Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on November 18, 2010, 01:24:15 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11775803
Exoplanet found that orbits a star which was part of a dwarf galaxy consumed by the Milky Way some 7 Billion years ago, making it effectively the first planet found that is 'alien' to the Milky Way :)
-
That's awesome. More proof that planets are just an inevitable result of the star formation process rather than something special to us or even our galaxy. :)
-
That's awesome. More proof that planets are just an inevitable result of the star formation process rather than something special to us or even our galaxy. :)
Was this particular point pulled back into question since I last checked?
-
Nope. It's just nice to have the hard evidence to back it up. Hence, "more proof". :nod:
-
Must be pretty close to the star to have a 16.5 day year though, that things' going like the clappers, which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty rare for Gas Planets, which tend to form further out?
-
Not 'proof' in my eyes. A being as big and powerful as God (Jesus also) is likely to make complex rather than simple. Point: He easily could have created this process and set it in motion as hes not bound by time. He can make a star instantly that science says has a age of 1 billion years. Creation guys. Jesus.
-
Not 'proof' in my eyes. A being as big and powerful as God (Jesus also) is likely to make complex rather than simple. Point: He easily could have created this process and set it in motion as hes not bound by time. He can make a star instantly that science says has a age of 1 billion years. Creation guys. Jesus.
Technically she could have created all of existence 5 seconds ago and simply preset it to think its existed since time immemorial.
-
His noodliness wouldn't bother doing it the hard way.
And can we move away from testing Poe's law and back to the subject please :)
-
May the Invisible Pink Unicorn bring joy and hope to the galaxy.
-
wtf is this **** and why is it in this cool thread
-
wtf is this **** and why is it in this cool thread
Ve are merely following your example Herr ttuta.
Out of curiosity by cosmic cannibalism did the Milky Way merely drift into this dwarf galaxy or did we swallow it up during expansion?
-
Must be pretty close to the star to have a 16.5 day year though, that things' going like the clappers, which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty rare for Gas Planets, which tend to form further out?
Migrated in due to not entirely stable orbit, extrasolar capture.
-
Must be pretty close to the star to have a 16.5 day year though, that things' going like the clappers, which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty rare for Gas Planets, which tend to form further out?
Migrated in due to not entirely stable orbit, extrasolar capture.
That and the assumption's wrong; hot Jupiters have been popping up all over the place in close orbits, in part because they're really really easy to detect.
edit: although I didn't actually add anything meaningful because the first mechanism you described is apparently how the hot Jupiters form anyway.
-
So now what we need is physical proof life is just as abundant as those planets...
-
Not 'proof' in my eyes. A being as big and powerful as God (Jesus also) is likely to make complex rather than simple. Point: He easily could have created this process and set it in motion as hes not bound by time. He can make a star instantly that science says has a age of 1 billion years. Creation guys. Jesus.
So now what we need is physical proof life is just as abundant as those planets...
What are you basing this off of, other than what God may or may not do?
We have found evidence of planets in a variety of solar systems, and now one from a wholly different galaxy. Certainly our sample size is fairly small compared to the entire universe, but our experience so far is that planets are not at all uncommon.
EDIT:
It occurred to me this may come off as dickish, but I'm actually curious what you're basing either of those ideas off of.
-
Not 'proof' in my eyes. A being as big and powerful as God (Jesus also) is likely to make complex rather than simple. Point: He easily could have created this process and set it in motion as hes not bound by time. He can make a star instantly that science says has a age of 1 billion years. Creation guys. Jesus.
...well, garsh, guess that just sealed it for me.
-
Technically she could have created all of existence 5 seconds ago and simply preset it to think its existed since time immemorial.
Are you a Last Thursdayist too?
-
So now what we need is physical proof life is just as abundant as those planets...
What are you basing this off of, other than what God may or may not do?
"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. "
Steven Hawking
-
I'm assuming you just don't understand that quote if you're quoting it because you think it sounds ridiculous...? or?
If not;
Then realistically, aliens exist quite commonly amongst the galaxy, intelligent ones are probably significantly more rare though.
Edit;
fecking yellow text, I thought char and bt were the same poster.
-
Why is it that aliens and, for some reason, religion have to be brought up every time exoplanets are discussed?
Truth of the matter is, they're almost definitely out there, and unless we or they develop FTL travel (which I'm skeptical about) we'll almost definitely never see them.
Can we please stop the bickering now and get back to the awsum astronomy? Herra can talk about physics of orbits or accretion or something and we can bring this thread back from the fail.
-
Why is it that aliens and, for some reason, religion have to be brought up every time exoplanets are discussed?
Truth of the matter is, they're almost definitely out there, and unless we or they develop FTL travel (which I'm skeptical about) we'll almost definitely never see them.
Can we please stop the bickering now and get back to the awsum astronomy? Herra can talk about physics of orbits or accretion or something and we can bring this thread back from the fail.
The only interests exoplanets have to everyday Joe are:
The possibility of people one day inhabiting them.
The possibility of aliens
In some cases what we can learn from the planets in terms of our own natural world.
-
Must be pretty close to the star to have a 16.5 day year though, that things' going like the clappers, which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty rare for Gas Planets, which tend to form further out?
Migrated in due to not entirely stable orbit, extrasolar capture.
Aha! That would explain why they are pretty rare.
-
Must be pretty close to the star to have a 16.5 day year though, that things' going like the clappers, which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty rare for Gas Planets, which tend to form further out?
Migrated in due to not entirely stable orbit, extrasolar capture.
Aha! That would explain why they are pretty rare.
But they're not! At all!
-
Meh, I haven't been keeping up with my Exoplanetary studies, so I don't know :)
-
They may be pretty rare in the universe, but they're very common in the planets we've discovered so far because they're really easy to spot with the wobble method.
-
They may be pretty rare in the universe, but...they're really easy to spot with the wobble method.
That's what she..oh nevermind, it's too much of a stretch.
(!)
-
They may be pretty rare in the universe, but they're very common in the planets we've discovered so far because they're really easy to spot with the wobble method.
Yep. The 'wobble' method has a selection bias for large planets with short orbital periods, hence all the hot jupiter's being discovered. The transit method suffers from this bias as well, but not nearly as severe with regard to planet size. The third option is direct imaging, which selects for planets with longer orbital periods (thus having larger angular separation from their star). Unfortunately though, direct imaging is really friggin hard to do and I'm only aware of a handful of discoveries being made this way.
The latest data from Kepler (transit method) shows that planets Neptune-sized and smaller make up the majority of detections, and indeed the frequency of planets appears to decrease with increasing planet size, following the function of 1/R2. But most of these detections have rather short orbital periods, as expected from the method being used.
-
Hey!!!! It's not my method at all!!! :D