Slashdot Mirror
Alpha Centauri Turns Out Not To Have a Planet After All. At Least, Not Yet (forbes.com)
StartsWithABang writes: In 2012, astronomers announced that the nearest star system to us, the Alpha Centauri system, possessed at least one exoplanet around it. A periodic signal that recurred just every 3.24 days was consistent with an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting and gravitationally tugging on the second largest member of the star system: Alpha Centauri B. That planet, named Alpha Centauri Bb, turns out not to actually be there. A reanalysis of the data shows that a combination of stellar properties and the times at which the observations were made conspired to produce this spurious signal: a signal that goes away if the data is handled correctly. Accounting for everything correctly reveals something else of interest, a periodic 20-day signal, which may turn out — with better observations — to be Alpha Centauri's first exoplanet after all.
handling data correctly got rid of the 3 day signal, but another 20 day signal showed up. So they measured it wrong? Or did they measure it wrong the second time?
when I read that summary is: How do we know that *this* time the data was handled correctly?
I am sure that the original researchers thought they were handling the data correctly too....
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
We'll finally be able to go our local planning department to see if there's any planning charts or demolition orders for our solar system.
Or at least, see if there's any small furry creatures living there.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the planet isn't there because the Vogons had erroneously demolished it after having mistaken it for Earth?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Either that, or the Transcendence ending was really, really hardcore.
It has (maybe) a planet around it, not an exoplanet.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Is that a clever reference I'm missing, or are you just nutty?
Alpha Centauri B is just trying planets on, looking for one that doesn't make her look fat.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Sounds like a nutty trying to add their own spin to "The Wages of sin is death" from Romans 6:23. How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question, as is how "death" = "everlasting torment in the mouth of the beast" too.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
BB-8 @ Alpha Centauri
Crap. I hope I can get a refund on this ticket I bought.
Aw shit.
How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question
That's easy: Christians hate science and think you're thumbing your nose at God if you pursue studies like this, instead of going to church and giving as much of your money as possible so that they can build athletic centers and buy private jets for their pastors.
Wow, I think that may be one of the worst headlines I've seen on Slashdot, and that's saying something. "Not yet" does not mean "we're not sure yet." And "turns out not to have a planet" does not mean "we don't know if it does, but our earlier assumption turns out to be wrong."
From the headline, I assumed that they'd managed to establish that Alpha C. actually did not have a planet, but did have coalescing clouds that would soon (in astronomical terms) become one. That would be an extremely cool discovery! Unfortunately, neither of those things appears to be true (or if it is, we haven't established it).
How about "Reports of Alpha Centauri's Planet Proven to be Premature"? It's even got some nice alliterism to it. And, possibly more importantly, it's got some relationship to the facts (at least as presented in TFS).
Christians hate science
Wow, that's not flamebait at all, edgelord. Go sharpen your katana and straighten your fedora.
Mexicans are rapists.
The crew of the Jupiter II is really lost in space now!
CAP === 'Danger Will Robinson!'
Except Catholics created the first universities, and have always supported science. Perhaps you should read up on history a bit more before bashing a whole religion (even if the religion is Islam).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
When the other christians publicly accept those who do so as christian, then those who act that way ARE christian.
Your point, that some christians don't accept them as christian, is quite weak when all the recognized mouthpieces of the religion accept them as christian.
Now, personally, speaking as a non-christian gnostic, I don't consider that were I a christian I would accept many of the spokespeople chosen by the religion as valid christians. But historically, they're closer to christians as defined by the council of Nicea than the average. E.g., few of them support burning people alive.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You know, so many problems with science could be solved if peer review was mandatory precondition prior to blabbing to the press.
Investing in real-estate wiped mine also
Table-ized A.I.
Except that Catholics aren't real Christians, according to all the evangelicals in America.
They also prosecuted Galileo for supporting heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. How is that "always supporting science"? From Wikipedia: "In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be 'foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.'" Doesn't sound very scientific to me. He ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest and his scientific opinions being silenced.
Maybe **you** should read up on history before defending a religion.
BTW - If you think the Christian religion is all about money, private jets and big pretty buildings, you are woefully ignorant of the truth. In my view, these things are about as far from the Christian ethic and belief as you can get.
Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy. Countless churches are like this, especially the ever-more-popular megachurches, and millions of Christians attend these churches and give money to these preachers.
handling data correctly got rid of the 3 day signal, but another 20 day signal showed up. So they measured it wrong? Or did they measure it wrong the second time?
The first signal was from the still fresh debris of a destroyed planet while it was dispersing. The new signal they've found is from the Deathstar that destroyed it.
The good news is that the Rebel Base is no longer near us so we may be spared. Unless...
Galileo was asked to write a paper giving the evidence for both viewpoints, he instead decided to insult the pope by making a fool use his words in the paper instead. That is hardly not supporting science, it is trying to get Galileo to use the scientific method and give evidence to support his claim instead of just saying it is right.
Perhaps it would be better if you read the whole story before making the church out to be anti science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[8] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[8] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[8][9] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[8] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[10][11] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[12][13]
The church asked him to support his position with observation and facts, he decided instead to attack the pope, who was his supporter and friend, which caused him to remove his support and instead the morons in the inquisition were able to bring their case against him. The church attempted to be reasonable with him, and asked him to follow the scientific method of providing evidence for your claims, and instead he used insults against the very same people who were reasonable to him.
As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think, they broke off from the protestants, who broke off from Catholicism because of a womanizer king, they are hardly the original authority that the Roman Catholic Church can claim through succession.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
All I can say about that is that people who truely follow Jesus should be loving and accepting, not pricks telling others how to live their lives. My Ex's family was much like the former, they kicked their daughter out of their house when she got pregnant and removed all support from her. This is now something Jesus would have advocated, he after all forgave everyone for their sins, never judging.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think
Considering they're a huge portion of the American populace, and they vote, I'd say that all Americans should care what they think. We could very well get an evangelical President later this year. We just suffered through 8 years of an evangelical President from 2001-2008.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are not the arbiter of who qualifies as "Christian". There are over a billion people claiming to be Christian in this world, and your definition is the epitome of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians are people who claim to be Christian, and who practice the religion, regardless of how different it may be from your personal ideal or your interpretation of its roots.
Go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.
What Jesus may or may not have advocated is completely irrelevant to the Christian religion. The religion is defined by its adherents, and their actions. Your ex's family is a good example of how typical Christians are these days (at least in America, things could be different elsewhere).
Alpha Centaurs, 2016: j/k