NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone interested in Astronomy check this article out.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/13/extrasolar.planet/index.html

Anyone interested in Astronomy check this article out.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/13/extrasolar.planet/index.html


I was wondering when they'd finally find a planet out there that wasn't a gas giant. Although, since it's so massive, it probably can't sustain life. Still cool though.

Oh goody. Another dead rock to add to the list. It's got an orbital period of less than two days, people. We're not colonising it.

Of course, larger orbital periods are harder to find, because they're slower to register. Close-in or super-massive is the easiest to spot.

If we keep finding planets kinda like this one, we're sure to find alien life out there sometime. Now that would be news.

I was wondering when they'd finally find a planet out there that wasn't a gas giant. Although, since it's so massive, it probably can't sustain life. Still cool though.
It could sustain life with the mass... life would adapt to it, just as life here has adapted to a gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2...

If anything, the tempreatures would prohibit life.

It could sustain life with the mass... life would adapt to it, just as life here has adapted to a gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2...

If anything, the tempreatures would prohibit life.

Unless it's got those extreme bacteria on it. I can't remember, was it Archiabacteria or Eubacteria? I always get them confused.

Of course, larger orbital periods are harder to find, because they're slower to register. Close-in or super-massive is the easiest to spot.
It just takes longer to find long orbit ones. They have to observe a full orbit at least to say conclusively that there's a planet there.

Unless it's got those extreme bacteria on it. I can't remember, was it Archiabacteria or Eubacteria? I always get them confused.
Well, that also depends on whether it has liquid water on it... No liquid water = no life... at least no life that we can imagine yet.

Though I think that close to a star would mean that it would be too close in for water to condense out... unless it's put there by later comet bombardment...

It's too close in to colonize, as you said. The temperatures would fry most life.

But, a planet of that size "could" support life. If somehow the planet's core is hollow enough and the planet contains some form of life-bearing material, it is possible to contain more 'intelligent' life. At least Microbial lifeforms will grow on a planet that size and that temperature. If Microbial life can survive freezing cold temperatures on asteroids, I do believe they can survive the polar opposite. Microbial life is the most naturally resilient form of life.

However, a planet that size could also harbor life, much like humans. High gravity favors either very small animals, or very large ones. Other factors play into that such as climate, temperature, environment, etc. The idea that humans cannot live on high gravity planets is a misnomer. Maybe not the gravity of Jupiter, but the human body can withstand a few good G-forces before succumbing. Also, the human body would most likely get larger, or at least weigh more, under higher gravimetric stress, because more muscle mass and conscended bones structure are required to survive under such high-g forces.

Well, that also depends on whether it has liquid water on it... No liquid water = no life... at least no life that we can imagine yet.

Though I think that close to a star would mean that it would be too close in for water to condense out... unless it's put there by later comet bombardment...


But wouldn't the water then just evaporate? But then again, new world, possible new rules. What if water doesn't work on that planet the way it does here? What if it does have water in some wierd form or another, and thereofore can sustain life, primarily bacteria.

Another thing, how can a rocky planet form so close to its star? I can understand gas giants being close to the star, but not a rocky planet. (Don't ask me to explain, I understand it, but I can't explain it)

Pity we'd, erm... fry to death on it.

Another thing, how can a rocky planet form so close to its star? I can understand gas giants being close to the star, but not a rocky planet. (Don't ask me to explain, I understand it, but I can't explain it)

Then how do you explain Mercury? I think you have it backwards. It is easier for Rocky planets to survive close to a star because the actual mass of the minerals in the rocky planet is substanially higher compared to gas. Gas is easily transfered and movable because of its low mass (not weight). Uranium isn't.

Can we say remote mining? Machines tend to handle the gravity issue a lot easier than humans.

But wouldn't the water then just evaporate? But then again, new world, possible new rules. What if water doesn't work on that planet the way it does here? What if it does have water in some wierd form or another, and thereofore can sustain life, primarily bacteria.

Another thing, how can a rocky planet form so close to its star? I can understand gas giants being close to the star, but not a rocky planet. (Don't ask me to explain, I understand it, but I can't explain it)
Well, it coudl be that there was a lot of debris that close to the protostar. Or it coudl even be that the 3 Jupiter sized planets further out spit enough material towards the sun through gravitational interaction that it collected around there and was able to build up near the star.
Perhaps it was also a gas giant robbed of its gas...

And perhaps if the humidity is really high, then the atmosphere would become saturated and some would condense out into liquid.

Or if life could form in some other dissolving liquid and we just haven't observed it.

It's pretty cool because it's the first of its kind. But too close to its star to have life.

With that new telescope the Canadians put in orbit, I'm sure many more will be discovered in time.

Then how do you explain Mercury? I think you have it backwards. It is easier for Rocky planets to survive close to a star because the actual mass of the minerals in the rocky planet is substanially higher compared to gas. Gas is easily transfered and movable because of its low mass (not weight). Uranium isn't.
I think you were looking for density or molecular mass there...

Then how do you explain Mercury? I think you have it backwards. It is easier for Rocky planets to survive close to a star because the actual mass of the minerals in the rocky planet is substanially higher compared to gas. Gas is easily transfered and movable because of its low mass (not weight). Uranium isn't.


Yes, but is Mercury that close to the sun? I mean, Gliese 1 is approximatly 2% the distance from its sun as Earth is from Sol. So which is closer?

It's too close in to colonize, as you said. The temperatures would fry most life.

But, a planet of that size "could" support life. If somehow the planet's core is hollow enough and the planet contains some form of life-bearing material, it is possible to contain more 'intelligent' life. At least Microbial lifeforms will grow on a planet that size and that temperature. If Microbial life can survive freezing cold temperatures on asteroids, I do believe they can survive the polar opposite. Microbial life is the most naturally resilient form of life.

However, a planet that size could also harbor life, much like humans. High gravity favors either very small animals, or very large ones. Other factors play into that such as climate, temperature, environment, etc. The idea that humans cannot live on high gravity planets is a misnomer. Maybe not the gravity of Jupiter, but the human body can withstand a few good G-forces before succumbing. Also, the human body would most likely get larger, or at least weigh more, under higher gravimetric stress, because more muscle mass and conscended bones structure are required to survive under such high-g forces.
Yeah, we could adapt to the increased gravity, but not so much the temperatures...

How the hell can they "find" planets? The nearest star is like 4 light years away, so how can they say they necesarily found a planet? It could be a steaming pile of bullshit.

Yes, but is Mercury that close to the sun? I mean, Gliese 1 is approximatly 2% the distance from its sun as Earth is from Sol. So which is closer?
Mercury is nowhere near that close...

It coudl be that the entire planet itself was pushed closer to the star through gravitational interaction with the larger bodies... or perhaps a close encounter with another star... ?

How the hell can they "find" planets? The nearest star is like 4 light years away, so how can they say they necesarily found a planet? It could be a steaming pile of bullshit.

Can you say Hubble?

Mercury is nowhere near that close...

It coudl be that the entire planet itself was pushed closer to the star through gravitational interaction with the larger bodies... or perhaps a close encounter with another star... ?



Well if that's what happened, and if indeed it is still happening, than we can just say goodbye to Gliese 1.

How the hell can they "find" planets? The nearest star is like 4 light years away, so how can they say they necesarily found a planet? It could be a steaming pile of bullshit.
It would, nevertheless, be a very big pile of bullshit, big enough to become a planet. Didn't you read the note? They infer it through the wobble that the star makes by being pushed by the planet as it orbits.

How the hell can they "find" planets? The nearest star is like 4 light years away, so how can they say they necesarily found a planet? It could be a steaming pile of bullshit.
An orbiting planet of sufficient mass causes a star to wobble back and forth in response to its gravity. For instance in our solar system, the sun orbits a point within the sun but not at its centre due largely, to interaction with Jupiter. By watching the motion of the star, it is possible to determine the period of orbit and the mass of the planet itself.

They can also find black holes and cold white dwarves like this.

Well if that's what happened, and if indeed it is still happening, than we can just say goodbye to Gliese 1.
It could have settled into a stable orbit though.

Or like I suggested before, it could be that during the initial formation of the solar system, debris was flung closer to the star by the larger planets and accumulated very close.

It could have settled into a stable orbit though.

Or like I suggested before, it could be that during the initial formation of the solar system, debris was flung closer to the star by the larger planets and accumulated very close.


I'll cross my fingers for it then.

I never dismissed your theory, in fact it sounds quite good to me.

I'll cross my fingers for it then.

I never dismissed your theory, in fact it sounds quite good to me.
It's more of a personal hypothesis really. I don't think I'm in much of a position to be making actual theories about it. I'm just throwing out possible suggestions based on what I know about the theories of planet formation in our own solar system. This is one of the few topics where being a physics major comes in handy. :D

It's more of a personal hypothesis really. I don't think I'm in much of a position to be making actual theories about it. I'm just throwing out possible suggestions based on what I know about the theories of planet formation in our own solar system. This is one of the few topics where being a physics major comes in handy. :D


Yes, but aren't theorys the same as hypothesese? In definintion, that is. And I still think they all sound pretty good. I know I couldn't come up with any better, seeing as how my knowledge of Astro Physics is based entirely around 8th grade Earth Science.

Yes, but aren't theorys the same as hypothesese? In definintion, that is. And I still think they all sound pretty good. I know I couldn't come up with any better, seeing as how my knowledge of Astro Physics is based entirely around 8th grade Earth Science.
A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested a bit and withstood the test.

What's more exciting, though, are the other gaseous planets around that star. I think that at least one falls within that star's habitable zone, so if it happened to have a good sized moon, like Europa or Io, that moon could have life.

A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested a bit and withstood the test.


Oh, I always thought a theory was your opinion or what-not. Wait a minute, are we talking scientific defintions? I was thinking dictionary type stuff.

Oh, I always thought a theory was your opinion or what-not. Wait a minute, are we talking scientific defintions? I was thinking dictionary type stuff.
I was thinking science...

What's more exciting, though, are the other gaseous planets around that star. I think that at least one falls within that star's habitable zone, so if it happened to have a good sized moon, like Europa or Io, that moon could have life.


I never thought of that! That is exciting!

I was thinking science...


Well that just goes to show what happens when you talk to some one who's younger than you that thinks they know what they're talking about (me).

The planet is so close to its sun that it's probably tidal locked so one side is always day and the other side is always night.

"The planet's mass could easily hold onto an atmosphere," said Gregory Laughlin from UC Santa Cruz.

"We keep pushing the limits of what we can detect, and we're getting closer and closer to finding Earths," said team member Steven Vogt from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

That's right, bitches-I'm 500 yards from those mo fos (or, at least thier offices) right now.

Sorry, little school pride, having just finished my grad work last week...

I sure hope they find an earthlike planet with sentient humanoid aliens that have 2 sexes like us soon, cuz i'm getting really dissatisfied with the women of THIS planet. :p

I sure hope they find an earthlike planet with sentient humanoid aliens that have 2 sexes like us soon, cuz i'm getting really dissatisfied with the women of THIS planet. :p

Erm...

oooooookkkkaaaaaaaaay.....

How the hell can they "find" planets? The nearest star is like 4 light years away, so how can they say they necesarily found a planet? It could be a steaming pile of bullshit.
You're kinda new to celestial mechanics, aren't you? :D

Oh goody. Another dead rock to add to the list. It's got an orbital period of less than two days, people. We're not colonising it.

Of course, larger orbital periods are harder to find, because they're slower to register. Close-in or super-massive is the easiest to spot.

We now know there's one rocky planet in that system, so when the planet-hunting telescopes are launched we can look there for others.

I sure hope they find an earthlike planet with sentient humanoid aliens that have 2 sexes like us soon, cuz i'm getting really dissatisfied with the women of THIS planet. :p


Well some Nasa scientists speculated that the women on this planet had two of everything. But that was pure speculation.

Anyone interested in Astronomy check this article out.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/13/extrasolar.planet/index.html

Thats really cool. I hope life forms are found in my life time(good ones tho)!!

I sure hope they find an earthlike planet with sentient humanoid aliens that have 2 sexes like us soon, cuz i'm getting really dissatisfied with the women of THIS planet.

Have you considered trying the men of this planet, Kirk?