Slashdot Mirror
Two Earth-Like Exoplanets Don't Actually Exist
Two suspected exoplanets, Gliese 581g and 581d, have been shown to not exist, and are instead misinterpretations of data from starspot activity. From the article: "Gliese 581g doesn't exist," said lead author Paul Robertson of Penn State University in State College, Pennsylvania. Neither, he said, does another planet in the same solar system, known as Gliese 581d, announced in 2009—less clearly hospitable to life, but still once seen by some astronomers as a possible place to find aliens. ... What's happening, they say, is that magnetic disturbances on Gliese 581's surface — starspots — are altering the star's spectrum in such a way that it mimics the motion induced by a planet. The star itself rotates once every 130 days, carrying the starspots with it; the disputed planets appeared to have periods of almost exactly one half and one fourth of the 130-day period. When the scientists corrected for the starspot signal, both planets disappeared.
I certainly hope that before we send a generational ship on a one way mission to check out one of these "Earth like" planets that isn't there, we get this right... Of course it would be a good plot for a movie.
I love physics, but I've really felt like the exoplanet thing has been irresponsibly laid on pretty thick for the common man (mostly by scientific media and then mainstream media, in order to sell copies/ads, of course).
There's a lot of zeal in announcing newly found planets, pontificating on their atmospheres and doing up artists impressions and whatnot. It's just not good to take back that type of information and say "ah shit, it was actually just a sunspot". It's really the only true vector of doubt in the religious mind - when science corrects itself. This type of stuff does not help.
But then again, it's mostly the mainstream media who create such a house of cards.
Some aliens came along and vaporized them with a futuristic weapon?
"my sysop types all this in."
When the scientists corrected for the starspot signal, both planets disappeared.
So they possibly just committed genocide on two planets?
They're in good company - there's an infinite number of earth-like exoplanets that don't exist.
nothing Ex-O here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lack of proof of existence is not the same as proof of lack of existence.
If we follow the link to the story, we get the headline "One of the Most Earthlike Planets Ever Found May Not Exist". The slashdot headline on the other hand appears to be quite certain. I wonder if Unknown Lamer has a warp drive and visited the solar system in question to be that certain.
However, I saw Clease 64 Tons with my own eyes.
So many Republicans don't believe in the existence of space, and this sort of conspiracy just makes them more bold.
eight equals equals equals equals dee
This is why most discoveries are double-checked by someone else.
Whether it is table-top cold fusion, stem cells, planets, or the Higgs boson, you publish "we found X by doing Y". Someone else tries and does or doesn't succeed. If they do, it adds evidence to your discovery. If they don't, they go back through your "Y" and see where it doesn't add up for them. In this case, it was found that "Y" didn't take into account "Z" (rather like the "faster than light" neutrinos a few years back where the timing signal was slowed by a weak electical coupling).
Additionally, there's a lot of data coming from the space-based and, still, Earth-based, telescopes. A data item can show up after you've started your analysis that you didn't know at the time, for example, the stellar rotation period for which to account might not have been known.
On the plus side, this will require all of the to-be-published research to check for this factor, reducing that type of erroneous reporting.
Because this is a terrible thing for them.
Before you 3D print your FTL private colony ship, better check twice.
yut #1: Science offers to people what religion cannot...
yut #2: What's that?
yut #1: Absolutely nothing.
as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
it's Lois Lerner's fault for deleting planets.
Table-ized A.I.
I really thought scientists, and I say that broadly, had more evidence. Really had us all going for a minute, I for one have no clue what it takes to discover planets but I guess I should learn, I really thought they had it right, I guess gotta check everything yourself nowadays
You're talking to a species that understands math, chemistry, physics...
You share the same Universe. There's your context.
And simple 1+1=2 vs 1+1=3 (i.e. something like: .^.-.. .^.-...) is enough if you'd just want to match up two vocabularies of terms.
You got your TRUE and FALSE right there.
And then there are entire languages already constructed for just such a purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
M dwarfs are very interesting because they are the most common kind of star, and they have a very high potential of hosting planets able to support DNA-based life as we know it. M dwarfs are also expected to exhibit strong magnetic activity (star spots are magnetic features) as they are highly convective. Star spots appear darker in the optical wavelength, and can easily be mistaken for planets.
There is active research going on that tries to filter out this interference caused by the magnetic effects, and as most public-funded science is unfortunately (and audaciously) paywalled
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Don't tell the Gliesians....
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
There is one exception to the double-checking rule though: climatology. Since the discipline went political, questioning a researcher's work in the field is 'denialism'.
Can't we call them sunspots instead of starspots? It's the same phenomenon. It seems needlessly ambiguous to call them one thing when they're on one star, but another thing when they're on any other star.
Neither, he said, does another planet in the same solar system
Aha! It's a star system. Nyah.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Wrong. That's just an accusation present by people who have no data to back there assertions.
Have you ever notice that deniers don't actual attack the science? They make ad homs. lies, non sequitors, or cherry pick something they consider 'wrong' even though it's within error bars.
Blindly ignoring facts is denial-ism. If it was wrong it could be solidly shown to be wrong with high school level of scientific understanding.
Let start with AGW, No, it's not the same as Climate change.
These are all scientific facts, that you can test for yourself. Interesting note: If you can show they are wrong you would change are understanding of physics and win a number of prizes, and end up being worth a lot of money.
I use the term 'visible light' and IR. They are referring to parts of the EM spectrum.
1) Visible lights strike our planet.
2) CO2 is transparent to visible light
3) When visible light strike something IR is generated.
4) Some energy is captured from the IR by CO2
5) CO2 is levels are rising
6) Human put out many,many gigatones of CO2 above that which is part of the normal cycle. This is because we dig petroleum up and burn it.
So, deniers need to explain which point up there is wrong, and as I have said, it would be trivial to do.
That AGW.
So now with climate change:
Climate change is the changes in the climate due to the increased amount of trapped energy from AGW.
If you have some way to show adding energy to a system in now way impacts that system, by all means, write a paper.
It's not hard.
The only hard thing is predicted what will happen with increased climate at a specific level. We know what the trends will be.
The basic science is so simply,, you really need to be on some sort of agenda, a tool, or just fucking stupid.
Saying Climate change isn't real is like saying gravity doesn't accelerate all objects at the same rate.
But you stick with just screeching like an idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A whole rant in "response" to a post in which I made no assertions about the validity of AGW. All I said was that it has become a political pet project of the left, like man-hating feminocracy. Just as any criticism of the latter is "rape culture," any criticism of AGW is called "denialism."
I'm personally neutral on AGW, because I trust the scientific process to eventually come up with the truth on Arrhenius' venerable hypothesis.The outcome will be either:
1. AGW will turn out to be nonexistent or (more likely) overhyped as just one cause of climate change among many natural ones. We will get some melting ice here and there and some shifting of weather patterns, but mankind will survive. Since those who politicized the problem insist that only their favorite doomsday scenario is the only valid one, the left will lose all credibility at making scientific pronouncements. Nobody will ever listen to you again. Your heads explode.
OR...
2. AGW will be proven out, and will be as apocalyptic as you claim. We will have to immediately stop using fossil fuel and rebuild the world's baseload power in nuclear, including in Germany. We will also have to geoengineer away existing CO2 by seeding millions of square miles of open ocean with iron to promote algal blooms, which will in dying carry large amounts of carbon with them to abyssal depths. Your heads explode.
Solaris is deliberately a bit of an extreme but the important question it asks is this: "What if aliens were truly alien?". The more different from us something is the more difficult it is likely to be to communicate.
Besides, willaien was discussing how to communicate with truly alien beings and I just supplied two examples from fiction. I really don't get why you jumped in to be so critical of me when they are not even my ideas.
Space is so damned interesting because we don't even know what most of it is, just that the unknown stuff has mass and can't otherwise be observed with what we have now. It's a blank spot on the map that may as well have "here be dragons" on it. For all we know there could be asexual non-carbon based critters out there with intelligence that would just not get a lot of the concepts we see as important. Communicating with such a creature "from the land of make-believe" is unlikely to be trivial. So I gave two examples above -
1/ find a point of commonality and build a bridge (Egan)
2/ a story where the effort to find a point of commonality is still ongoing (Lem).
In Egan's novel, Diaspora, most of the human derived intelligences are quite alien to our viewpoint from fairly early in the novel as well, moreso later when some never had physical form, so a major theme is communication between different mindsets.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap14...
Gleise 832C is another "planet" with a remarkably Earthlike "artist's rendering" of an exoplanet in a very close orbit around a smallish star. Is this a real planet candidate, or another case of "sunspot confusion"?