Slashdot Mirror
Kepler Confirms 100+ New Exoplanets (phys.org)
schwit1 writes: Astronomers have confirmed another 100 of Kepler's more than 3,000 candidate exoplanets. Phys.org reports: "One of the most interesting set of planets discovered in this study is a system of four potentially rocky planets, between 20 and 50 percent larger than Earth, orbiting a star less than half the size and with less light output than the Sun. Their orbital periods range from five-and-a-half to 24 days, and two of them may experience radiation levels from their star comparable to those on Earth. Despite their tight orbits -- closer than Mercury's orbit around the sun -- the possibility that life could arise on a planet around such a star cannot be ruled out, according to Crossfield." Because the host star as well as many of these other confirmed exoplanets are red dwarf stars, the possibility of life is reduced because the star and its system is likely to have a less rich mix of elements compared to our yellow G-type Sun. In May, Kepler added a record 1,284 confirmed planets, nine of which orbit in their sun's habitable zone.
Its like an infinite universe has infinite stuff in it!
Where's the reference for this? Red dwarf stars are simply very-low-mass stars, there's no reason to think that their chemical makeup is different. A first generation of red dwarf stars without heavy elements should theoretically exist, but none have been observed so they must be very rare.
We should be doing more with the fact we have the life market cornered.
two of them may experience radiation levels from their star comparable to those on Earth
The summary title contradicts the first sentence of the summary. And the sentence is correct, not the summary. Kepler doesn't confirm exoplanets, kepler gives a list of candidates. Its the opposite job. The confirmation is done on earth.
Kepler replaces Netcraft!
Doesn't that depend on the history of the parent stars that came before them? Perhaps they are less likely to have lots of elements, but since there are more red dwarfs, the total quantity coming from a "rich" parent(s) should be higher. But perhaps they are comparing per given star system.
Another alleged problem with red dwarf systems is that planets are more likely to be tidally locked, with the same face pointing to its sun all year. This may result in fewer habitable areas, unless the planet is lucky enough to have a thick, windy atmosphere.
Table-ized A.I.
We've found the Puppeteer homeworlds !
Oh shiiit .....
Larry Niven fans will understand why this is a problem ....
You're confused. They simply agreed to stop calling Pluto a planet because they redefined it as a dwarf planet. They were never wrong about it - it's real, it's there.
Not that much different you fucking moron.
Already well-known from playing MoO for years.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
Neat, but I think in order to accurately gauge how awesome this is, we need to also know how many potential planets have been dismissed as not actually being planets.
Now we just need to figure out how to get there (or anywhere but here).
Pluto would have been a huge lesson in how wrong any guesses on what a planet may or may not be would turn out - need I remind just how wrong almost every astronomer was about Pluto? And thats a metric fuckton easier to "observe" than a suspected exoplanet.
Hell, I seriously doubt that some of these "planets" will even be there if we ever managed somehow to journey to them.
Which is why 'exoplanet' is defined differently from 'planet'.
Also since we apparently didn't learn the same lesson when Ceries got reclassified to "asteroid", I'm not sure why anyone expected us to learn it from Pluto and Ceries getting reclassified to "dwarf planet".