Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
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?
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.
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
I'll just keep watching as you "hang back" ...
Jorge
What you see, you see through very dark and poorly constructed glasses Jorge.
Jim
Comment