User Panel
Time to send a military expedition and claim it for Estados Undios!
|
|
Quoted: Also 100 light years away? That is not exactly current data. Yea, it was there ......once, or maybe now. View Quote That’s not that far. I mean light travels at the speed of light so if it’s 100 light years away it just means we are looking at what’s happening on that planet 100 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: In this thread there are posters that don't know about the Dead Sea, right here on this planet and how that might apply to a water world. View Quote To be fair, life - as we know it - has evolved and adapted to inhospitable environments. There is life in high salinity bodies like the Dead Sea and Great Salt Lake, and around high temp and poisonously sulphuric deep sea vents. No telling what ‘could’ be on an alien planet that’s water based. If there’s anything. It would be cool to find out though. ETA- 100 light years means that if there is anything there, and it’s intelligent and technically able, they could digging our top radio hits of 1922… Yes, we have no bananas! |
|
Quoted: Interesting theoretical - I read somewhere about a spot somewhere in the Universe whereby the author posited it was composed of water so deep that at some point it, the water itself was hard as a rock. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? Interesting theoretical - I read somewhere about a spot somewhere in the Universe whereby the author posited it was composed of water so deep that at some point it, the water itself was hard as a rock. @SIASL, @Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. |
|
Quoted: Because the light from many objects either emit or absorb certain light frequencies that have been shown to correspond with certain elements and molecules. Astronomers call this study of light from celestial objects spectroscopy. The light images are spread out like a color spectrum that have bright lines or dark notches throughout the span of the spectra. Astronomical objects like stars, planets, nebulas, etc all have their own "fingerprints". It this case, the light from the planet has a certain signature "fingerprint" that indicates the presence of water. Kind of like the way a DEA airplane can detect pot plants growing in a field due to the way it absorbs certain frequencies of light and is used as a "fingerprint" that shows up in the screen that the DEA Agent uses to bust the pot grower. https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/2312_1-N-03-spectro-1280-Oct-2021.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/517/111/fbd.jpg View Quote No idea if it is true, but that's what he said. |
|
Quoted: I had a new water softener installed a few years ago and I was talking with the installer while he was working. He told me had a job in the past to fix a bunch of hacked up electrical and plumbing in a guys basement. Apparently whatever department had flagged the guy's house due to FLIR from a helicopter noticing that the house was constantly way hotter than normal. Sure enough, they found a grow op in the basement. I guess they had no regard for the removal of equipment and just went to hacking up the utilities in the basement and left a mess. No idea if it is true, but that's what he said. View Quote I have no doubt that FLIR can detect higher temps from houses. But note, that this is using infrared and a higher heat signature from grow lights, hydroponic crap and water pipes etc. This can be reasonably construed as telltales signs of a grow house. The pot plants growing in a field example is a little different as there is no higher heat sig there. Just a unique light absorption pattern that the pot plant has that gives away its presence even if the plants are hidden in a bunch of trees to the cops. ETA Even cocaine shows up as a different intensity in xrays though luggage, boxes, crates, etc. So a lot of things have a unique fingerprint that can be detected much like the planets that Kevin Costner hangs out on. |
|
Quoted: @SIASL, @Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? Interesting theoretical - I read somewhere about a spot somewhere in the Universe whereby the author posited it was composed of water so deep that at some point it, the water itself was hard as a rock. @SIASL, @Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. Great stuff; I love it when the universe starts throwing knuckle-balls at what we think is "settled science". Reminds me of Levon Helm's character in Shooter: " |
|
The last paragraph in the article seems important:
"Based on data they gathered from other observation instruments, the researchers say the ocean world is probably rocky like Earth. However, a thick layer of water may cover most of its surface and may also make up much of the planet's mass. Right now, it's unclear, but more observations using the James Webb space telescope could help us determine more." As long as words still mean things, it sounds like they haven't found shit but since no one can prove they didn't find shit, they wrote a clickbait article for morons. |
|
It would require 400,000 years to get there to even take a look.
How does one communicate over a 100 light-year distance? Even so, when you work that out, it would take another 100 years to receive the science data back here on Earth. |
|
|
|
Quoted: Not sure I look at it that way. That light has been bent and defused, it may be there in it's same form and may not be, not that it disappeared. We are learning things faster every day, a lot of old assumptions have been proven wrong. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 100 light years really isn’t that far away. I doubt the planet disappeared in the last 100 years. Not sure I look at it that way. That light has been bent and defused, it may be there in it's same form and may not be, not that it disappeared. We are learning things faster every day, a lot of old assumptions have been proven wrong. How much do you think a planet changes in a hundred years? |
|
Quoted:
Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. V = acceleration * time = (Force/MASS) * time The klinker is mass increases as speed gets really high and time dilates (relativistic effects). MASS = mass / (1-(velocity^2/c^2)) TIME = time * (1-(velocity^2/c^2)) Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. Would probably be a good thing, building strong bones and muscles. |
|
Quoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. View Quote You wouldn’t need to get to the speed of light. Accelerate at 1G half way there, flip the ship and decelerate at 1 g until you arrive. You never feel any stresses. It takes longer, but you don’t violate any physics. I am also pretty sure 100 light years is within the Hubble radius, so expansion isn’t a concern either |
|
|
Quoted: @SIASL, @Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? Interesting theoretical - I read somewhere about a spot somewhere in the Universe whereby the author posited it was composed of water so deep that at some point it, the water itself was hard as a rock. @SIASL, @Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. A large part of this is due to observation bias. It's relatively easy to spot large gas giants circling very close to it's star, since it induces a pretty noticeable shift in the star's apparent brightness, and when the gas giant is close to the star, it means it's year is short, so there are lots of chances to observe it. Saturn's "year" is almost 30 terrestrial years. It's a bit harder to observe that given the age of the telescopes that are doing the measurements haven't been around that long. It also only works when the star's plane of the ecliptic is in line with us. If it's not, then the planet never crosses the star from our vantage point, so it's undetectable. TL/DR: It's easy to find "weird" solar systems where you have hot gas giants orbiting very close to their star. It's a lot harder to find solar systems that look like ours. That doesn't mean they are more rare. Doesn't mean they aren't either. It just means we don't have the data. |
|
Quoted: You wouldn’t need to get to the speed of light. Accelerate at 1G half way there, flip the ship and decelerate at 1 g until you arrive. You never feel any stresses. It takes longer, but you don’t violate any physics. I am also pretty sure 100 light years is within the Hubble radius, so expansion isn’t a concern either View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. You wouldn’t need to get to the speed of light. Accelerate at 1G half way there, flip the ship and decelerate at 1 g until you arrive. You never feel any stresses. It takes longer, but you don’t violate any physics. I am also pretty sure 100 light years is within the Hubble radius, so expansion isn’t a concern either Sure, maintaining constant 1G acceleration for the ~10 years it would take to get to Alpha Centauri is a little an engineering problem. |
|
So, as several people have hinted at, the article in the OP is garbage. They have no idea whether it's actually an ocean world, it's just one possibility that fits what they're seeing. Here's a slightly better article:
Astronomers discover potential "water world" exoplanet nearby Earth that could support life Scientists announced this week the discovery of a nearby "super-Earth" that could potentially support life, calling it a "water world." The team, led by the University of Montreal, used observations from NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), as well as telescopes on the ground, to detect the exoplanet, which is described as potentially rocky like Earth, but larger. Named TOI-1452 b, it orbits a red dwarf star about 100 light years away from our planet, which scientists say is "fairly close." Scientists have long theorized the possibility of other ocean planets, but they have been difficult to confirm. TOI-1452 b is roughly 70% larger than Earth and about five times as massive, which would be consistent with having a very deep ocean — but more research is still needed. NASA says the planet could also potentially be an enormous rock with little or no atmosphere — or even a rocky planet with an atmosphere made up of hydrogen or helium. There's more at the link. TL;DR = It might be a water world, it might not. |
|
Quoted: This is real question. Why would anything anywhere vary too far from what is on earth? I know we don't know everything, but going by physics, stuff should not vary too far from what it is here. So yea, there is hydrogen and O2 that combined somewhere. View Quote Long ago I read a very compelling article that theorized silicon could form the basis for life in a manner similar to carbon. I'm no biologist, nor chemist, but I think it's the pinnacle of hubris to assume we are the only possible prototype for life. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That’s not that far. I mean light travels at the speed of light so if it’s 100 light years away it just means we are looking at what’s happening on that planet 100 years ago. This. They would see us in 1922 now They better stay tuned in, few years will be getting exciting! |
|
|
Quoted: Maybe you should write a letter to NASA. Not sure there is much bending of light in a vacuum. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Not sure I look at it that way. That light has been bent and defused, it may be there in it's same form and may not be, not that it disappeared. We are learning things faster every day, a lot of old assumptions have been proven wrong. Maybe you should write a letter to NASA. Not sure there is much bending of light in a vacuum. I believe gravity does the bending. https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity#:~:text=Gravity%20bends%20light&text=Light%20travels%20through%20spacetime%2C%20which,of%20light%20caused%20by%20gravity%20 |
|
Quoted: I mean.... Artemis I is planned to launch tomorrow morning, to go back to the moon. It is the most powerful rocket that human kind has ever built. It's standing on the pad right now waiting for day break. It's certainly real and there is a whole lot of science involved. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Just absolute bullshit. They have no idea. The science world has become a cartoon. I'm surprised we have any know how left to get to the moon. Like Saturn's capillary cooling system. |
|
|
Pretty inconceivable distance.
If we were able to get a ship headed in that direction at 100k MPH, it would take us over 66000 years to get there. |
|
Quoted: It would require 400,000 years to get there to even take a look. How does one communicate over a 100 light-year distance? Even so, when you work that out, it would take another 100 years to receive the science data back here on Earth. View Quote We can look at it with the tools that we have and our eyeballs, from right here and learn all kinds of things. We know a hell of a lot about the pillars of creation, a nebula which is 7,000 light years away. Is it possible that we might be able to determine if there is life on a planet 100 light years away? It is certainly possible. If we do in some manner confirm that there is life on a far away planet...that has nothing in the world to do with sending a human there. In fact doing so, assuming we could, would be a very serious and highly debated decision for humanity. A much more important question to ask would be, can that life......get here? Yes, might be very bad answer. Assuming we did confirm it and we could see it, then assuming it could see us and didn't decide it wants to try to murder us, the most likely outcome would be that the two groups of life would spend thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of years, silently looking at each other from very far away. |
|
|
Quoted: Because the light from many objects either emit or absorb certain light frequencies that have been shown to correspond with certain elements and molecules. Astronomers call this study of light from celestial objects spectroscopy. The light images are spread out like a color spectrum that have bright lines or dark notches throughout the span of the spectra. Astronomical objects like stars, planets, nebulas, etc all have their own "fingerprints". It this case, the light from the planet has a certain signature "fingerprint" that indicates the presence of water. Kind of like the way a DEA airplane can detect pot plants growing in a field due to the way it absorbs certain frequencies of light and is used as a "fingerprint" that shows up in the screen that the DEA Agent uses to bust the pot grower. https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/2312_1-N-03-spectro-1280-Oct-2021.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/517/111/fbd.jpg View Quote What gets me with that sort of thing is how do they really know the 'fingerprint' is telling them what they think it is. Even here on Earth, "ground-truthing" is done for multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing; as in areas are visited in person to confirm that the signatures they're getting mean what they think they mean. No way to ground-truth something 100 lightyears away. So many of these stories are based on assumptions and theories that have just been accepted as fact. And then years later we get "scientists have discovered all that was wrong, and it's actually this". I've learned to take it all with a grain of salt. |
|
Quoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. View Quote Laughs in wap bubble canceling out inertia |
|
|
It doesn’t matter if life is there or not. “Modern” science would not be able to identify the sexes so nothing would be able to reproduce.
Always trust the science. |
|
Quoted: Spectroscopy and where it orbits says it isn't. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: What if it’s liquid nitrogen? Spectroscopy and where it orbits says it isn't. That would have something to do with whether it had an atmosphere or not. I.e., the earth’s moon orbits a similar distance from the sun as the earth, yet has a completely different temperature and surface makeup. And to be more specific, do we have any spectroscopic comparisons to the earth’s water/surface that are taken from 100 light years away to compare to? |
|
Quoted: "just 100 light-years from Earth" LOL. May as well be on the other side of the universe. Humans will never get there or close to it. Even IF we could get spacecraft that would go close to the speed of light, the human body could not take the massive acceleration and deceleration it would require. Remember, just because you are weightless in space does not mean inertia is not still there. Maybe some ot the math guys here can figure out how long it would take to get to speed of light with only two or so G's. And remember, that would be sustained for the whole acceleration. Not sure how sustained of even a 2G acceleration the human body could take with no adverse effects. ETA: Found this: That is, were it possible to simply accelerate to c, then at a constant 2g, it would take around 15,290,520 sec = 254,841 min = 4,247 hrs = 177 days — but relativity says that the closer you get to c, the longer time stretches out, and the more force it takes to achieve the same acceleration, making it impossible (or taking infinite time and infinite force) to reach c. View Quote If we could make a spacecraft that could travel at the speed of light I’m pretty sure we could figure out the other hurdles that come with it. Also, no math, physics, astronomy, or any science is 100% fact. Everything we know now can be proven to be complete bullshit 100 years from now. When people say something is impossible because it violates the laws of physics their basically ignoring all the previous breakthroughs we’ve had as humans that were once never thought to be possible, or never even thought of in the first place. Any scientist that believes something is impossible because someone else’s theory says it is should be fired from whatever job they hold. |
|
Abstract Exploring the properties of exoplanets near or inside the radius valley provides insight on the transition from the rocky super-Earths to the larger, hydrogen-rich atmosphere mini-Neptunes. Here, we report the discovery of TOI-1452b, a transiting super-Earth (Rp = 1.67 ± 0.07 R?) in an 11.1 day temperate orbit (Teq = 326 ± 7 K) around the primary member (H = 10.0, Teff = 3185 ± 50 K) of a nearby visual-binary M dwarf. The transits were first detected by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, then successfully isolated between the two 3farcs2 companions with ground-based photometry from the Observatoire du Mont-Mégantic and MuSCAT3. The planetary nature of TOI-1452b was established through high-precision velocimetry with the near-infrared SPIRou spectropolarimeter as part of the ongoing SPIRou Legacy Survey. The measured planetary mass (4.8 ± 1.3 M?) and inferred bulk density (${5.6}_{-1.6}^{+1.8}$ g cm-3) is suggestive of a rocky core surrounded by a volatile-rich envelope. More quantitatively, the mass and radius of TOI-1452b, combined with the stellar abundance of refractory elements (Fe, Mg, and Si) measured by SPIRou, is consistent with a core-mass fraction of 18% ± 6% and a water-mass fraction of ${22}_{-13}^{+21}$%. The water world candidate TOI-1452b is a prime target for future atmospheric characterization with JWST, featuring a transmission spectroscopy metric similar to other well-known temperate small planets such as LHS 1140b and K2-18 b. The system is located near Webb's northern continuous viewing zone, implying that is can be followed at almost any moment of the year. View Quote |
|
Quoted: This is real question. Why would anything anywhere vary too far from what is on earth? I know we don't know everything, but going by physics, stuff should not vary too far from what it is here. So yea, there is hydrogen and O2 that combined somewhere. View Quote Do you mean plant & animal life, or chemistry? The chemistry is likely, like mathematics, the same. But looking at marsupials in Australia & New zealand or finches in the galapagos & subtle changes occur while these critters are mostly confined & not wordly distributed. But the biggest issues are any off-planet world changing disasters, like meteors, comets, seismic activity that leads to tsunamis, etc. The may be in the preCambrian era… bugs. Big, nasty bigs! |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: If we could mount a manned expedition that could travel as fast as the Voyager spacecraft, it would only take 1,772,000 Earth years to get there View Quote And a solar sail could achieve 10 percent light speed. Few hundred years from now, who knows? First flight with people about 1780s. First space flight 1960s. 2300-2400? |
|
|
Quoted: It's the home of Marine Squatch. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/287498/Blinky_Monster_png-2506661.JPG View Quote damn we'll be hunting for it's tracks and fur FOREVER! |
|
Quoted: SIASL, Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. View Quote This is why I'm less and less optimistic about finding alien life with every new bit of data that comes in. It looks more and more like our solar system is quite the aberration, at least in the Milky Way. Besides the configuration of planets it also appears that Earth has a very unusual, possibly unique chemical makeup with an abundance of phosphorus. An essential element for life as we know it. It appears to be in short supply in the rest of the visible universe. Which might mean that when we become a Kardashev 2 civilization we will have to mass produce it out of Silica subjected to neutron bombardment in order to colonize other star systems. Or perhaps by then we will have cracked fusion and we will be able to make all the phosphorus we need out of lighter elements? As for getting out there. With current technology we can build an Orion Drive, which will get colony ships out there at a significant fraction of light speed. Within the realm of known physics we have concepts like the Shakadov sail or Kaplan thruster which turns our entire solar system into a ship. Personally I don't believe that we will ever get an FTL drive. In scientific terms FTL= time travel. Which opens up a variety of ugly possibilities. I don't think we will manage gravity manipulation either. I think the consequences from that could be horrifying. So we will not have a future that looks like Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica or for that matter most science fiction. I believe we will have a future far grander and far stranger than what most people currently alive can comprehend. Quite simply, once we get out of this gravity well in a big way, priorities change, big time. Or perhaps we will commit suicide as a species first. Could go either way. |
|
|
Quoted: Great stuff; I love it when the universe starts throwing knuckle-balls at what we think is "settled science". Reminds me of Levon Helm's character in Shooter: " View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Story However, it's unclear if the ocean world is truly oceanic, or just covered in a thick layer of ocean that eventually meets rock. Am I missing something? "Truly Oceanic" = all water, no hard rock at all? Interesting theoretical - I read somewhere about a spot somewhere in the Universe whereby the author posited it was composed of water so deep that at some point it, the water itself was hard as a rock. @SIASL, @Ranxerox911 Yeah, from the exoplanet data we've got so far, we're finding that our Solar System is not at all typical. Before the exoplanet discoveries, we kind of assumed that many star systems would follow the rough pattern of ours. Smaller rocky planets closer in, where the central star cooks away most of the volatiles like water and hydrogen etc. And then gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and in-betweener ice-gisnts like Uranus and Neptune out where it's colder, then maybe some more icy runts like Pluto, Sedena, and Quaoar, and comets. We expected differences of course, but roughly that pattern. This is not what we're finding. Jupiter sized gas giants glowing red hot because they somehow spiraled in after forming and now orbit several times closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. Rocky cores of gas giants that had all the gas blown away by its star. Planets that are bigger than Earth, that may be water all the way through, but the pressure inside after several miles is so great it's "hot ice" in crystalline forms very different than regular ice here on Earth. Ones we can make sometimes in a laboratory diamond vise just a few micrograms at a time. And there's "puffball" planets that might be gas almost all the way through, unlike Jupiter and Saturn which quickly build up pressure and density to liquid, then metallic hydrogen etc. And we're not completely sure how these "puffy" gas giants stay together. Add to that 95% of stars are Red Dwarf Class M stars, unlike our G class yellow Sun, it's becoming more and more apparent that our Solar System may be the really weird one. Great stuff; I love it when the universe starts throwing knuckle-balls at what we think is "settled science". Reminds me of Levon Helm's character in Shooter: " Yeah, we "Don't know what we don't know." until some actual data starts coming in. But, in the absence of data, there is a kind of guess that can be applied. It's called the Mediocrity Principle. Essentially, it's a method for making the safest guess you can, when you've got only one example of the phenomenon you wish to think about. While you wait for more data to come in. Many things in nature, when you can collect lots of data on them, and you graph it out, fall into a Gaussian distribution, also known as a Bell Curve. A big hump in the middle that's the average, and a thin tail of rare examples on either end. Statistically speaking, if you've got only one data point on something, the odds are good that it's somewhere in the big thick hump in the middle of that Bell Curve if/when you can get more data. And that your one example you have is not one of the rare extreme examples on either end. For example, say you're interested in elephants, but you've only ever seen one of them. The smart money on things like its size and weight, or the length of its tusks, are that they're somewhere around the middle of the graph you'll have someday once you finally see more elephants. And that it's not some rare extremely large or small elephant. The problem, of course, is that the Mediocrity Principle only works until it doesn't. And you did actually find something rare as your only example. And when we try to apply the Mediocrity Principle to questions like how rare is the life we see here on Earth as compared to the rest of the Universe, and the existence of Humanity to actually exist and wonder about such things, you run into other problems. Do we exist in the first place because there's so many stars, and even more planets orbiting them in the Universe? Which leans towards us being in the big middle average hump of the Bell Curve for one or more aspects of planet formation or how much life is out there, if we could grab lots of data points on that. Or, do we exist because of a very long string of lucky breaks that led to humanity existing to wonder about this? Like having a mid-sized G2 yellow Sun, which is roughly only 7% of all stars? As opposed to M-class red dwarves, which account for about 75% of all stars. And because we've got a large-ish gas giant in our Solar System like Jupiter, that deflects many comets, more of which would have hit Earth? And because of the early proto-panet collision between a somewhat larger and heavier early Earth, and the roughly Mars sized "Thea", which reduced Earth's size and gravity a bit, and the rubble that formed the Moon? The Moon which helps stabilize Earth's rotation and axial tilt? And so on... On one hand, the odds of having our Sun, a G2 specifically, are maybe 1% or less, on the other hand, there's a LOT of stars, and despite being only 7% of all stars, there's still over 500 G-class stars within 100 light years of the Sun/Earth. However, of all the 5,125 exoplanets we've found, in 3,794 star systems so far, it's beginning to look like our Solar System might be on one really skinny tail of the Bell Curve for Star System configurations in the Milky Way and the Universe at large. Way out on one end. Now it's more a matter of figuring out if where we live is like PowerballMega Millions jackpot odds, Or more like winning $1000 in a scratch-off game. As we collect more and more data, from satellite observatories like Kepler, and now a nearly whole-sky survey from TESS, and other observatories also do their thing and pitch in, we'll get a better and better picture of just how many "Goldilocks"-factors came together for Earth and humanity. And Now that the James Webb Space Telescope is up and running, there's a chance we can get more exoplanet spectography data, which could show the presence of water, carbon dioxide, methane, and oxygen in certain amounts that cannot be easily explained by anything other than life there. Granted, it's only going to be evidence for something as simple as basic algae that Earth had 4 billion years ago. But it's presence, or absence would be a lot more than what we kow now, which is bupkis... |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.