Newly Discovered Planet Orbits "Backward"

[William Parcher]

Newfound Planet Orbits Backward (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090812-backward-planet.html)


A newfound planet orbits the wrong way, backward compared to the rotation of its host star. Its discoverers think a near-collision may have created the retrograde orbit, as it is called.

WASP-17 likely had a close encounter with a larger planet, and the gravitational interaction acted like a slingshot to put WASP-17 on its odd course, the astronomers figure.

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."

[Zeuzzz]

I wonder if there are other planets that orbit this star and what the magnetic configuration and current systems in its local stellar evironment are like.

[casebro]

And which way the toilets swirl...

[Iconoclast08]

I'm the backwards planet, the backwards planet,
I can orbit backwards as fast as you can,
Oh, the backwards planet, the backwards planet...

[Singularitarian]

Newfound Planet Orbits Backward (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090812-backward-planet.html)

Prove what though?

Prooving the theory that some large object tilted it off its normal trajectory, or that it has been hypothesized certain objects may orbit backwards? Because personally feeling, if its the latter in question here, then i see no proof at all. More like evidence than anything else.

[William Parcher]

Prove what though?


Oh, my goodness. I've never seen you before on JREF, but I admit that I tend to predominantly hang out in the Bigfoot threads.

Singularitarian, what do you think was the thing that could possibly have been proven here (the article), but was not? Or, do you think that nothing whatsoever could have been proven (or directly gained) from this truly unique observation?

Prooving the theory that some large object tilted it off its normal trajectory, or that it has been hypothesized certain objects may orbit backwards?

Please talk about "some large tilting object". Are you thinking that this 'backward' orbit is simply a planet tilt thing? Please explain.


Because personally feeling, if its the latter in question here, then i see no proof at all. More like evidence than anything else.

The latter thing (in your words) is an object orbiting 'backwards'. You see no proof at all. Are you saying that this observed 'backward orbiting object' is not evidence that is actual proof of a 'backward orbiting object'?

[Stellafane]

Any planet named WASP probably orbits backwards out of sheer arrogance.

[Singularitarian]

Oh, my goodness. I've never seen you before on JREF, but I admit that I tend to predominantly hang out in the Bigfoot threads.

Singularitarian, what do you think was the thing that could possibly have been proven here (the article), but was not? Or, do you think that nothing whatsoever could have been proven (or directly gained) from this truly unique observation?



Please talk about "some large tilting object". Are you thinking that this 'backward' orbit is simply a planet tilt thing? Please explain.




The latter thing (in your words) is an object orbiting 'backwards'. You see no proof at all. Are you saying that this observed 'backward orbiting object' is not evidence that is actual proof of a 'backward orbiting object'?

By ''tilted'' is but perhaps a poor expression i made. The sling-shot effect is taken into account however. Basically, the sling-shot effect is when some object comes close to the warped vicinity of space around another massive abject. Following the curved paths in space, it can nearly make it's way round at least a quarter of the large gravitational mass before breaking off at high speeds, usually in the opposite direction, so by ''tilted'', this is what i had meant.

And no, you got me wrong in the last part. I wondered what proof they had obtained, whether proof that backward orbiting planets do exist, or proving it was exactly by the sling-shot mechanism provided, because i will repeat again, if it is the latter, then i cannot see how any proof has been suggested, but rather incoherent theories and possible suggestions.

[jasonpatterson]

By ''tilted'' is but perhaps a poor expression i made. The sling-shot effect is taken into account however. Basically, the sling-shot effect is when some object comes close to the warped vicinity of space around another massive abject. Following the curved paths in space, it can nearly make it's way round at least a quarter of the large gravitational mass before breaking off at high speeds, usually in the opposite direction, so by ''tilted'', this is what i had meant.

And no, you got me wrong in the last part. I wondered what proof they had obtained, whether proof that backward orbiting planets do exist, or proving it was exactly by the sling-shot mechanism provided, because i will repeat again, if it is the latter, then i cannot see how any proof has been suggested, but rather incoherent theories and possible suggestions.

I realize fully that if you respond to this, it will be in your standard babble intending to demonstrate how blindingly intelligent you are and generally failing utterly to actually do so (see above quotation,) but it is fairly clear from your statements that you didn't even bother to read the article that was linked in the OP. You are the only person talking about this 'proving' anything.

The astronomers in question made direct observations of the system that showed the planet to be in a retrograde orbit. If that supposition is what you seek proof of (i.e. Planets sometimes orbit stars in the direction counter to the star's rotation.) then yes, they found proof via direct observation.

From the article:
WASP-17 likely had a close encounter with a larger planet, and the gravitational interaction acted like a slingshot to put WASP-17 on its odd course, the astronomers figure.

If the supposition that you seek proof of is that this particular planet is in a retrograde orbit due to a slingshot around a larger body, then no, there is no proof of it to be found here. The article only suggests it as a likely mechanism. The only other likely way I can think of it to have happened is an orbital capture from an extrastellar source. Their suggestion is not an "incoherent theory;" it is a reasonable explanation for an unusual observation.

[Singularitarian]

I realize fully that if you respond to this, it will be in your standard babble intending to demonstrate how blindingly intelligent you are and generally failing utterly to actually do so (see above quotation,) but it is fairly clear from your statements that you didn't even bother to read the article that was linked in the OP. You are the only person talking about this 'proving' anything.

The astronomers in question made direct observations of the system that showed the planet to be in a retrograde orbit. If that supposition is what you seek proof of (i.e. Planets sometimes orbit stars in the direction counter to the star's rotation.) then yes, they found proof via direct observation.

From the article:


If the supposition that you seek proof of is that this particular planet is in a retrograde orbit due to a slingshot around a larger body, then no, there is no proof of it to be found here. The article only suggests it as a likely mechanism. The only other likely way I can think of it to have happened is an orbital capture from an extrastellar source. Their suggestion is not an "incoherent theory;" it is a reasonable explanation for an unusual observation.


And who are you to talk to me like this?

And by the way, i would cover the facts first before making any suggestions, as to like me only suggesting a ''proof'' here.

In the article, it says:

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."

So you are gravely mistaken, bub.

[ben m]

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."

What Seager is talking about is the fact that we can study orbits so far away. It has been predicted that modern observations would be able to study these orbits. We have proven that the observational technique works.

[Singularitarian]

Right, that is what i was asking.

[makaya325]

This recent discovery shows that, perhaps, our solar system is quite a rare one, and we might be a unique planet. ;)

[Audible Click]

No.

[SezMe]

It would sure be fascinating to see a simulation of a "close encounter" that results in a retrograde orbit. It has either already been done to justify the speculation in the paper or it is an obvious follow-on study.

[makaya325]

No.

Yes ;)

[boloboffin]

Maybe the other star is just upside down and the planet is revolving the right way, relative.

How do planets and stars know the right way to revolve about things? Something I've often wondered...

[~enigma~]

Is this where 9/11 truthers come from?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Singularitarian, what do you think was the thing that could possibly have been proven here (the article), but was not? Or, do you think that nothing whatsoever could have been proven (or directly gained) from this truly unique observation?

Hmmm. . could be he thought you were introducing a really bad creationist argument.

[makaya325]

Is this where 9/11 truthers come from?

Could'nt be, because the planet would run away itself from those nuts!

[SezMe]

Maybe the other star is just upside down and the planet is revolving the right way, relative.

How do planets and stars know the right way to revolve about things? Something I've often wondered...
It's not just the star, it's moving retrograde relative the entirety of its own solar system. Think of, say, Mars going the other way around.

[~enigma~]

How do planets and stars know the right way to revolve about things? Something I've often wondered...
They follow the rotation of the star they are orbiting. Geez bolo...thought everybody knew that :)

[Darth Rotor]

Is this article evidence against the proposition that the universe is supposed to follow the Right Hand Rule? :alien009:

[SezMe]

It is, DR, it is. But the rule doesn't help much in this case because we don't know if it is the right hand of Thor or Zeus or Mithra or the FSM or.....

[makaya325]

Is this article evidence against the proposition that the universe is supposed to follow the Right Hand Rule? :alien009

It is evidence that alien life is becoming rarer and rarer as we are knocking out certain star systems as candidates.

[jasonpatterson]

And who are you to talk to me like this?

And by the way, i would cover the facts first before making any suggestions, as to like me only suggesting a ''proof'' here.

In the article, it says:

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."

So you are gravely mistaken, bub.

I'm Jason Patterson, and you are?

You were the first person to mention anything about proof in the thread. You first post was fairly reasonable, but then you claim that the astronomers in the story proposed "rather incoherent theories and possible suggestions" regarding the slingshot idea. If you read the paper, it suggests nothing of the sort, only that that type of interaction is a reasonable explanation of the planet's orbit. I guess you could call that a possible suggestion, but it has nothing to do with a theory and is far from incoherent. If you have another remotely likely explanation for how a planet could be in a retrograde orbit aside from a slingshot or orbital capture, I'd love to hear it. It would take a pretty huge anomaly in the rotation of the dust cloud from which the system formed for this to have been made in place.

Your response is fairly typical of what you've written elsewhere. You mined the paper for the word prove and found one instace of it. You didn't bother to read who the statement was by (an astronomer who was not involved in the discovery) or what they were speaking about (our ability to observe extrasolar planetary orbits sufficiently well to observe a situation like this) and posted it as evidence in favor of your argument. It didn't work here as it has not worked elsewhere.

[ImaginalDisc]

It is evidence that alien life is becoming rarer and rarer as we are knocking out certain star systems as candidates.

That's exactly backwards. When the Drake equation was intially proposed, no one had any idea how common planets were. The first ideas on the subject were that a planet suitable for life would have to be in a relatively narrow region around its host star called the "Goldilocks" zone or habitable zone, where water would stay liquid. Such a planet would be like Goldilock's preffered poridge, just right.

However, many things have undermined that idea.

1) We discovered life on Earth that lives entirely off of geothermal energy, to whom sunlight is completely irrelevant, making life on planets that are in perpetual night much more likely.

2) We discovered that Io, one of the moons of Jupiter, is the most geologically active body in the entire solar system! That's a serious source of energy from tidal forces alone, not starlight.

3) We discovered that tardigrades, viruses, and archea thrive in environments would be instantly lethal to most organisms, making the range of conditions that life can tolerate much wider.

4) Europa, another moon of Jupiter, likweise experiences tidal stresses and is covered by a vast ice crust. It's entirely possible it harbors warm, dark oceans.

5) We keep disovering planets at a stunning rate. There's been over 200 extrasolar planets discovered so far.

So, we now know that there's no shortage of places for life to develop and that life can exist in a much wider range of conditions than we thought. Ergo, the more we learn the more likely alien life seems.

[SezMe]

It is evidence that alien life is becoming rarer and rarer as we are knocking out certain star systems as candidates.
It is not evidence that alien life is becoming rare. Astronomical science is adding candidate systems, not knocking them out.

makaya, could you please not post in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum. Doing so is distracting and embarrassing to every evidence-based forumite.

ETA: Better said by ID above.

[boloboffin]

They follow the rotation of the star they are orbiting. Geez bolo...thought everybody knew that :)

Hey, man, contrary to popular opinion, I don't know it all. :)

So I guess the planets all know to line up in the same plane or thereabouts because of the way the host star is rotating, too?

[ImaginalDisc]

Hey, man, contrary to popular opinion, I don't know it all. :)

So I guess the planets all know to line up in the same plane or thereabouts because of the way the host star is rotating, too?

Since they all (usually) condensed out of the same original gas cloud, they're pretty much have to share the same rotation. Anything way sckewed off the the plane of the solar system or rotating retrograde would require a special explanation.

[boloboffin]

Since they all (usually) condensed out of the same original gas cloud, they're pretty much have to share the same rotation. Anything way sckewed off the the plane of the solar system or rotating retrograde would require a special explanation.

Well, I wasn't quite getting it from this, but knowing there was an answer inspired a Google, which brought up this page (http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae588.cfm), and after the guy said "pizza dough", I got it.

NOW I know it all.

[KingMerv00]

So I guess the planets all know to line up in the same plane or thereabouts because of the way the host star is rotating, too?

Because the planets all formed from the same accretion disk (http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae588.cfm).

[boloboffin]

My link was same as you!

[kitakaze]

Newfound Planet Orbits Backward (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090812-backward-planet.html)

Impressive quotes from WP's link...

Planets orbit stars in the same direction that the stars rotate. They all do. Except one.

A newfound planet orbits the wrong way, backward compared to the rotation of its host star. Its discoverers think a near-collision may have created the retrograde orbit, as it is called.

The star and its planet, WASP-17, are about 1,000 light-years away. The setup was found by the UK's Wide Area Search for Planets (WASP) project in collaboration with Geneva Observatory. The discovery was announced today but has not yet been published in a journal.


I think the fact that we can observe the orbit of a planet half the size of Jupiter from a distance of what takes light 1,000 years is just fascinating. The light we are seeing now in those observations left the system when here on earth the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in Jeruseum and the 69th emperor of Japan, Emperor Go-Suzaku was born.

WASP-17 likely had a close encounter with a larger planet, and the gravitational interaction acted like a slingshot to put WASP-17 on its odd course, the astronomers figure.

I think the idea of close encounters by planets or even worlds colliding is extemely cool. I don't know if anyone has ever had a dream similar to this but I often have one where two planets are so close together that there atmospheres mix and I can look up and see the seas and clouds of that alien world. Just a neat dream.

WASP-17 is about half the mass of Jupiter but bloated to twice its size. "This planet is only as dense as expanded polystyrene, 70 times less dense than the planet we're standing on," said professor Coel Hellier of Keele University.

The bloated planet can be explained by a highly elliptical orbit, which brings it close to the star and then far away. Like exaggerated tides on Earth, the tidal effects on WASP-17 heat and stretch the planet, the researchers suggest.

The tides are not a daily affair, however. "Instead it's creating a huge amount of friction on the inside of the planet and generating a lot of energy, which might be making the planet big and puffy," Seager said.


Expanded polystyrene!? Imagine visiting a world with the consistency of packing peanuts. Cool.

The thing I find useful about this article is that I know someone who is a Seventh Day Adventist YEC educator with whom I have had friendly debates. One of the first things that comes out when we talk is him referring to perfect orbits of planets. Instead of making references that might not be as simple for him, now I can just say "WASP 17". Maybe he'll think it came from Satan.

[ImaginalDisc]

The thing I find useful about this article is that I know someone who is a Seventh Day Adventist YEC educator with whom I have had friendly debates. One of the first things that comes out when we talk is him referring to perfect orbits of planets. Instead of making references that might not be as simple for him, now I can just say "WASP 17". Maybe he'll think it came from Satan.

Perfect. . .elipses?

Circular orbits went out of scientific understanding in the RENAISSANCE!

[DC]

oh from the title i thought they finaly found Planet X :(
would be about time, its soon 2012 :D

[kitakaze]

Perfect. . .elipses?

Circular orbits went out of scientific understanding in the RENAISSANCE!

No, it wasn't quite that easy. This cat was on about the direction, alignment, and continuity of planetary orbits. When he said perfection, one of the first things I asked was if he was talking about circular orbits. This conversation was a couple of months back. I said there was some basic physics he needed to check out as well as a number of weird things in our solar system such as sideways Uranus. I know I'll be sending him a link to check out WASP-17.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, it wasn't quite that easy. This cat was on about the direction, alignment, and continuity of planetary orbits. When he said perfection, one of the first things I asked was if he was talking about circular orbits. This conversation was a couple of months back. I said there was some basic physics he needed to check out as well as a number of weird things in our solar system such as sideways Uranus. I know I'll be sending him a link to check out WASP-17.

I have to cite Douglas Adams' parable of the puddle.

. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

If planetary orbits in our solar system were highly eccentric or chatoic the solar system would have fallen apart before we evolved.

Dur.

[SezMe]

I think the fact that we can observe the orbit of a planet half the size of Jupiter from a distance of what takes light 1,000 years is just fascinating.
I just want to underscore kitakaze's sense of wonderment here. Forget the details for a moment. We now have instruments (telescopes) that can detect motion and properties of things virtually unimaginably far away. A relatively few years ago we didn't even know they existed. How cool is that?

Or, to look through the other end of the scope, we can image individual atoms. It wasn't so long ago that atomic theory was controversial. What an incredible period we live in. Imagine, say, 500 years from now. What knowledge will we possess that will make 2009 look absolutely primitive?

[kitakaze]

If planetary orbits in our solar system were highly eccentric or chatoic the solar system would have fallen apart before we evolved.

Dur.

That is about as short and sweet as you can put it. I wish I had said it just like that. It was one of those lazy hottub conversations. I spoke to that effect but I rambled on a bit about how solar systems form. He was a bright and reasonable guy but when push came to shove he was more comfortable with taking a stance that scientific observations in support of Creation are supressed by an anti-Christian agenda. I asked what those were and gave me a book entitled The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell. It was the worst concentration of lies and misinformation I have ever seen. Every conversation after that consisted of me bringing the book to the hottub and pointing out straight-up lies in it in a friendly and non-confrontational way.

I would send him links about evolution and astrophysics but in the end he was happy to keep the blinders on and ask about tips on Japan. I remember at one point he right out told me that China had been predominantly Christian but that this era of history had been erased from public record. See, who needs evidence?

Sometimes they're too far gone, there's no turning back.

[kitakaze]

I just want to underscore kitakaze's sense of wonderment here. Forget the details for a moment. We now have instruments (telescopes) that can detect motion and properties of things virtually unimaginably far away. A relatively few years ago we didn't even know they existed. How cool is that?

Or, to look through the other end of the scope, we can image individual atoms. It wasn't so long ago that atomic theory was controversial. What an incredible period we live in. Imagine, say, 500 years from now. What knowledge will we possess that will make 2009 look absolutely primitive?

Since I was a young child those mind-bogglingly macro and micro realities of our universe have fascinated my imagination. Early in my life as a music producer I got involved with ambient electronic music culture in which such fascinations were big for many artists. Here is a cool video that captures that micro/macro fascination:

Gas - Microscopic (Ambient Electronic Space)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvTe1-a6Pdo)

I still feel it deep all the time. I went to check the Perseids the other night and even though I saw only one meteorite, I was just stoked to stare up at the night sky and get lost in the stars. I'm visiting my hometown in Canada where unlike, Tokyo you can actually see stars at night.

I don't want to derail WP's thread but I read the subtext as being that this is a great example of real science that can dispel erroneous notions for people trapped by a sadly distorted world view like the friend I'm mentioning. Being able to look out into what is infinity by any realistic standard and being able to observe intimate secrets of the universe is a wonderful thing. Just imagine if we all lived by that terrible God-did-it mindset and could never see or know these things.

Thank you, WP, for the cool thread. The universe rocks!

[makaya325]

5) We keep disovering planets at a stunning rate. There's been over 200 extrasolar planets discovered so far.

Yeah, all of them Hot Jupiters or frozen terrestrials.

We discovered life on Earth that lives entirely off of geothermal energy, to whom sunlight is completely irrelevant, making life on planets that are in perpetual night much more likely.

But can life some how create itself in such nasty conditions?

We discovered that Io, one of the moons of Jupiter, is the most geologically active body in the entire solar system! That's a serious source of energy from tidal forces alone, not starlight

Geologically active? You betcha!

Life-haven? Far from it.

We discovered that tardigrades, viruses, and archea thrive in environments would be instantly lethal to most organisms, making the range of conditions that life can tolerate much wider.

The question is could they form in those conditions, not just exist in them for 40 minutes

It's entirely possible it harbors warm, dark oceans.

Or more likely to be just slushy ice

[makaya325]

Life on earth is nearly a miracle

[KingMerv00]

But can life some how create itself in such nasty conditions?

I don't know. That depends on what protolife is like.

[makaya325]

I don't know. That depends on what protolife is like.

Life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago. It took 800 million years into the planets history for life to create itself. On some other planet, many things that are life-threatening can happen in less time.

[KingMerv00]

Life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago. It took 800 million years into the planets history for life to create itself. On some other planet, many things that are life-threatening can happen in less time.

And obviously there are times when life lives in spite of repeated disasters. Earth is teeming with life so we know that some things can survive what humans would consider life threatening. Also consider just how big the universe is.

How many galaxies?
How many stars are there in each galaxy? (Technically, a nearby star is not needed for life.)
How many planets around each star?
How many different environments on each planet?
How many different forms of life could survive in each environment?
How small is your imagination?

[makaya325]

And obviously there are times when life lives in spite of repeated disasters. Earth is teeming with life so we know that some things can survive what humans would consider life threatening. Also consider just how big the universe is.

It was a near-miracle that life began...800 million years after the earth was formed!

How many galaxies?

100's of billions


How many stars are there in each galaxy? (Technically, a nearby star is not needed for life.)

It varies: It can be anywhere from a couple million to a couple trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[3] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[4] (1012) stars,




How many planets around each star?

A generous estimate would put it at 1 planet for every 100 stars

How many different forms of life could survive in each environment?

That is not the problem. It really matters if life could EMERGE in each environment, and continue to evolve into higher organisms.

[KingMerv00]

It was a near-miracle that life began...800 million years after the earth was formed!

Honestly, I don't think there is enough information to accurately predict how common life is but I'm pretty sure that near-miracle is wrong. We are made of the most common elements and use a very common solvent as the reaction medium. Those elements naturally form the precursors of proteins. Cell membranes are probably the result of simple oil/water interactions.

That is not the problem. It really matters if life could EMERGE in each environment, and continue to evolve into higher organisms.

Intelligent life is a different discussion entirely.

A generous estimate would put it at 1 planet for every 100 stars


You are off by a little more than a factor of 100: http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/milky-way/how-many-planets-are-in-the-milky-way/


To the date of this writing, 342 planets have beendiscovered orbiting 289 stars (http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/stars/).

[makaya325]

You are off by a little more than a factor of 100

We have studied only a tiny fraction of stars. Who is to say that we should expect planets to be found around stars at a frequent rate? A good percentage of stars in our galaxy are not suitable for planets, yet life.

[ben m]

We have studied only a tiny fraction of stars.

I have eaten only a tiny fraction of tacos, but I am able to form reasonable hypotheses and predictions about the contents of tacos I have not yet eaten.


Who is to say that we should expect planets to be found around stars at a frequent rate?

I would say that planetary astrophysics experts would be the best people to tell us what to expect. This is not 100% reliable---experiments will give the final answer---but surely it's better than a wild guess based on intuition about the rarity of life. What do the experts say, Makaya?

[KingMerv00]

We have studied only a tiny fraction of stars.

So the scientists just got lucky?

Who is to say that we should expect planets to be found around stars at a frequent rate?

The people who have been finding them everywhere?

A good percentage of stars in our galaxy are not suitable for planets...

And you reached this conclusion how exactly? By what right do you contradict the hard data? Also, what in your opinion would make a star unsuitable for a planet?

[makaya325]

What do the experts say, Makaya?

Why dont you ask experts on LIFE, not planets, and see what they say.

Frank Drake, Radio astronomer vs. Peter Ward, amateur astronomer, Paleontologist

Hmmm

[makaya325]

And you reached this conclusion how exactly and by what right do you contradict the hard data? Also, what in your opinion would make a star unsuitable for a planet?

From Rare Earth hypothetis on Wiki

Small red dwarf stars, on the other hand, have habitable zones with a small radius. This proximity causes one face of the planet to constantly face the star, and the other to always remain dark, a situation known as tidal lock. Tidal locking of a planetary hemisphere to its primary will cause one side of a planet to be extremely hot, while the other will be extremely cold. Planets within a habitable zone with a small radius are also at increased risk of solar flares (see Aurelia), which would tend to ionize the atmosphere and are otherwise inimical to complex life. Rare Earth proponents argue that this rules out the possibility of life in such systems, though some exobiologists have suggested that habitability may exist under the right circumstances. This is a central point of contention for the theory, since these late-K and M category stars make up about 82% of all hydrogen-burning stars.

[KingMerv00]

From Rare Earth hypothetis on Wiki

I said "planet" not "Earth-like planet".

[ben m]

I said "planet" not "Earth-like planet".

Likewise; I didn't comment "how many rocky planets are in habitable zones and have complex life" which would make the Ward reference appropriate. Nor did I say "... have complex life that spends huge amounts of energy on narrowband radio broadcasting into space", which might have made the Drake reference relevant.

No, I said that planetary scientists would be experts on the formation and abundance of planets.

Nobody is an expert on what, if anything, might live on such planets.

[makaya325]

No, I said that planetary scientists would be experts on the formation and abundance of planets.

Well, I can not argue with that, but we only have studied about 300 stars and found planets around them at a frequent rate. This does not mean that we should expect planets to be common-place around stars because what if we are observing the very few amount of stars with planets?

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, I can not argue with that, but we only have studied about 300 stars and found planets around them at a frequent rate. This does not mean that we should expect planets to be common-place around stars because what if we are observing the very few amount of stars with planets?

Excuse me?

"Let's randomly sample stars without a twin or triplet (this is a non-trivial category. A lot of stars are in multi-star systems and for reasons involving chaos we don't expect them to have planets) for a long time and look for doppler shifts in their light spectra that would incdicate planets."

"Oh, we've found 300!"

That's pretty damned good.

[ben m]

Well, I can not argue with that, but we only have studied about 300 stars and found planets around them at a frequent rate. This does not mean that we should expect planets to be common-place around stars because what if we are observing the very few amount of stars with planets?

That is like saying, "I reached into a bag of 100,000 marbles and pulled out 50 of them. 25 of the ones I pulled out were black and 25 were white. What if the bag now contains 999,950 white marbles, and I happened to pull out the only 25 black ones?" It's not impossible for it to work that way, but statistics tells us it is highly unlikely. The stars we've observed are a lot like the ones we haven't---it's incredibly unlikely that we happened to pick, randomly, the 300 stars that happened to have these rare planets. It's very likely that the stars we picked are roughly representative of the whole ensemble.

[ImaginalDisc]

Life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago. It took 800 million years into the planets history for life to create itself. On some other planet, many things that are life-threatening can happen in less time.

You need to subract that fact that for about 600 million of those years the Earth was a glowing mass bombarded by hundreds of thousands of tons of space metors on a daily basis ( We still accumulate plenty of small metors on a continuous basis today, but they tend not to be as spectacular as often. Thank Jupiter.) It's much more fair to only count the remaining 200 million years where the planet was cool enough for complex chemistry.

[KingMerv00]

This does not mean that we should expect planets to be common-place around stars because what if we are observing the very few amount of stars with planets?

Well, yes. That's statistics.

[remirol]

Planet going backwards?

It's probably just Pluto, all pissed off after it got hit with the blue shell of "You're not a planet", and now it's driving backwards around the track trying to run into other planets and screw them up, too.

[KingMerv00]

Well, yes. That's statistics.

Let me expand on this.

As I said, 342 planets have been discovered orbiting 289 stars. That means the average so far is about 1.2 planets per star. To reach your original estimate of "1 in 100", scientists will have to find 0 planets around the next 30,000 stars they check.

The proper way to disagree with me would be to say that the number I gave is a false statistic. For example, you could say that number wasn't derived from a random sampling.

[makaya325]

Let me expand on this.

[QUOTE]As I said, 342 planets have been discovered orbiting 289 stars. That means the average so far is about 1.2 planets per star. To reach your original estimate of "1 in 100", scientists will have to find 0 planets around the next 30,000 stars they check.

Out of a couple 100 billion stars, finding 30000 stars without planets would be quite easy. :D

[godless dave]

Out of a couple 100 billion stars, finding 30000 stars without planets would be quite easy. :D

On what do you base that assumption?

[Mark6]

[QUOTE=KingMerv00;5023329]
Out of a couple 100 billion stars, finding 30000 stars without planets would be quite easy. :D
Do you REALLY have absolutely no understanding of probabilities, or are you joking so you can avoid admitting you are utterly wrong?

[KingMerv00]

Do you REALLY have absolutely no understanding of probabilities, or are you joking so you can avoid admitting you are utterly wrong?

Fix your quote. I sure as hell didn't say that.

[KingMerv00]

[Out of a couple 100 billion stars, finding 30000 stars without planets would be quite easy. :D

*Facepalm*

I want to explain to you why your wrong but I don't think I could get you to understand.

[makaya325]

*Facepalm*

I want to explain to you why your wrong but I don't think I could get you to understand.

There is nothing to understand, except that we are cherry-picking what stars to observe, and ignoring a good amount of stars in the galaxy that are unlikely to harbour any planets

[ImaginalDisc]

There is nothing to understand, except that we are cherry-picking what stars to observe, and ignoring a good amount of stars in the galaxy that are unlikely to harbour any planets

That's almost correct.

For one, astrophyscists ignore multiple star systems. Binary stars, for example, as very likely to play such havok with planes that their orbits would either decay or lead to them being shot away into space.

Also, they ignore supergiant blue glowing monsters, because they live for only tens of millions of years.

Aside from that, any lone middle range star's a perfectly good candidate for planets.

[KingMerv00]

There is nothing to understand, except that we are cherry-picking what stars to observe, and ignoring a good amount of stars in the galaxy that are unlikely to harbour any planets

This is a far better response. You should have said it to start with. Does anyone have a link which shows where we have looked for stars? Until then you cannot say they were cherry-picked and I cannot say they were not.

[makaya325]

Does anyone have a link which shows where we have looked for stars?

I would try going to Seti.org.

or look at margaret turnbull's article about the 17,129 stars the Terrestrial Planet Finder is going to scan. I am not sure though.

[KingMerv00]

I would try going to Seti.org.

or look at margaret turnbull's article about the 17,129 stars the Terrestrial Planet Finder is going to scan. I am not sure though.

I looked elsewhere because that mission hasn't generated data yet. Looking for "percent of stars with planets", I found this (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20080217.html):

"The correct answer probably lies somewhere between the pessimistic case of less than 20 percent and optimistic case of more than 60 percent," Meyer said.

[ben m]

There is nothing to understand, except that we are cherry-picking what stars to observe, and ignoring a good amount of stars in the galaxy that are unlikely to harbour any planets

Usually "cherry picking" involves foreknowledge. How did the scientists who decided which stars to look at know that these stars would turn out to be the planet-containing ones? How did they know which stars would turn out (as you are predicting) not to have planets, so they could decide not to look at them?

[makaya325]

which stars to look at know that these stars would turn out to be the planet-containing ones?

It would depend on the stars age, location, Metallicity, etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars

Population I or metal-rich stars are those young stars whose metallicity is highest. The Earth's Sun is an example of a metal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy.

Generally, the youngest stars, the extreme Population I, are found farther in and intermediate Population I stars are farther out, etc. The Sun is considered an intermediate Population I star. Population I stars have regular elliptical orbits of the galactic centre, with a low relative velocity. The high metallicity of Population I stars makes them more likely to possess planetary systems than the other two populations, since planets, particularly terrestrial planets, are thought to be formed by the accretion of metals




How did they know which stars would turn out (as you are predicting) not to have planets, so they could decide not to look at them?


Population II or metal-poor stars are those with relatively little metal. The idea of a relatively small amount must be kept in perspective as even metal-rich astronomical objects contain low quantities of any element other than hydrogen or helium; metals constitute only a tiny percentage of the overall chemical makeup of the universe, even 13.7 billion years after the Big Bang. However, metal-poor objects are even more primitive. These objects formed during an earlier time of the universe. They are common in the bulge near to the centre of the galaxy, the intermediate Population II; and also, in the galactic halo, the halo Population II, which is older and thus more metal-poor. Globular clusters also contain high numbers of Population II stars.[5] It is believed that Population II stars created all the other elements in the periodic table, except the more unstable ones.

Scientists have targeted these oldest stars in several different surveys, including the HK objective-prism survey of Timothy C. Beers et al. and the Hamburg-ESO survey of Norbert Christlieb et al., originally started for faint quasars. Thus far, they have uncovered and studied in detail about ten very metal-poor stars (as CS22892-052, CS31082-001, BD +17° 3248) and two of the oldest stars known to date: HE0107-5240 and HE1327- 2326. Less extreme in their metal deficiency, but nearer and brighter and hence longer known, are HD 122563 (a red giant) and HD 140283 (a subdwarf).

[ben m]

So you're saying that planets are rare "because" planet searches which target Pop I stars have found lots of planets. But population I stars are not rare at all---in the stellar neighborhood anyway, as we live in the Galactic disk where metallicities tend to be high. But the disk is a big place.

I believe that the majority of naked-eye visible stars are Pop I. The statement that "looking at nearby stars tends to find planets, because most Galactic disk stars are of a type that tends to have planets" does not sound like the argument you wanted to make.

[Mark6]

Fix your quote. I sure as hell didn't say that.
I cannot. For some reason "Edit" button is not there. (Time limit on edits?) But here is corrected version:


Out of a couple 100 billion stars, finding 30000 stars without planets would be quite easy.

Do you REALLY have absolutely no understanding of probabilities, or are you joking so you can avoid admitting you are utterly wrong?

[makaya325]

Do you REALLY have absolutely no understanding of probabilities, or are you joking so you can avoid admitting you are utterly wrong?

While it is probable that life exists out there, it is not inconcievable to cherry-pick 30000 stars out of 100 billion that don't have planets.

[rjh01]

Can I throw Scientific American into the ring? Astronomers Scout Out Life-Friendly Stars (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=astronomers-scout-out-lif)
<snip>galactic habitable zone (GHZ) <snip>
The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate that the GHZ is a slowly spreading region located about 25,000 light-years from the galaxy's center. The stars encompassed by it formed between four billion and eight billion years ago; <snip>

It means that certain regions of the galaxy are more likely to have life than other regions.

See also http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.ReturnToPreviousAction (paid subscription needed to see full article)

[Tumbleweed]

Because the planets all formed from the same accretion disk (http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae588.cfm).
And the direction the whole schmere rotates is random? Or do all the solar systems/ stars rotate in the same direction, as looked at from "above". If so , why? And our galaxy "picked" a direction to rotate. More randomness? Or is there a kind of right hand rule for motors going on here

[Tumbleweed]

The Earth is exactly like a motor except for one undetected aspect. It is a great conductor with current flowing through it, right? Now if you move a conductor with a current flowing through it through a magnetic field, it becomes a motor. So-- the Earth is moving so all we need is a magnetic field and why the Earth rotates becomes very clear. We are just like a spinning skater you say? What if the Earth started as large chunks coming together instead of a hot gas cloud condensing. You would then have to theorize differently as to why it does spin

[Tumbleweed]

Does the debris of supernovas "quickly" coalesce to form several new suns and solar systems? Would not most large suns disappear over time as they explode to be replaced by mini-suns that simply eventually burn out without exploding? What would be the mechanism for creating new giant stars? The older the galaxy the fewer the giant stars?

[Tumbleweed]

Ah hell while I'm pondering I'll throw in one more ponderfication: Could galaxies be the remnants/ debris of super super big novas?

[Monketey Ghost]

As I understand it there are lots of galaxies with relatively little gas and dust (giant ellipticals for example); gas and dust clouds are what we think is required for a galaxy to have generations of stars being born. The oldest galaxies have used up a great deal of their star-making material...

[Mark6]

While it is probable that life exists out there, it is not inconcievable to cherry-pick 30000 stars out of 100 billion that don't have planets.
You still have not provided any plausible criteria for such "cherry-picking", other than "Population I stars" -- which are majority of stars in Galactic disk, rather than "1 in 100" as you earlier claimed.

[ben m]

While it is probable that life exists out there, it is not inconcievable to cherry-pick 30000 stars out of 100 billion that don't have planets.

Yes it is inconceivable---that's how statistical sampling works. Imagine you had a bucket containing 100 billion marbles, of which only 30,000 were (say) black and the rest white. Imagine reaching into that bucket and pulling out 100 marbles. The odds of drawing even one "lucky" black marble, in this world where black marbles are rare, is 1/30,000. The odds of drawing mostly black marbles is infinitesimally small. (You might say, "I didn't mean 100 billion so literally." That's good, that's how this works. What numbers could you plug in, such that it does become vaguely plausible that we'd draw 50-50 black and white marbles? Answer: this only becomes plausible if the overall black/white mixture is in the ballpark of 50-50. For example, if the real proportion is 36-74, then we'd have about a 5% chance of making a 50-50 draw.)

Sorry, Makaya, you are incorrect. Astronomers have looked for planets around a very common type of star---isolated Pop I stars---and the evidence tells us that this entire class of stars tends to have planets. That's tens of billions of planets. There is no evidence whatsoever for the sort of ultra-freak-statistical occurrence that you are invoking for your "we got lucky" hypothesis.

[KingMerv00]

And the direction the whole schmere rotates is random? Or do all the solar systems/ stars rotate in the same direction, as looked at from "above". If so , why? And our galaxy "picked" a direction to rotate. More randomness? Or is there a kind of right hand rule for motors going on here

The birth of the solar system goes something like this:

1) Giant blob shaped cloud of matter.

2) Gravity starts to condense the cloud.

3) As it condenses, it will almost certainly start to spin. In order for a collapsing cloud to NOT spin, every particle would have to fall directly towards the center without any momentum in any other direction. Needless to say, that's unlikely.

4) As it spins it flattens into a disk like a lump of pizza dough flattens when you spin it over head.

5) The center becomes the Sun the disk becomes the planets.

6) The direction of the sun's rotation matches the revolution of the planets.


A planet orbiting "backwards" is one that revolves in the opposite direction of the sun and the other planets. The retrograde planet is probably the result of a collosion or is a captured rogue planet.

[makaya325]

There is no evidence whatsoever for the sort of ultra-freak-statistical occurrence that you are invoking for your "we got lucky" hypothesis.

Yes there is: Absence of Alien life :D

[ben m]

Yes there is: Absence of Alien life :D

Once again, you have been claiming repeatedly that "planets must not be common" and taking the point "aliens have not contacted us" as evidence.

Given that we have no evidence whatsoever regarding (a) what fraction of planets have life, (b) what fraction of that life is intelligent, or (c) what fraction the the time an intelligent civilization spends beaming ultra-powerful radio signals towards the Earth ...

Given the evidence "we see lots of planets but we don't see aliens", which fact is easier to believe:

1) Our planet observations are a one-in-a-gazillion fluke, so incredibly lucky as to make Guildenstern's run of coin-flipping look like an everyday occurrence.

2) Few intelligent civilizations would devote terawatts of power, for millions of years on end, to the completely fruitless task of broadcasting narrow-band radio signals into the sky.

I find the latter very, very, very easy to believe. You must realize---that's what it would takes for an alien civilization to be detected on Earth. We're not going to pick up, e.g., the equivalent of terrestrial radio stations.

[makaya325]

Few intelligent civilizations would devote terawatts of power, for millions of years on end, to the completely fruitless task of broadcasting narrow-band radio signals into the sky.

If this is true, then why does the Fermi Paradox even exist?

[ben m]

If this is true, then why does the Fermi Paradox even exist?

It doesn't exist.

It's only a paradox if "intelligent life" automatically equals "interstellar contact". It doesn't. There are laws of physics (speed of light, 1/r^2, etc.) that make contact harder than Fermi anticipated.

[makaya325]

It doesn't exist.

It's only a paradox if "intelligent life" automatically equals "interstellar contact". It doesn't. There are laws of physics (speed of light, 1/r^2, etc.) that make contact harder than Fermi anticipated.

So intelligent life does'nt automatically equate to technological wielding civilizations?

[ben m]

So intelligent life does'nt automatically equate to technological wielding civilizations?

I have no idea about that. I'm willing to bet that "technological wielding civilization" does not equate to "absurdly powerful narrow-band radio broadcasts into space", though.

Heck, humans here on Earth are (in many fields) decreasing their narrowband output. The US just switched from analog TV broadcasts to digital, with (I think) a distinct broadening of the signal which makes it much less detectable from afar. In thirty years, it's very plausible to imagine that almost all Earth content either (a) comes over a fiber or (b) comes over some local broadband cellular sort of thing with almost no leakage to space. If that happens (and ignoring, e.g., miltary radar)---aliens would look at Earth and say that it went through one 100-year radio loud phase in its 4.3 billion year history. And not all that loud, either---not, for example, loud enough for SETI to have heard had it come from the nearest stars.

[dasmiller]

In thirty years, it's very plausible to imagine that almost all Earth content either (a) comes over a fiber or (b) comes over some local broadband cellular sort of thing with almost no leakage to space.

re "almost no leakage into space" - I've seen interesting concepts for V-band (~60 GHz) local wireless networks. 60 GHz is absorbed fairly quickly by our atmosphere. It's not too tough to make a network that works over a few dozen meters, but beyond that, the signal drops off pretty quickly. For an observer above our atmosphere, the signal would be attenuated at least 120db. For non-RFers, that's a factor of 1,000,000,000,000.

That's "almost no leakage to space" in my book.

AFAIK, nobody can build V-band hardware cheaply enough for home use yet (by 3+ orders of magnitude), but RF technology marches on . . . and it would have some real advantages for cellular networks in densely populated areas.

[makaya325]

I have no idea about that. I'm willing to bet that "technological wielding civilization" does not equate to "absurdly powerful narrow-band radio broadcasts into space", though.

Heck, humans here on Earth are (in many fields) decreasing their narrowband output. The US just switched from analog TV broadcasts to digital, with (I think) a distinct broadening of the signal which makes it much less detectable from afar. In thirty years, it's very plausible to imagine that almost all Earth content either (a) comes over a fiber or (b) comes over some local broadband cellular sort of thing with almost no leakage to space. If that happens (and ignoring, e.g., miltary radar)---aliens would look at Earth and say that it went through one 100-year radio loud phase in its 4.3 billion year history. And not all that loud, either---not, for example, loud enough for SETI to have heard had it come from the nearest stars.

I agree. Also, it is a pretty bad assumption that aliens use Radio-waves to communicate, heck, they may see us, but are not responding.

Earth: come in et!

Aliens: Sheesh, look at those pathetic earthlings. Cant they realize that they are the runt of the litter of this galaxy? Now, back to my massage

[Tumbleweed]

Well, if life exists elsewhere -and the statistics say there are certainly oodles of earth like planets out there - the question becomes: did intelligent life and logic arising there figure out how to travel between the stars using relativity as their guide. If 'wormholes' exist, then statistics dictate that one of those intelligent life forms must have figured it out

[KingMerv00]

So intelligent life does'nt automatically equate to technological wielding civilizations?

Of course not.

Humans have been around for something like 200,000 years. How long have we been broadcasting into space?

[KingMerv00]

I agree. Also, it is a pretty bad assumption that aliens use Radio-waves to communicate...

Radio waves are probably the best way to communicate with other stars that we know of. They are fairly easy to generate and travel long distances without too much trouble.

[makaya325]

Radio waves are probably the best way to communicate with other stars that we know of. They are fairly easy to generate and travel long distances without too much trouble.

What if the aliens use a large light beacon to capture our attention?

[KingMerv00]

What if the aliens use a large light beacon to capture our attention?

Radiowaves are "light".

[dasmiller]

What if the aliens use a large light beacon to capture our attention?

http://seti.harvard.edu/oseti/allsky/

[ben m]

What if the aliens use a large light beacon to capture our attention?

Are they trying to capture our attention, or are they just shooting lasers at random points on the sky, SETI-style?

How long would they keep such a thing running? Maybe someone spent the years 5,000,000 BC through 4,990,000 BC---a period longer than all of recorded human history---shooting lasers at sabre-toothed cats and proto-hominids, and then gave up.

Maybe dozens of civilizations across the galaxy are trying to contact us right now, but they don't realize (how could they know?) that we haven't built any 100-km-diameter optical telescopes yet.

Maybe they only shoot their lasers at planets from which they've detected radio leakage, but they haven't spotted us yet because they're 200 ly away and the first broadcasts are only halfway there. Hmm, that's interesting---the sphere defined by "stars from which we could have received a reply to Marconi's first broadcasts", is only 50 ly radius. Not exactly the billion-star collection you'd normally plug in to the Drake equation.

[ImaginalDisc]

Are they trying to capture our attention, or are they just shooting lasers at random points on the sky, SETI-style?

How long would they keep such a thing running? Maybe someone spent the years 5,000,000 BC through 4,990,000 BC---a period longer than all of recorded human history---shooting lasers at sabre-toothed cats and proto-hominids, and then gave up.

Maybe dozens of civilizations across the galaxy are trying to contact us right now, but they don't realize (how could they know?) that we haven't built any 100-km-diameter optical telescopes yet.

Maybe they only shoot their lasers at planets from which they've detected radio leakage, but they haven't spotted us yet because they're 200 ly away and the first broadcasts are only halfway there. Hmm, that's interesting---the sphere defined by "stars from which we could have received a reply to Marconi's first broadcasts", is only 50 ly radius. Not exactly the billion-star collection you'd normally plug in to the Drake equation.

There's plenty of speculation we could engage in as to why intelligent aliens might be hard to notice, such as the technological limitations you allude to. There are others. Imagine that dolphins were good at math, and had an elaborate and intricate culture of poety and geopolitics. How would they build radios without hands? Even if they did have hands, how would aquatic intelligences harness electricity without frying themselves? Although since dolphins seem to be able to form three dimensional images through sound data, maybe intelligent dolphins would "watch" radio TV that's a collection of recorded sounds meant to simulate a sonar "picture" of a scene. Or, maybe dolphins would never be able to design a machine which can duplicate the work their own bodies and brains do in generating that kind of sonar data.

Have I confused you as much as I have myself? It's intrinsically difficult to second guess aliens. The one thing it's easy to figure out is that if any aliens communicated with one another through high frequency radio waves, or used any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum that does stick out from the phenomenae of nature, we could theoretically pick up that stuff.