Slashdot Mirror


Earth's 'Bigger, Older Cousin' Maybe Doesn't Even Exist (npr.org)

Ever since astronomers started to detect planets beyond our solar system, they've been trying to find another world just like Earth. And few years ago, they announced that they'd found a planet that was the closest match yet -- Kepler-452b. Trouble is, some astronomers now say it's not possible to know for sure that this planet actually exists. From a report: "There's new information that we can now quantify which tells us something that we didn't know before," says Fergal Mullally, who used to be an astronomer on the science team for NASA's Kepler Space Telescope. In 2015, NASA declared that Kepler-452b was the first near-Earth-sized planet orbiting in the "habitable" zone around a star very similar to our sun. The space agency called it Earth's "bigger, older cousin," and scientists were so enthusiastic that one began quoting poetry at a news conference. The original science wasn't shoddy, Mullally says. It's just that, since then, researchers have learned more about the telescope's imperfections.

8 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. There is no Planet B by theCat · · Score: 2

    All this excitement, I know what you're thinking, and you apes need to start taking better care of what is likely the only planet in the entire universe capable of supporting life.

    Ref; Fermi's Paradox.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:There is no Planet B by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Well, that's one explanation of Fermi's Paradox. But I think the more likely ones are that star travel is inherently immensely dangerous, or that technological civilizations tend to destroy themselves.

      You explanation is actually the more hopeful one, but unless a double planet (i.e. a moon based tidal system) is necessary to life, it seems a rather unlikely one.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re: There is no Planet B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well the universe is infinite or so they say but how the fuck do they know

      Actually science indicates the universe is not infinite, but is finite in both time and direction.

      How do we know? Look up at the sky during the night. See how it isn't blinding you with its brightness? That is how we know.

      If the universe was infinite in space, every possible point you could look at in the sky would intersect a star shining light at us.
      If the universe was infinite in time, the light from all of those stars would have had infinite time to reach us, and would have by now.

      If the universe was infinite in time and space, the night sky couldn't possibly be dark, it would be blinding, and would be all of the time.
      You wouldn't even be able to see the fact our Sun is there, as it would be equally bright as any other point in the sky.

      This is observationally not true. Thus, the universe can't be infinite in time.

      So why can't the universe be infinite in just space/direction and finite in time?

      To be finite in time means the universe had a starting time and will have an ending time.
      We observe other stars moving away from us in all directions as time moves forward.
      This logically can only mean as you go back in time those stars were closer.

      The only way the universe can both be infinite in size and also have a starting time, would be for the universe to have simply appeared existing as it is at that start time.
      This means the universe wouldn't be changing, it wouldn't have objects in it moving all away from us (or all towards us either for that matter)

      Light travels at a fixed speed, and requires time to do that traveling. The fact light from a source can reach us today where it wasn't reaching us before is more evidence the universe isn't infinite in time.
      The fact we can also see light from very distant objects from us today that are moving away from us, and then "disappear" as the object moves to a point that the light coming from it hasn't (and likely never will) have time to reach us, is evidence the universe isn't infinite in space either.

      It can't be infinite in both time and space, and it can't be infinite in time but finite in space, and it can't be finite in time and infinite in space.
      Process of elimination leaves the one option left: It can only be both finite in time and finite in space.

      So that's how they know. An infinite universe couldn't possibly in any way look anything resembling how our universe actually looks.

    3. Re: There is no Planet B by John+Da'+Baddest · · Score: 2

      Not strictly true, if cosmic inflation happens / heppened at a speed great than light - a popular hypothesis these days. Then the reason why the night sky isn't saturated with light is, most of the bright points are too far away to reach us, or are inflating away from us faster than their legs of light can run.

  2. Science is an error-correction process by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fundamental thing that everyone should understand about science -- and most people don't -- is that science is nothing more and nothing less than an error correction process.

    Everything we know is wrong, at least in some way and in some degree. Science is the process by which we identify errors and fix them, but science is itself an error-prone process and all scientific results are erroneous, at least in some way and in some degree. The fact that errors are discovered is not evidence that science doesn't work, it's evidence that science does work, that it identifies and corrects humanity's errors -- including those generated by previous science.

    What makes science works is that although we always introduce new errors in our understanding when we correct old errors in our understanding, the new errors are nearly always smaller. We approach the truth iteratively and asymptotically, getting ever closer but never arriving.

    And if anyone ever tells you that science is pointless because scientists "keep changing their minds", you need only point at the wealth, comfort and plenty in which we live, as compared to the poverty, hardship and scarcity in which our ancestors lived, just a few generations ago. The fact that science has not yet achieved perfection doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just means it's not yet done (and it will *never* be done; there will always be more errors to correct).

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Science is an error-correction process by swillden · · Score: 2

      Utter nonsense. There are always errors in scientific work. In fact, much of the detail work in science is exactly identifying and controlling for errors... and it is not always done perfectly. Also, the value of peer review and replication is to provide opportunities to identify and correct errors in the original work. If it were possible to do perfect work, that wouldn't be necessary.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Science is an error-correction process by swillden · · Score: 2

      Well reasoned.

      I suggest the mechanism by which we (in the West, at least) enjoy the wealth, comfort and plenty in which we live, as compared to the poverty, hardship and scarcity in which our ancestors lived, is not because of science per se but because of easy access to fossil fuels.

      Bah. Science gave us a lot of progress before we began using fossil fuels, and is providing alternative energy sources, as well as methods to be more efficient, for after we stop using them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Science is an error-correction process by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      The alternative is to not admit to any errors, when there are. Which is not scientific at all.

      Your position is self-contradictory.

      Science works because it admits errors and works to identify and fix them. Even trying to remove errors before proceeding is still having to admit errors and identifying them. You can't wait for perfect knowledge before working on the science, because the science wouldn't exist at all.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.