PDA

View Full Version : " I read the news today, Oh boy.."



astromark
2012-Jan-12, 05:07 AM
As if just to heighten the media release a news embargo was placed on and lifted for today..

Papers published in 'Nature' magazine today outline the 'New' position

regarding the descoveries of exo solar planets. Thats not a quote..

That it is noted that most stars have been found to have planets..

Disqualified are the doubles or most of them, and it still suggests millions of planets in every galaxy..

In this Milky Way alone as many as 100,000 in the green zone 'Goldilocks' planets..

and yes, I except thats being optimistic. ,but unfortunately it all means so very little..

Water it would seem is rare.. and life... Well who knows ?

but I will say, it's lifted the 'probable' to a 'most likely'..

Move that doomsday needle back again please.. I can make a connection.

and just for fun.. I see that 2012 might be the beginning not the end..

Cobra1597
2012-Jan-12, 07:40 AM
Water it would seem is rare.. and life... Well who knows ?

but I will say, it's lifted the 'probable' to a 'most likely'..

Move that doomsday needle back again please.. I can make a connection.

and just for fun.. I see that 2012 might be the beginning not the end..
Water is not rare, not within our solar system and not within the universe (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.25/telescope.html).
The 2012 "doomsday" stuff isn't real, so this year is certainly not the end of anything, announcement or not. I can't tell what you think it is the "beginning" of, after all, our great success at planet hunting didn't start in 2012.

I can't speak to the rest of your opening post as I have not read the Nature article in question.

astromark
2012-Jan-12, 10:52 AM
It is a news item across the networks here.. I thought its a global community.

The doomsday clock mentioned is not related to the 2012 rubbish.. that is a joke... a bad one.

Its about climate change and environmental stuff..edging us closer to inhalation.

That was from the news also..

and water as a liquid is not found so easy.. Gas and solid more so.

The connection was simply that if the probability of planets habitable increases.

The chance of incredible advancements into space and survival increases..

and I mentioned a beginning ie; 'of a great new era of discovery.. hope.. never mind......

skep155
2012-Jan-12, 01:05 PM
Its about climate change and environmental stuff..edging us closer to inhalation.
..

No for the love of god, not inhalation, anything but inhalation :eek:

schlaugh
2012-Jan-12, 02:20 PM
I never inhaled.

antoniseb
2012-Jan-12, 03:20 PM
...edging us closer to inhalation....

I'm guessing he meant "annihilation", or perhaps "final inhalation". There is no need to mock any one.

astromark
2012-Jan-13, 08:27 PM
Thankyou 'Antonseb.' Yes it was a gaph.. and thank you for your input. The fault is of course not mine... :(

I can blame the spell check program for not having the foggiest idea what I was talking about.. so I missed it..

I started this thread for the want of a discussion regarding items of interest to a astronomy related subject mater..

My ability to make a mistake is obvious and real. To the small minded that make mock.. Pathetic., and sad.

. . . To my OP... So, the media are involved and report a release of a new realisation.. A 'new' fact.

The number of Planets within this Galaxy is far greater than had previously been thought.

That every star has a planet, companion or several is a real bit of news that I thought might be interesting to discuss..

Thus I express disappointment at the nit pick..

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-13, 11:21 PM
Mark,

Did you quote that figure of 100,000 planets accurately?
Just wildly guessing, I'd guess 100,000,000.

I'm sure they'll have to count them all, even if they're
rather small.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

astromark
2012-Jan-14, 04:59 AM
Mark,

Did you quote that figure of 100,000 planets accurately?
Just wildly guessing, I'd guess 100,000,000.

I'm sure they'll have to count them all, even if they're
rather small.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

"Enough to fill the Albert hall..." Yes I have no idea as to 100,000 or The larger 100,000,000 and regardless.

The intention is to understand. More planets than stars..., and was that a deliberate 'Beatles' quote. from

'I'm fixing a hole'... you will know it.

'Where the rain gets in and stops my mind from wandering...' It didn't work...

How many stars in the Milky Way ? and the number of planets is now thought to be more than double that..

Which according to the rather muffled and ill advised (me) might suggest

the chances of life ever being found. Just went up.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-14, 05:39 AM
Oh. Double the number of stars, eh? So typically more than
two planets in the goldilocks zone per star that has planets?
The number of stars in the Milky Way is generally estimated
at 300-400 billion.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

schlaugh
2012-Jan-14, 03:42 PM
IIRC (and Fraser posted on this) (http://www.universetoday.com/92531/microlensing-study-says-every-star-in-the-milky-way-has-planets/)a new microlensing estimate says there are at least as many planets as there are stars in the Milky Way.


“We have searched for evidence for exoplanets in six years of microlensing observations,” said lead author Arnaud Cassan from the Institut de Astrophysique in Paris. “Remarkably, these data show that planets are more common than stars in our galaxy. We also found that lighter planets, such as super-Earths or cool Neptunes, must be more common than heavier ones.”

And...


“But now it seems that there are literally billions of planets with masses similar to Earth orbiting stars in the Milky Way.”

Now, how many are in orbital bands that would support liquid water? And which ones can support yellow submarines? :)

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-14, 07:28 PM
Oh, wait. That figure didn't necessarily refer to the number of
planets in the goldilocks zone, but to the number of Earth-sized
planets? Any time in the last fifty years, I would have told you
that the total number of planets in the Milky Way is WAY more
than twice the number of stars, even if less than half of all stars
have any planets. And I'd have guessed that aside from being
spaced somewhat apart from one another, their distribution in
their respective solar systems would be completely random.
And that the number of planets in a particular size range in a
solar system is inversely proportional to the size.

I'm not sure the latest observations improve on those guesses.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

astromark
2012-Jan-15, 10:49 AM
The difference 'Jeff' is that many of us thought that was the case..

Well now the weight of the scientific community has confirmed it as true..

I have read the paper and am happy to report it is as we might have thought..

Now I want some clarification as to,.. Is this the 'new' mainstream view ?