Slashdot Mirror
Exoplanet Count Peaks 1,000
astroengine writes "The first 1,000 exoplanets to be confirmed have been added to the Europe-based Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. For the last few weeks, astronomers (and the science media) have been waiting with bated breath as the confirmed exoplanet count tallied closer and closer to the 1,000 mark. Then, with the help of the Super Wide Angle Search for Planets (SuperWASP) collaboration, the number jumped from 999 to 1,010 overnight. All of the 11 worlds are classified as 'hot-Jupiters' with orbital periods between 1 day and 9 days."
More like 1000 e19 when the survey is over maybe?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
And we still haven't planted a flag in every planes in our solar system.
I find it sad that humanity stopped expanding as soon as it became a bit hard. And I don't think it's relatively harder now for us to expand than it was a thousand years ago.
To say the the count "peaks" suggests to me that the count has reached as high as it will go... which is nonsense!
Are we expecting it to go down, and are the Vorlons or the Shadows responsible?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
So you're saying your mental age peaked at two months?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"Peaks" implies that we are at a time between an increasing exoplanet count and a decreasing exoplanet count. I highly doubt that is the case.
It would be better to use "stagnates at" if one wants to imply that we are approaching a maximum. If we are just talking about an arbitrary milestone for an ever increasing value it should have been "Exoplanet Count Reaches 1,000".
In other news half empty and half full are not equal and which one is most optimistic depends on the desired final state.
Very few "synonyms" are really synonymous and you should never use them to diversify your language since this leads to misunderstandings and unintentional lies.
Nothing personal, that was just too easy a joke to make.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If it is your mental image, then it will seem like the supreme realty to you.
With a little training, you will be able to see further although.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
No, not really. "Reaches", "Tops", "Exceeds", but not "Peaks", not unless the program is now ending and this is the final tally (which it isn't and it's not.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Any word you use relates to your own realty, which might be far from what is going in truth. Do I make myself clear enough?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Any word you use relates to your own realty, which might be far from what is going in truth. Do I make myself clear enough?
No. Your word choice was poor. Had you said, "Any word you use relates to your own truth, which might be far from reality" it might have been more poetic. Your version just sounded like mindless po-mo wankery.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The purpose of communication is to convey ideas to others. If you use words with an intended meaning that is different from that of the overwhelming majority of possible recipients of that message, you are communicating poorly.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You got the meanings of truth and realty mixed up according to my standard but then again, I understand what you're saying...
See? It ain't that hard.
Realty is more often than you wished an illusion while there is only one truth.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
If all meanings are possible, then it is not possible for me to deduce which one you intended. Your intended meaning of the word "peak" becomes just as valid as "minimum", or "potato".
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Not necessarily, I could an emissary sent to make you better overall.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4366765&cid=45210271
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
You understand what he's saying because he's not engaged in linguistic solipsism.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You're broadcasting in code and you haven't given anyone the key.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Planets, planets, everywhere!
Why must I be stranded on this one, with the damn dirty apes?!
Come on Sockatume.
Enough or else I"ll send some men in black to make you shut up.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
ok Sockatume, last explanation. After, I am off to work in some fancy bunker.
For a new born, it might seem like a peak. For somebody who has lived a thousand years, it is nothing new.
I sincerely wish you an happy experience as a new born spirit. That's what makes human so compelling.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Peaks are maxima, though. That's what distinguishes a peak from an upward slope. It's the peakiest thing about peaks, and if you were going to use a peak to refer to a thing that looks like it's peaking, that inherent peakiness is the most important thing you'd want to cinsider.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Very good point, I will work on that and get back to you if you volunteer. Be aware that you would be getting into a lot so you have to be mentally prepared.
Cheers,
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
I am perfectly aware of the mainstream signification of "peaks". I am an actuarian amongst other things.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
My point is simply that when you choose to use that word, out of all the words that can be used to indicate that something has been an upward trend, you're using the one word that most succinctly indicates that it said property is now in decline. It ain't a great choice.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Fuck mainstream. Didn't you notice where it got us so far? There is only one truth and many realties in realty.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Well, as I said, if you're going to communicate, you've got to consider how the recipient will parse the message.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I am all about parsing and this is no lies.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
You got the meanings of truth and realty mixed up according to my standard but then again, I understand what you're saying...
It's not much of a "standard", if you're the only one following it.
Realty is more often than you wished an illusion while there is only one truth.
By commonly held definition, if it is illusion, it is not reality. But having said that, people do confuse their perceptions and beliefs with reality.
Just because you do not know many entities following my "standard" doesn't mean there isn't many following it. So yes, like it or not, it is a standard.
Your argument sounds like my father is stronger than yours. Please go meditating a bit.
What you perceive as realty is more than often an illusion. Get along with it.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Yep. It's all downhill from here, as planets starts to vanish.
Communication is an odds game. If you talk to an audience in such a way that 99% of them will take the incorrect meaning from what you say, and 1% will take the correct one, you're not being pragmatic.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Ohhh what a nice round number it is, with all the zeros. It has to Mean something!
I really wish that one day I can visit another planet. :3
Communication is an odds game. If you talk to an audience in such a way that 99% of them will take the incorrect meaning from what you say, and 1% will take the correct one, you're not being pragmatic.
I'm a politician you insensitive clod! It's my job to only communicate with the 1% and screw the rest!
Why is this news? We know there are an unfathomable number of stars out there. We know that the majority of them will have some sort of debris floating around them. There is no conceivable way for us to get to them. This is basically a case of "yup, there's something out there that we can barely see, that we can't learn much from, and that we'll never be able to get to." Thank you for spending my hard earned tax money on your fruitless pursuits.
Please work on something in the local star system that might actually be able to merit some benefit.
I heard in an astronomy talk last week that Kepler has proposed 3200 exoplanets of which 155 have been verified by alternative observations.
Some reasons for verification:
(1) 3rd periodic transit not yet observed (longer orbit candidates).
(2) The Kepler CCD pixel contained multiple stars. Better telescopes are needed to distignusih which star has the plantet.
(3) Some other pehnomena like a sunspot cause the dimming.
No thanks. I'm not interested in attempting to decode retard.
Puts me in the mood to read a little classic space travel. Some Asimov, or Heinlein, maybe. "These Thousand Worlds," a story of a galactic civilization hitting its stride as it colonizes it's thousandth planet, and the struggles it faces managing such a widespread and diverse collection of worlds.
Yes, I know most of the first thousand here aren't habitable, but I can imagine we've found and colonized a thousand that are, one of these days.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Obligatory http://xkcd.com/1000/
The IAU has decided that a planet - at least around our Sun - has to "clear the neighbourhood" around its orbit. There will always be objects we can detect, without being able to detect if the neighbourhood is cleared (currently is all so-called exoplanets).
One solution is that "planet" has a different definition between our Solar System and everywhere else. But that is inconsistent. What we should do is have the same definition everywhere; I suggest "orbiting star" and "so massive it's round". If that means Pluto and Ceres are planets, well, that's just fine.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Just because you do not know many entities following my "standard" doesn't mean there isn't many following it. So yes, like it or not, it is a standard.
Whatever. Go back to reading your David Hume.
All these planets have been identified by their gravitational effects. It's time to set a higher and more ambitious goal. To actually SEE a planet.
01/01/01