Possible new earth found
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- European astronomers have spotted what they say is the most Earth-like planet yet outside our solar system, with balmy temperatures that could support water and, potentially, life.
They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger than the Earth is pulling on it, the researchers say in a letter to the editor of the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.
"This one is the first one that is at the same time probably rocky, with water, and in a zone close to the star where the water could exist in liquid form," said Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland, who led the study.
"We have estimated that the mean temperature of this super-Earth lies between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius, and water would thus be liquid."
Most of the 200 or so planets that have been spotted outside this solar system have been gas giants like Jupiter. But this one is small.
"Its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth's radius, and models predict that the planet should be either rocky, like our Earth, or covered with oceans," Udry said in a telephone interview.
It appears to have a mass five times that of Earth's.
The research team includes scientists credited with the first widely accepted discovery of a planet outside our solar system, in 1995.
Many teams are looking for planets circling other stars. They are especially looking for those similar to our own, planets that could support life.
That means finding water.
X marks the spot
"Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life," Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University in France, said in a statement.
"On the treasure map of the universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X."
Gliese 581 is among the 100 closest stars to Earth, just 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra.
A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion km).
It is smaller and dimmer than the sun, so the planet can be close to it and yet not be overheated.
"These low-mass stars are the ones where we are going to be able to discover planets in the habitable zone first," said planet-hunter David Bennett of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who was not involved in the research.
Bennett cautioned that current temperature alone does not mean water still exists on the planet. It could have burned off ages ago, when the star was hotter than it is now.
Udry's team uses a method known as radial velocity, using the European Southern Observatory telescope at La Silla, Chile.
The same team has identified one larger planet orbiting Gliese 581 already and say they have strong evidence of a third planet with a mass about eight times that of the Earth.
Future missions, perhaps in 20 to 30 years, may be able to block the light from the star and take a spectrographic image of the planets. The color of the light coming from the planet can give hints of whether water, or perhaps large amounts of plant life, exist there.
They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger than the Earth is pulling on it, the researchers say in a letter to the editor of the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.
"This one is the first one that is at the same time probably rocky, with water, and in a zone close to the star where the water could exist in liquid form," said Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland, who led the study.
"We have estimated that the mean temperature of this super-Earth lies between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius, and water would thus be liquid."
Most of the 200 or so planets that have been spotted outside this solar system have been gas giants like Jupiter. But this one is small.
"Its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth's radius, and models predict that the planet should be either rocky, like our Earth, or covered with oceans," Udry said in a telephone interview.
It appears to have a mass five times that of Earth's.
The research team includes scientists credited with the first widely accepted discovery of a planet outside our solar system, in 1995.
Many teams are looking for planets circling other stars. They are especially looking for those similar to our own, planets that could support life.
That means finding water.
X marks the spot
"Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life," Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University in France, said in a statement.
"On the treasure map of the universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X."
Gliese 581 is among the 100 closest stars to Earth, just 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra.
A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion km).
It is smaller and dimmer than the sun, so the planet can be close to it and yet not be overheated.
"These low-mass stars are the ones where we are going to be able to discover planets in the habitable zone first," said planet-hunter David Bennett of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who was not involved in the research.
Bennett cautioned that current temperature alone does not mean water still exists on the planet. It could have burned off ages ago, when the star was hotter than it is now.
Udry's team uses a method known as radial velocity, using the European Southern Observatory telescope at La Silla, Chile.
The same team has identified one larger planet orbiting Gliese 581 already and say they have strong evidence of a third planet with a mass about eight times that of the Earth.
Future missions, perhaps in 20 to 30 years, may be able to block the light from the star and take a spectrographic image of the planets. The color of the light coming from the planet can give hints of whether water, or perhaps large amounts of plant life, exist there.
0
-
Yea! Another planet for us to screw up![:p][;)] 0 -
I don't think you will make it or I either. Those space refers don't work for too long a period[xx(] 0 -
is life going to end on this planet or what? i mean are we looking for another planet for a reason. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
is life going to end on this planet or what? i mean are we looking for another planet for a reason.
Only the most fundemental question humanity has ever asked itself. Are we alone?0 -
A reason? Curiosity? Advancement of human kinds knowledge?
20.5 light years, assume a probe could be made that reached even a third that speed. They have no evidence of water, only that temperatures would allow it to be there.
A smaller start may indicate less abundance of heavier elements, making life there nearly impossible, or even water there (need Oxygen to form water, atomic mass 16, most of the universe is hydrogen, mass 1)
60 years to get a probe there, another 20 to get a signal back (probably in the form of a very tightly focused laser), figure in time it would take to build and prepare the mission.
At least 100 years before it could be determined what the planet is like, covered in water, perhaps plant-like life? perhaps animal-like life as well?
Or it might be just another rocky wasteland.
Id want to know what lies in Europa's undersea oceans first.0 -
Your too late Ted Kennedy already bought all the Ocean front property[:D]
And Hillary wants to be President[:0]0 -
I guess I'd better really get to work on that matter-antimatter warp drive idea I was playing around with [;)]
before some schmuck named Cochran steals my idea0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
A reason? Curiosity? Advancement of human kinds knowledge?
20.5 light years, assume a probe could be made that reached even a third that speed. They have no evidence of water, only that temperatures would allow it to be there.
A smaller start may indicate less abundance of heavier elements, making life there nearly impossible, or even water there (need Oxygen to form water, atomic mass 16, most of the universe is hydrogen, mass 1)
60 years to get a probe there, another 20 to get a signal back (probably in the form of a very tightly focused laser), figure in time it would take to build and prepare the mission.
At least 100 years before it could be determined what the planet is like, covered in water, perhaps plant-like life? perhaps animal-like life as well?
Or it might be just another rocky wasteland.
Id want to know what lies in Europa's undersea oceans first.
Yes. Then, after a couple more decades, you could go there and discover that gravity is five times what the Earth's is. Wonder what it would feel like to weigh around 1,000 lbs.0 -
if inhabited ... I bet they speak Spanish![:D] 0 -
Zephraim says the girls there are even uglier than the ones in Orygun !!
Doug0 -
I've pulled 5 g's in an airplane before, its not too bad for only a few minutes.
5x the mass doesnt mean 5 x the gravity.
You forget the radius is 1.5 times bigger,
"the effect of gravitational force "varies inversely as the square of the distance"
so it would be 5/(1.5^2)= 5/2.25 = 2.22 times the surface gravity as earth.
It would be hard to move around, and our structures would need to be modified (subs couldn't go as deep, air might be thicker at sea level and planes may be able to use smaller wings), but it would not be so great as to make it uninhabitable. Of course, thats assuming everything else is "close enough" as well.0 -
As for why we are looking for another planet, there's a train of thought out there that says a race is not truly safe from extinction until it has left its planet of origin. 0 -
I hear the Democrats have already proposed a bill to ban guns on the new planet [:(!] 0 -
This man... 
...has already been there.0 -
Beat me to it,
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Yea! Another planet for us to screw up![:p][;)]0 -
quote:They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger than the Earth is pulling on it,
I'm sorry but this is almost laughable. Pure unadulterated speculation. I do believe that there probably are other earth like planets but don't start making such claims when there is NOTHING to back it up. It appears at this point all they THINK they know is that something is pulling on the planet. Seem s they are taking quite a leap bound of faith. But it will likely keep their FUNDING going for another 10-20 years. It seems often that scientists are the biggest con artists we have.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
Wonder what it would feel like to weigh around 1,000 lbs.
Ask Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell. They know first hand.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
quote:They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger than the Earth is pulling on it,
I'm sorry but this is almost laughable. Pure unadulterated speculation. I do believe that there probably are other earth like planets but don't start making such claims when there is NOTHING to back it up. It appears at this point all they THINK they know is that something is pulling on the planet. Seem s they are taking quite a leap bound of faith. But it will likely keep their FUNDING going for another 10-20 years. It seems often that scientists are the biggest con artists we have.
Wow, I'm amazed that you are such an expert at physics that you can completely discount their research. Where did you get your PhD from? Are measurements of gravitational pull just "speculation?" Tell me, what else besides a large celestial body could be exerting a gravitational pull on a star? Since you have apparently peer reviewed the actual research instead of just jumping to conclusions about a subject you know absolutely nothing about based on what you read in a news article, which part of it do you find to be scientifically inaccurate and please explain how you came to this conclusion? Maybe next we can get your expert opinion on the issues relating to medicine and chemistry, I'd hate to think that your expert scientific analysis is limited to just physics and astronomy.0 -
Let's send all the Dems there... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Let's send all the Dems there...
So they can screw up two planets? Are you insane?
Anyway, there's a larger problem at hand. This planet lays in an area of space already claimed by the Romulans.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ripley16
This man...
...has already been there.
That could only be done with Jack Bauer as his Copilot and navigator.0 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by mrseatle
Some Preparation H will cure that right up.0 -
"Gliese 581 is among the 100 closest stars to Earth, just 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra."
The fastest space probe we have came up with so far cruises along at 11 miles per second. So at that speed our probe could get there in about 76,000 years. Give or take a day or two.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
quote:
They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger than the Earth is pulling on it,
I'm sorry but this is almost laughable. Pure unadulterated speculation. I do believe that there probably are other earth like planets but don't start making such claims when there is NOTHING to back it up. It appears at this point all they THINK they know is that something is pulling on the planet. Seem s they are taking quite a leap bound of faith. But it will likely keep their FUNDING going for another 10-20 years. It seems often that scientists are the biggest con artists we have.
Wow, I'm amazed that you are such an expert at physics that you can completely discount their research. Where did you get your PhD from? Are measurements of gravitational pull just "speculation?" Tell me, what else besides a large celestial body could be exerting a gravitational pull on a star? Since you have apparently peer reviewed the actual research instead of just jumping to conclusions about a subject you know absolutely nothing about based on what you read in a news article, which part of it do you find to be scientifically inaccurate and please explain how you came to this conclusion? Maybe next we can get your expert opinion on the issues relating to medicine and chemistry, I'd hate to think that your expert scientific analysis is limited to just physics and astronomy.
I may not have a PHD in Astrophysics but I can say that I find this whole business a bunch of BS. So there saying that they saw a star wobble, so that means that there is an earth like planet with mountains and oceans and could support life. They got all this from a wobble.
This reminds me of a story from the '70s when a scientist found a tooth in Idaho. He dubbed the Tooth "Idaho Man" and the next thing you know there were fully built models of exactly how "Idaho Man" lived. Those models showed "Idaho Man's" wife, children, how he raised livestock, how they lived in a great community, etc... It turns out that the "Idaho Man" tooth was from a PIG!!!
Sorry to have to say this but a portion of the scientific community are nothing but politicians trying to con more money out of our pockets so the can continue to make false claims about everything in this and other universes.
All that do to a wobble, Hah...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mk 19
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
quote:
They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called Gliese 581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger than the Earth is pulling on it,
I'm sorry but this is almost laughable. Pure unadulterated speculation. I do believe that there probably are other earth like planets but don't start making such claims when there is NOTHING to back it up. It appears at this point all they THINK they know is that something is pulling on the planet. Seem s they are taking quite a leap bound of faith. But it will likely keep their FUNDING going for another 10-20 years. It seems often that scientists are the biggest con artists we have.
Wow, I'm amazed that you are such an expert at physics that you can completely discount their research. Where did you get your PhD from? Are measurements of gravitational pull just "speculation?" Tell me, what else besides a large celestial body could be exerting a gravitational pull on a star? Since you have apparently peer reviewed the actual research instead of just jumping to conclusions about a subject you know absolutely nothing about based on what you read in a news article, which part of it do you find to be scientifically inaccurate and please explain how you came to this conclusion? Maybe next we can get your expert opinion on the issues relating to medicine and chemistry, I'd hate to think that your expert scientific analysis is limited to just physics and astronomy.
I may not have a PHD in Astrophysics but I can say that I find this whole business a bunch of BS. So there saying that they saw a star wobble, so that means that there is an earth like planet with mountains and oceans and could support life. They got all this from a wobble.
This reminds me of a story from the '70s when a scientist found a tooth in Idaho. He dubbed the Tooth "Idaho Man" and the next thing you know there were fully built models of exactly how "Idaho Man" lived. Those models showed "Idaho Man's" wife, children, how he raised livestock, how they lived in a great community, etc... It turns out that the "Idaho Man" tooth was from a PIG!!!
Sorry to have to say this but a portion of the scientific community are nothing but politicians trying to con more money out of our pockets so the can continue to make false claims about everything in this and other universes.
All that do to a wobble, Hah...
I have to somewhat agree here. Yes, I believe that scientists can look at "wobbles" in very high-powered telescopic devices and "see" planets. But, there's a tremendous leap of faith here to state with anything remotely considering plausibility to state that a "wobble" is a planet that might be able to support life.
I might be able to make monkeys fly out of my butt. I might get elected POTUS. Hell, I might discover the cure for all cancers.
Sadly, scientists can't even agree on what's f-ed up with our own planet, and yet we're willing to put faith in these people who, oftentimes are schilling for their next federal grant (from whatever country), to tell us that they found a planet that may sustain life?0 -
3,000 properly detonated nuclear warheads could clean up Venus's atmosphere and get it to spin a little faster.
Sure may be radioactive for a few years......but that's our best bet in leaving Earth.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
3,000 properly detonated nuclear warheads could clean up Venus's atmosphere and get it to spin a little faster.
Sure may be radioactive for a few years......but that's our best bet in leaving Earth.
I seriously doubt that any of us here at this time will have
to worry about the need for, or benefit from "finding another planet".0 -
The Planet is made out of solid GOLD and when we get their We will destroy the economy here on earth. ( Now all you blooming genius prove me wrong.) 0 -
They can infer from the amount the star wobbles the force the planet exerts. The time of the wobble gives the orbital period. As the orbital period is tied to distance, and the force to distance, they can estimate the planets distance from the sun and mass.
Now as to its radius? estimated from common densities and its mass? That Im not sure of.
They know its distance, and the stars output. Therefore they can infer an estimate of surface temperature (with a wide variance based on possible atmospheres. From this they can infer that water COULD exist.
It is the most earth like, in that all the others orbit the sun really close, or are likely huge gas giants.
They didn't say it had oceans and forests, only that it would be the most likely of the other known planets to have them.
You need to be able to tell the difference between what the scientists find and what the media presents/hypes/sensationalizes.
The scientists never said it had oceans, they just said based on its distance, the suns output, and its mass, that liquid water could exist on it.
The media filled in the rest.
If they can get spectrometer readings, we could tell what elements/molecles are there. We don't have that yet, but those could confirm the presence of water or some pigment that absorbs sunlight (likely a photosynthetic pigment indicating alien "plants")
All that is just speculation though until they can actually measure light reflected from the planet0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments