Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Distant solar system mirrors our own


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 19,847 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:40 AM

Planets orbiting a sun-like star exhibit the closest layout to that of our own solar system yet seen.

New Scientist said:

he discovery supports the idea that planets emerge from relatively flat discs of material encircling stars and, at first, orbit neatly in the same plane, just as our eight planets circle the sun. This long-held notion has recently been called into question by a haul of planetary systems with wildly skewed orbits.

Posted Image Read more...



#2    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 27 July 2012 - 12:03 PM

Someone call Superman. They've found Earth-2.

Edited by Xetan, 27 July 2012 - 12:03 PM.


#3    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,711 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:42 PM

View PostXetan, on 27 July 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Someone call Superman. They've found Earth-2.

Hopefully they have a yellow sun, or he'll need some backup. :o


#4    UsefulSoul

UsefulSoul

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • http://www.jameswadmanblog.com
    Scientist, author, pioneer of the universe

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:47 PM

These solar systems are all over the place.  Unfortunately, our best methods for detecting exoplanets are proven ineffective (for the most part) when we are looking for planets as small as earth.  That's why we detect so many super-earths, but so few solar systems like this.  If we optimized photometry or found a better method all together, I believe we'd see thousands if not millions (billions? trillions?) of solar systems like this one.
fun stuff.
what's next? :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien:

http://www.jameswadmanblog.com/
Scientist, Author, Pioneer of the Universe
Long time UM'er, brand new account

@UsefulSoul <-- follow me and be my new best friend!

#5    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,301 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 27 July 2012 - 04:13 PM

View PostUsefulSoul, on 27 July 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

These solar systems are all over the place.  Unfortunately, our best methods for detecting exoplanets are proven ineffective (for the most part) when we are looking for planets as small as earth.  That's why we detect so many super-earths, but so few solar systems like this.  If we optimized photometry or found a better method all together, I believe we'd see thousands if not millions (billions? trillions?) of solar systems like this one.
fun stuff.
what's next? :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien: :alien:
  Agreed,all we need now is someone to invent Light Speed Drive,then we can pop out and see them.cheers.

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#6    King Fluffs

King Fluffs

    The Resident Misanthrope

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Shadows protect my angel in white...

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:35 PM

I'll fly their next week.


#7    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,150 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:18 PM

View PostUsefulSoul, on 27 July 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Unfortunately, our best methods for detecting exoplanets are proven ineffective (for the most part) when we are looking for planets as small as earth.  That's why we detect so many super-earths, but so few solar systems like this.

Not entirely true.

As someone claiming to be a scientist you should be aware of the dangers of leaping to conclusions before the data is collected. No one ever won a Nobel prize that way. To claim the methods are ineffective when the search is only a few years old is neither good science or logic.

Larger planets are easier to find WHATEVER method you use, hence larger planets will ALWAYS be over represented. The same is true of planets orbiting close to their stars, hence a disproportionate amount of planetary discoveries WILL be hot Jupiters. However this is understood and statistical methods can be used to calculate the actual frequency of planetary types.

As you have referred to photometry I assume you are talking about the transit method (spectrometry is used for the radial velocity method).

Photometers are not, currently, the limiting factor in detecting planets transiting their parent star, the earth's atmosphereis. Hence space based observations are the way to discover such planets. As the first dedicated satellite for this purpose, COROT, was only launched in 2006 and the first with the sensitivity to find Earth sized planets, Kepler, was not launched until 2009 it stands to reason that we have not found many Earth sized planets so far. Despite this, as of 11th December 2012, of the 2,326 planetary candidates found by Kepler, 207 are Earth sized.

In short, there is nothing wrong with the methods, it is just that the search is in its infancy.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#8    csspwns

csspwns

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

  • "Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish."

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:16 AM

we have reached the speed of sound but lightspeed will probably take a bit of work


#9    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,150 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 28 July 2012 - 08:45 AM

View Postcsspwns, on 28 July 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

we have reached the speed of sound but lightspeed will probably take a bit of work

It doesn't matter how much work you put in, you still can't achieve the impossible.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#10    Rolci

Rolci

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 571 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 28 July 2012 - 08:56 AM

comparing reaching the speed of sound with reaching the speed of light is not only useless, it's also meaningless. The speed of shockwaves on the surface of our planet is merely a property of our atmosphere, and changes with the local pressure, temperature, composition of the air, etc, so it's not constant even on our planet, and speeds on the surfaces of different planets will be widely different from one another. What it is on our planet is meaningless, it could be anything else, then what. Say if it was 100m/s, we would've reached it long before we did with it being what it is. Besides, it's nowhere near lightspeed, so achieving one has no indication of possibilities or probabilities of reaching the other within any kind of timeframe. As to what's possible and what's impossible, if the history of our science has had anything to teach us know-it-alls, then it's that if we think it's impossible based on what we think we know, chances are it's very possible and it's only a matter of time and a bit of humility to open our minds and we'll find otherwise.


#11    King Fluffs

King Fluffs

    The Resident Misanthrope

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Shadows protect my angel in white...

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:32 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 28 July 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

It doesn't matter how much work you put in, you still can't achieve the impossible.

Impossible is 2 letters too long.


#12    felines3

felines3

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined:12 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The highest taxed state

  • The more normal something appears to be,
    The more insane; it actually is.

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:29 PM

Cool


#13    Artaxerxes

Artaxerxes

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, United States

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:01 PM

You can let me off at the first M class planet.


#14    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,301 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:36 PM

These clones pop up everywhere

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#15    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,150 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 29 July 2012 - 07:26 PM

View PostKing Fluffs, on 28 July 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Impossible is 2 letters too long.

Not when describing travel at light speed, it is exactly the correct length.

Unfortunately we don't get to decide what is possible or not, the universe has already decided that. The laws of physics can not be repealed by mankind.

I will add this caveat; although we can not break or change the laws of physics our understanding of them can change. It is possible that relativity may prove to be wrong, or not the whole anser. However it has passed every test so far and hence the best information we have is that any object posseing mass can not reach the speed of light.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 29 July 2012 - 07:27 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users