Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Closest Potentially Habitable Planet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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.
    Read more carefully Jorge. I'm saying there is a legitimacy for YOU to hold off judgement of the result pending further investigation. A little skepticism of a result early in the game can be healthy. But I'm not saying this looks iffy, or that I hold any strong skepticism over this particular result.


    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?
    Only the most basic of assumptions Jorge. For example, that the laws of physics are the same for the observed star as they are here on Earth. All observational evidence fully supports that one by the way. This is almost exactly the same line of attack you took in those threads on the old TWEB that you accused me of 'misrepresenting' by the way. The truth is that the basic observations used to discover planets rely on this kind of fundamentally sound assumption, without which the universe itself basically doesn't function in any orderly fashion (or as it has been observered).

    Transit: this method looks for periodic dimming of the star's light. The light curve of the dimming event needs to meet certain criteria that would correspond to occultation by a transiting opaque object. Periodicity of the same light curve implies an orbiting object. The only objects capable of causing amount of dimming observed at stellar distances are planets. The relatively short periods observed tend to rule out nearer objects.

    This method perhaps has the most possibility of being something other than a planet - but that likelihood is low.

    OTOH, there have been cases where careful observation of the light curve and change in spectra of the star during the transit have revealed information about the object's atmospheric composition.

    Doppler shift: This method looks for periodic red/blue shifts of the star. This measurement means something is accelerating and slowing the star periodically. There is only one known physical phenomenon that can explain that - a massive object orbiting the star. The ONLY kind of object with the observed masses are planets, or perhaps for the largest exoplanets a brown dwarf.

    Proxima Centauri b was discovered by this method. At a mass of 1.3 Earth masses in the habitable zone, there is only ONE possible explanation - a rocky planet.

    The distance to proxima centauri can be measured by parallax. There are no assumptions as regards its distance. Its spectra and brightness thus reveal it to be very low mass red dwarf star which directly drive the deduction of planetary mass.

    Direct Observation: Good only for large planets of sufficient separation from the host star. There are a few of these, but not many.


    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.
    Not even close. YOUR skepticism might be ideological (it is in fact so illogical as to require primarily an ideological motivation). However, that does not mean mine is.

    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

    What you see, you see through very dark and poorly constructed glasses Jorge.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-28-2016, 09:58 PM.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      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?
      On the old TWEB I went through a similar argument with Jorge over almost identical claims (which I find quite amusing because he accused me earlier of 'misrepresenting' his position on this matter).

      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        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.
        Wow - it's almost like you went back to the old TWEB and found our old discussion, took this same comment to me an cut-n-pasted it here for posterity. It's an even dumber line now than it was then. Back then we might have had a couple of hundred exoplanet observations and no direct images. Now we have over 3000 such observations, multiple observations of the same systems, and even a few direct images. Radial velocity and transit validating the same system in some cases. Yet like some sort of broken record, you keep repeating the very same wrong objection as if by repeating it you can suddenly make it true

        And you have yet to offer any plausible 'something' other than a planet that could produce these observations. Of course you can't do that, because a plausible alternative explanation doesn't exist. There just isn't anything else an object of the implied size and mass can be.

        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-28-2016, 10:10 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Jorge the welcher, #1
          (1) I don't play the "credentials" game - that's a game for losers.
          Originally posted by Jorge the welcher, #2 View Post
          An acquaintance of mine, with a PhD in Physics, ...
          Loser.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            On the old TWEB I went through a similar argument with Jorge over almost identical claims (which I find quite amusing because he accused me earlier of 'misrepresenting' his position on this matter).
            Yeah, it seems a bit like evidence for a black hole at the center of our galaxy. We can determine how much mass is there, we can figure out how the mass is concentrated, and we can detect no obvious object that corresponds to it. The only thing with these physical properties is a black hole. But i would be shocked if there weren't some black hole skeptics out there still.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              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.
              Back to the issue of tidal locking. There is another possibility if the orbit is elliptical enough - 3:2 resonance like we have with Mercury. Given an orbit of ~11 days, this would correspond to a 'day' of about 7 days - allowing the planet to have significant temperature mixing if it has a thick enough atmosphere. While a 7 day 'day' would make the temperature variation a good bit larger than on Earth, there is a good bit of potential for the planet being 'habitable' a la the Earth given that scenario. Especially if the atmosphere is a bit thicker since the equilibrium temperature* is lower than that of the Earth (234K vs 260K).

              That is, take a look at Venus. Its thick atmosphere results in almost constant temperature planet-wide - dark or sunlit - even though it is (almost) tidally locked. But its equilibrium temperature is much higher than the Earth's, and so that stable temperature is much higher than the Earths. So the fact remains that with 3:2 locking and a thicker atmosphere than the Earths coupled to its lower equilibrium temperature leaves open the possibility of a temperate planet not dissimilar from the Earth. We won't know till more detailed observations are made what the actual planet is like of course, but there is no reason to say its habitiabilty (or lack thereof) is ensured.


              Jim

              *Equilibrium Temperature Discussion
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-29-2016, 11:49 AM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #82
                It would be cool if there was an exoplanet we could live on. Except we wouldn't be able to get there! Anytime soon at least.
                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Well, that didn't take long. I mentioned that analyses of potential atmospheres would probably show up on the arXiv within a couple of months. Well, there's one there already:

                  http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07345

                  Short version: if this thing has an atmosphere that redistributes significant heat to the far side, the James Webb telescope should be able to pick it up.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    And another one, this one potentially involving hardware that's already in existence:

                    http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03082
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                    48 responses
                    135 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                    16 responses
                    74 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                    6 responses
                    46 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X