Nearby extrasolar world could be first known ocean planet

[UM-Bot]

Scientists have identified a relatively nearby exoplanet that appears to be made up almost entirely of water.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/360282/nearby-extrasolar-world-could-be-first-known-ocean-planet

[jethrofloyd]

Quote

the first known planet with an ocean covering its entire surface.

If Kevin Costner had known it, he could have shot his 'Waterworld' movie there.

[+OverSword]

Quote

“TOI-1452 b is one of the best candidates for an ocean planet that we have found to date,” University of Montreal astrophysics PhD student Charles Cadieux said in a statement. “Its radius and mass suggest a much lower density than what one would expect for a planet that is basically made up of metal and rock, like Earth.”

How do they calculate the mass of a planet 100 light years distant?

[Audio Imagez]

It's Kamino. The archives were incomplete.

[godnodog]

38 minutes ago, OverSword said:

How do they calculate the mass of a planet 100 light years distant?

Probably by light distortion rings

[Ell]

I do not believe that that planet exists.

 

No planet has been observed. Its erroneously presumed existence is the result of data entered into a model.

 

No doubt another model would have resulted in the assertion that a flying pig is presumed to exist over there.

[Harte]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

How do they calculate the mass of a planet 100 light years distant?

By watching how much it perturbs the star it orbits.

Harte

[Harte]

51 minutes ago, Ell said:

I do not believe that that planet exists.

 

No planet has been observed. Its erroneously presumed existence is the result of data entered into a model.

 

No doubt another model would have resulted in the assertion that a flying pig is presumed to exist over there.

The existence of that planet does not depend on what you believe.
Have you ever seen a shadow that wasn't caused by something?
 

Harte

[dragon1440]

Its not psychology, its science. It is not just models. And yes, point out on time when a shadow was not caused by something else. When that happens it is considered paranormal (think ghost hunting). It is literally impossible for a shadow to exist without something there to make it exist. They are using that as an analogy to make it easy for the layman to understand. The models predictions are like shadows. There is something there for the model to predict, its casting a "shadow". And therefore because we can see the "shadow" that must an something exists to cause the "shadow". As for the rest of the questions, they don't seem to have Trump level hubris to think they are a god.

Edited August 27, 2022 by dragon1440

[Abramelin]

21 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

Scientists have identified a relatively nearby exoplanet that appears to be made up almost entirely of water.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/360282/nearby-extrasolar-world-could-be-first-known-ocean-planet

I'm not willing to subscribe to The Independent.

Here are some other - and better - links:

https://astrobiology.com/2022/08/toi-1452-b-an-extrasolar-world-covered-in-water.html

And download the paper here:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac7cea

[+joc]

39 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I'm not willing to subscribe to The Independent.

Here are some other - and better - links:

https://astrobiology.com/2022/08/toi-1452-b-an-extrasolar-world-covered-in-water.html

And download the paper here:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac7cea

The Astronomical Journal would have been a very informative website were I a mathematician.  Nonetheless, it was very informative still because it showed real people with real calculations talking about things actually observed and how they came to the conclusions they did.   I could never begin to understand higher math of that caliber, but just because I cannot understand the math doesn't mean it isn't correct.  I'm going with it being correct.  I am usually skeptical about stories without sources...so... Thanks for giving us the source from the horses mouth! 

Edited August 27, 2022 by joc

[+joc]

4 hours ago, Ell said:

Now please show us that there indeed is a planet there. How large a telescope do you need to do that? I do not know everything, so at a guess a telescope with an aperture 250 times that of the JWST? Or maybe 2500 times?

Or ... maybe...you don't need a telescope to 'see' it.  Just because you cannot see something through a telescope does not mean it isn't there.  It was only through the Hubble Telescope that we saw Galaxies, and lots of them, where we had never seen anything before. But there are other ways of observing.

Like for instance...if you or I were mathematicians or astronomers, we might understand exactly what they are discussing in The Astronomical Journal.

Do you think your arguments against there being a planet would be strong enough to convince those who are writing the discovery?  or  would they just look at you funny and go on talking amongst themselves as though you were not even there?  

But, anyway, go to the link and then come back please and discuss what they got wrong.  Thanks.

[Ell]

25 minutes ago, joc said:

Or ... maybe...you don't need a telescope to 'see' it.  Just because you cannot see something through a telescope does not mean it isn't there. 

Quite. Just because we cannot see the tooth fairy through a telescope does not mean that it isn't there. (argumentum ad absurdum)

 

Consequently people are of the opinion that there is a planet there because we cannot see it through a telescope? That is ridiculous.

 

Quote

 

Like for instance...if you or I were mathematicians or astronomers, we might understand exactly what they are discussing in The Astronomical Journal.

Do you think your arguments against there being a planet would be strong enough to convince those who are writing the discovery?  or  would they just look at you funny and go on talking amongst themselves as though you were not even there?  

But, anyway, go to the link and then come back please and discuss what they got wrong.  Thanks.

 

 

I do not need to go to their article to know their reasoning: "We observe a regular dip in the light output of this double star. We are convinced that this dip is caused by the occultation of one star by a planet. According to our calculations this planet has these properties. Q.E.D."

 

Right?

 

Well, I am not at all convinced that there is a planet there. Show me one indisputable fact that this alleged planet does indeed exist. A fact, not an interpretation of whatever. Get in touch with dr. Who and ask him to transport you there with his TARDIS. When you get there and have taken a photograph of this planet or even landed there and put foot upon it, or went skinny dipping in its waters, please pick up the phone in that police box and give me a faster than light call. Until then I will rather believe in the tooth fairy.

[+joc]

3 hours ago, Ell said:

Quite. Just because we cannot see the tooth fairy through a telescope does not mean that it isn't there. (argumentum ad absurdum)

 

Consequently people are of the opinion that there is a planet there because we cannot see it through a telescope? That is ridiculous.

 

 

I do not need to go to their article to know their reasoning: "We observe a regular dip in the light output of this double star. We are convinced that this dip is caused by the occultation of one star by a planet. According to our calculations this planet has these properties. Q.E.D."

 

Right?

 

Well, I am not at all convinced that there is a planet there. Show me one indisputable fact that this alleged planet does indeed exist. A fact, not an interpretation of whatever. Get in touch with dr. Who and ask him to transport you there with his TARDIS. When you get there and have taken a photograph of this planet or even landed there and put foot upon it, or went skinny dipping in its waters, please pick up the phone in that police box and give me a faster than light call. Until then I will rather believe in the tooth fairy.

There is no scientific data for the Tooth Fairy...but...since you are unwilling to even look at the evidence presented by astronomers...I will just take it that you are going on your own belief...which is is just as much argumentum ad absurdum.

[Ell]

42 minutes ago, joc said:

since you are unwilling to even look at the evidence presented by astronomers...

Oh, I am quite willing to take a look at that article. In fact I have just now read its Abstract and Introduction. And it is just as I predicted beforehand: there is no evidence whatsoever in that article that a planet has been detected. The existence of that alleged planet is not a fact, but an interpretation of the observed facts: transiting and radial velocity measurements. I applaud the observed facts. I disdain and reject the ridiculous interpretation of those observed facts.

 

Show me incontrovertible evidence that that alleged planet in fact does exist and I will accept that it does exist. So far I have seen no such evidence. Show me a photograph of the system in which the planet is clearly distinguished as separate from its parent star, please. Or get there as dr. Who's companion and bring me back a rock or water sample. Whatever.

 

A fact is a fact.

An interpretation is not a fact.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Ell said:

Oh, I am quite willing to take a look at that article. In fact I have just now read its Abstract and Introduction. And it is just as I predicted beforehand: there is no evidence whatsoever in that article that a planet has been detected. The existence of that alleged planet is not a fact, but an interpretation of the observed facts: transiting and radial velocity measurements. I applaud the observed facts. I disdain and reject the ridiculous interpretation of those observed facts.

 

Show me incontrovertible evidence that that alleged planet in fact does exist and I will accept that it does exist. So far I have seen no such evidence. Show me a photograph of the system in which the planet is clearly distinguished as separate from its parent star, please. Or get there as dr. Who's companion and bring me back a rock or water sample. Whatever.

 

A fact is a fact.

An interpretation is not a fact.

What was it precisely in the observed facts that would garner an applause from you.  And what precisely is the  'ridiculous interpretation' of the observed facts that you have disagreement with?  

I am still waiting for you to discuss what  you found wrong with it. As well as what you found right with it.  I gather  you are both a mathematician and an astronomer? 

Edited August 28, 2022 by joc

[Ell]

14 minutes ago, joc said:

What was it precisely in the observed facts that would garner an applause from you. 

That they collected the data: transits, radial velocity measurements, etcetera.

 

Quote

And what precisely is the  'ridiculous interpretation' of the observed facts that you have disagreement with? 

That the data prove that there is a planet there.  That is not a fact but an interpretation, a wishful fantasy.

 

Quote

I am still waiting for you to discuss what  you found wrong with it.

What is wrong with the interpretation is that it is not a fact but an interpretation. There is no evidence whatsoever that there in fact is a planet there.

 

Quote

As well as what you found right with it.

There is nothing right with their interpretation. There is no evidence whatsoever that their alleged planet exists.

 

Quote

I gather  you are both a mathematician and an astronomer? 

You gather wrongly.

 

I am just someone who knows the difference between facts and interpretations. Do you? (You do not give any indication that you do.)

[+joc]

11 minutes ago, Ell said:

That they collected the data: transits, radial velocity measurements, etcetera.

 

That the data prove that there is a planet there.  That is not a fact but an interpretation, a wishful fantasy.

 

What is wrong with the interpretation is that it is not a fact but an interpretation. There is no evidence whatsoever that there in fact is a planet there.

 

There is nothing right with their interpretation. There is no evidence whatsoever that their alleged planet exists.

 

You gather wrongly.

 

I am just someone who knows the difference between facts and interpretations. Do you? (You do not give any indication that you do.)

All I can say is that, without having studied what astronomers study, without knowing the math that is involved in the calculations, without having any idea at all what they are even talking about,  I can readily see how you would have the belief that their interpretations are not factual evidence.

I do not believe their calculations are factual.  I just give them the benefit of the doubt because of the knowledge they have and I give them respect for having studied what they studied to have that kind of knowledge.  That you don't believe their interpretations are factual is quite alright.

It is quite possible as well that their interpretations are factual.   I just give them the benefit of the doubt as I said.

You  disbelieve their interpretations.  Perfectly fine.  Disbelief is the same as belief.  Knowledge = knowing.  Believing/Disbelieving = not knowing.  You do not know.  I do not know.  But I would come closer to putting my money on their knowledge of science, astronomy and math, that I would on your beliefs or disbeliefs.

[Ell]

8 minutes ago, joc said:

I would come closer to putting my money on their knowledge of science, astronomy and math, that I would on your beliefs or disbeliefs.

You would be wrong.

[Abramelin]

@Ell

Weren't you the same person who posted in the Oera Linda Book thread, and the one who was convinced that the OLB "Atland" ( or those "watchstars" ) was nothing but some 'extraterrestial vehicle" or something?

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Abramelin

[Ell]

50 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

@Ell

Weren't you the same person who posted in the Oera Linda Book thread, and the one who was convinced that the OLB "Atland" ( or those "watchstars" ) was nothing but some 'extraterrestial vehicle" or something?

 

At the time I indeed was - and maybe still am - convinced that the watchstar was a huge space habitat in a geostationary orbit, yes.

[Abramelin]

1 hour ago, Ell said:

At the time I indeed was - and maybe still am - convinced that the watchstar was a huge space habitat in a geostationary orbit, yes.

I compare that with your former posts in this thread, and ... I find it amazing.

[Ell]

24 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I compare that with your former posts in this thread, and ... I find it amazing.

Astronomy and questionable history are very different things.

 

In astronomy it is easy to distinguish between facts and interpretations.

 

In questionable history everything is a slippery slope. The watchstar lacks nearly all description, but appears to be in a geostationary orbit, being ever present. Associations can be made with other tidbits in mythology and folklore. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right. Maybe I will change my interpretation, dependent on either new information or new insights.

 

What is very clear here, though, is that there is no incontrovertible evidence that the alleged planet in fact does exist. That makes it a wishful fantasy. This applies to all or nearly all such 'exoplanets'. I seem to recall that of the allegedly thousands discovered so far only a handful have been observed as distinct objects at some distance from their parent star.

[Harte]

20 hours ago, Ell said:

That is an intelligent hedging of your bet. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that a planet exists over there, we indeed must be observing Peter Pan.

So think of a wonderful thought.

Any happy little thought.

20 hours ago, Ell said:

Quite. But do astronomers know what causes this perturbation? They do not. They just have this ridiculous hypothesis that it is caused by a planet. Next they put the data into their planet model and declare that they know everything about this planet. That is circular reasoning. The fact is that this planet is a hypothesis, not a demonstrated reality, not a fact.

Of course they know what causes the perturbations. Mass. That's the ONLY thing that can do it.
It's not a "planet model." See, there's this area of physics called "Orbital Mechanics." It's actually quite simple if you know calculus.

20 hours ago, Ell said:

You show yourself unable to fathom my logic.

I admit that I haven't noticed any, if that's what you mean.

20 hours ago, Ell said:

I am impressed that you are a god. I am not impressed by your reasoning - though I concede and do am impressed that you were pretty smart to mention that the shadow might be caused by Peter Pan.

According to you, nothing caused the shadow. It's not a one-time observation, you know, it is periodic. But according to you, we can't assume something is going around the star?

20 hours ago, Ell said:

Now please show us that there indeed is a planet there. How large a telescope do you need to do that? I do not know everything, so at a guess a telescope with an aperture 250 times that of the JWST? Or maybe 2500 times?

So, the only way that we can confirm this is with our eyesight, actually laying eyes on the planet itself?

Tell you what, I'll show you there's a planet there right after you show me the electrons you used to create your post.

Harte

[Ell]

44 minutes ago, Harte said:

Of course they know what causes the perturbations. Mass. That's the ONLY thing that can do it.

Quote

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

 

Quote

It's not a "planet model." See, there's this area of physics called "Orbital Mechanics." It's actually quite simple if you know calculus.

Circular reasoning. 1. We assume that there is a planet, we use (2) orbital mechanics to calculate its orbital properties. 3. We conclude that there is a planet, because we have calculated its orbital properties. 4. Hence it is not a planet model, but an orbital mechanics model.

However, if there is not a planet, applying orbital mechanics to the data is plain idiocy.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a planet.

 

Quote

I admit that I haven't noticed any, if that's what you mean.

See? Due to your psychology you are unable to notice some truths. 

 

Quote

According to you, nothing caused the shadow.

I did not say that. I said that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a planet over there.

 

Quote

It's not a one-time observation, you know, it is periodic.

Yes, I know.

 

Quote

But according to you, we can't assume something is going around the star?

Undoubtedly trillions of objects are orbiting that star: asteroids, comets, dust grains. But not that alleged imaginary planet.

 

Quote

So, the only way that we can confirm this is with our eyesight, actually laying eyes on the planet itself?

Well - we might try to look for the tides that that alleged planet causes in our oceans and seas, but considering that that star is quite a bit farther than our moon and our sun, I propose to send anyone who claims to have detected such tides to a psychiatric institution.

 

We might also try to detect the occultation by that hypothetical planet of a background star. But since our telescopes cannot visually distinguish between both stars of the alleged double star, I propose to also send anyone who claims to have detected such an occultation to a psychiatric institution.

 

Then there is dr. Who's TARDIS. It may surprise people, but I propose to also send anyone who claims to have gone to that star and its alleged planet in dr. Who's TARDIS to a psychiatric institution.

 

So yes: unless a telescope visually observes that alleged planet as distinct from its parent star, we must for lack of incontrovertible evidence assume that it  does not exist.