sort of issues, I don't see anything wrong with you saying - "Other discoveries have popped up and turned out to be mistakes. I'm going to hang back and wait to see if this one survives before I start speculating about it".

Jim

On the highlighted section, I sincerely doubt that very much. You are ideologically committed to a religious view - that much has been proven time and time again.

But, hey, I too will "hang back and wait to see" if you follow through with your claim.

You of course know how they "discover" these "planets", right? You do know that it's all based on multiple layers of speculations and assumptions and extrapolations, right? I can see how people of your persuasion would be quick to swallow these things hook, line and sinker. I mean, it is EXACTLY the same mindset as for Evolution - very, very little observation followed by multiple layers of religiously-based speculations, assumptions, extrapolations, plaster, wire and duct tape.

I don't expect that you see such things but I see them as clear as daylight.

I'll just keep watching as you "hang back" ...

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Given this planet is on the warm side of the habitable zone and this planet is 1.3 Earth masses, I would think that atmospheric circulation of what could potentially be a relatively thick atmosphere would prevent a runaway collapse, though you might end up with a island or '3rd pole' of frozen CO2 at the point opposite the eyeball. Do you know of any simulations or work that has been done that might provide insight into this specific set of variables (I'm sure there will be if there are not yet).

I've not come across any yet, but i'd imagine you can check the arXiv in about two months. Just not sure what search terms you should use.

[TheLurch]

I'm asking myself why I bother wasting more than a few seconds on the likes of you.
Makes me feel very foolish that I do. Oh well, I guess it's never too late to learn.

I notice two things:
One is that you aren't willing to read the primary literature on exoplanet climate modeling.
Two is that you're not addressing the fact that you promoted an idea that's completely false.

[TheLurch]

What's the strangest exoplanet?

This will go over well with one of the residents: i like think rogue planets are pretty bizarre. They're planets without a star. Either they formed in a normal exosolar system and got ejected through gravitational interactions, or they are super-Jupiter sized planets that condensed on their own, but failed to gather enough matter to ignite. We've imaged a couple of these, and found hints of a few more through microlensing, but we mostly spot exoplanets by their effect on their host star, so we really don't have a strong sense of what's out there wandering our galaxy.

[rogue06]

This will go over well with one of the residents: i like think rogue planets are pretty bizarre. They're planets without a star. Either they formed in a normal exosolar system and got ejected through gravitational interactions, or they are super-Jupiter sized planets that condensed on their own, but failed to gather enough matter to ignite. We've imaged a couple of these, and found hints of a few more through microlensing, but we mostly spot exoplanets by their effect on their host star, so we really don't have a strong sense of what's out there wandering our galaxy.

rogue's planets are various planets where I have bacon vaults. Oh, wait. You said rogue planets not rogue's planets.




73133e44999619e2ff07daa3b7eaf44f.jpg

[TheLurch]

You of course know how they "discover" these "planets", right? You do know that it's all based on multiple layers of speculations and assumptions and extrapolations, right?

We have direct imaging. We have transit occultation. And we have radial velocity. None of these methods of spotting planets involve multiple layers of speculation or extrapolation. For a number of planets, we have evidence through two of these methods. And, for systems with multiple planets, we can even detect transit timing variations, as the planets' gravitational interactions cause them to speed up or slow down in orbit.

What do you propose that can match these multiple lines of evidence that isn't a planet?

[Jorge]

I notice two things:
One is that you aren't willing to read the primary literature on exoplanet climate modeling.

And what, pray tell, makes you believe that I haven't read primary literature?
Don't bother answering - you rabid, blind prejudice says it all.
Just as most of your persuasion, you seem to think that anyone not sharing
your religious beliefs is incapable of grasping science. You are gravely mistaken.

Two is that you're not addressing the fact that you promoted an idea that's completely false.

Given the near-spotless record that you people have for distorting / misrepresenting my actual position on just about everything, I am forced (and frightened) to ask what "idea that's completely false" you are claiming that I promoted. This could be good.

Jorge

[Jorge]

This will go over well with one of the residents: i like think rogue planets are pretty bizarre. They're planets without a star. Either they formed in a normal exosolar system and got ejected through gravitational interactions, or they are super-Jupiter sized planets that condensed on their own, but failed to gather enough matter to ignite. We've imaged a couple of these, and found hints of a few more through microlensing, but we mostly spot exoplanets by their effect on their host star, so we really don't have a strong sense of what's out there wandering our galaxy.

Science fiction used to promote the Party Line. Yup, got it! Neeeeext!

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Given the near-spotless record that you people have for distorting / misrepresenting my actual position on just about everything, I am forced (and frightened) to ask what "idea that's completely false" you are claiming that I promoted. This could be good.

That tidal locking means that a planet will be devoid of an atmosphere.

EDITED TO ADD:
I'll also note that here you said regarding this planet: "This means that it would be as far from being "habitable" as our own Mercury." When i pointed out that there's insufficient evidence to say anything much at all about this planet's habitability, you turned around and agreed with me. So, it seems that, regarding this discovery, you're just saying whatever you find convenient to make an argument at the time, and evidence is irrelevant.

[Jorge]

We have direct imaging. We have transit occultation. And we have radial velocity. None of these methods of spotting planets involve multiple layers of speculation or extrapolation. For a number of planets, we have evidence through two of these methods. And, for systems with multiple planets, we can even detect transit timing variations, as the planets' gravitational interactions cause them to speed up or slow down in orbit.

What do you propose that can match these multiple lines of evidence that isn't a planet?

I'm well aware - thank you - of the observations. That 'something' is causing these observations is indisputable; that the 'something' is a PLANET is what I am questioning.

You people are very quick to embrace anything that supports your religious position. Just like the "Piltdown Bird" fiasco that I recently re-told.

What I most especially love are some of the published images of these "planets" showing color and structure and sometimes even climate. You do know the bodily orifice from which they extract all of that stuff, right? Then they put those images out for public consumption, slap a few PhD names, universities and prestigious journals behind them and - PRESTO! - pseudo-science is born.

It's all a gigantic Hollywood-like spectacle that is given credence and "scientific" respectability because it's endorsed by MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and similar. Hey, wait a minute - aren't those the same jokers that endorse Evolution? Yeah, I thought so.

See Lurch, I am hip to the con game and won't fall for it. And people like you despise this - especially when I expose it for everyone to see. It kind'a rains on the parade. So sad ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

That tidal locking means that a planet will be devoid of an atmosphere.

EDITED TO ADD:
I'll also note that here you said regarding this planet: "This means that it would be as far from being "habitable" as our own Mercury." When i pointed out that there's insufficient evidence to say anything much at all about this planet's habitability, you turned around and agreed with me. So, it seems that, regarding this discovery, you're just saying whatever you find convenient to make an argument at the time, and evidence is irrelevant.

You really need to proof-read your own posts. Go back and see - the "tidal locking" came up in the quote that I posted. Even so, it is true that, theoretically, tidal locking should remove most if not all of an atmosphere. The quote stated:
" ... A few papers suggest that if there is an atmosphere, then convection can bring warm air over to the glaciers on the backside and share the heat. Of course, Mercury and the Moon don't have much of an atmosphere, mostly because tidally-locking tends to remove it."

I've underlined the relevant part to assist in your reading comprehension.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

I'm well aware - thank you - of the observations. That 'something' is causing these observations is indisputable; that the 'something' is a PLANET is what I am questioning.

...

See Lurch, I am hip to the con game and won't fall for it. And people like you despise this - especially when I expose it for everyone to see. It kind'a rains on the parade. So sad ...

As i noted in an earlier thread, people still question whether HIV causes AIDS. Some people just won't be convinced by evidence. I don't despise you for that - i mostly feel sorry for you.

But you tend to disparage those people who can evaluate evidence and come to reasonable conclusions about it. And i'm not a big fan of that sort of anti-intellectual behavior, regardless of who the person doing it is.

Meanwhile, you've not said anything about the actual evidence, other than that you refuse to conclude anything about it. What else could cause a combination of occultation, radial velocity changes, and transit timing variations, other than a planet?

[TheLurch]

Even so, it is true that, theoretically, tidal locking should remove most if not all of an atmosphere. The quote stated:
" ... A few papers suggest that if there is an atmosphere, then convection can bring warm air over to the glaciers on the backside and share the heat. Of course, Mercury and the Moon don't have much of an atmosphere, mostly because tidally-locking tends to remove it."

I comprehend just fine. I just see no mechanism, theoretical or otherwise, by which tidal locking will "tend to remove an atmosphere." It can possibly contribute to atmospheric collapse, but only if the dark side remains very cold, which is a function of distance from the star, not the tidal locking.

[Christianbookworm]

How do I report this thread for derailment?

[37818]

Of course not! I wasn't saying that we should never send out a probe. Just that we need to come up with a way to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Or is that impossible for us mere mortals?

There is work being done to develop quantum entanglement communication device which is believed would provide near instantaneous communication.