Kepler Confirms Exoplanet Inside Star's Habitable Zone 257
astroengine writes "Plenty of 'candidate' exoplanets exist, but for the first time, Kepler has confirmed the existence of an exoplanet orbiting its Sun-like star right in the middle of its 'habitable zone.' Kepler-22b is 2.4 times the radius of Earth and orbits its star every 290 days. 'This is a major milestone on the road to finding Earth's twin,' said Douglas Hudgins, Kepler program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. 'Kepler's results continue to demonstrate the importance of NASA's science missions, which aim to answer some of the biggest questions about our place in the universe.'"
Silly artist's conceptions. (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists don't yet know if Kepler-22b has a predominantly rocky, gaseous or liquid composition, but its discovery is a step closer to finding Earth-like planets.
Sure they do! Just look at the picture right next to the article [nasa.gov]! Man, who gets paid to Photoshop these spheres in front of bits of nebulae all day? That must be an interesting job.
Re:Silly artist's conceptions. (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't they all reproductions from the covers of Analog?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Silly artist's conceptions. (Score:5, Funny)
NASA engineer: "It's 600 light-years away. How the @#$% should I know!"
Artist: "Picking a planet from an old Star Trek episode at random then."
NASA engineer: "Ok. But no funny stuff. Save the stars, rainbows, and unicorns for your acid trips."
Artist: "Nebulous clouds in the background- check."
Re: (Score:2)
Back when Voyager was flying by Jupiter and Saturn, it was Jim Blinn. As in the Blinn shader.
Re: (Score:2)
600 light years... (Score:2, Interesting)
Mr. Sulu, set a course for Kepler 22b, warp 3, I'll be in my quarters looking over the latest Toupees Monthly.
Someone better start working on this faster than light drive. Of course, should we get there we'll probably find it a very tough planet to stand erect on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> If it's the same density then 2.4x radius would be 14x the mass.
And have about 2.4x the surface gravity. Humans could survive that.
Re:600 light years... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a feeling that they couldn't for very long. It's one thing to endure high G stress for a few minutes to get accelerate to high velocities, but for long periods of time? I can well imagine that being subject to 2.4g for days or weeks would probably lead to all sorts of nasty physiological effects. I'll wager your heart would be heavily stressed, and there would be a tendency for blood to pool.
Re: (Score:2)
I weigh about 150 pounds, I see people who weigh more than twice as much as me every day, and they seem to be able to walk ok (although the fatsos my age are using canes and walkers because their knees are shot). I would imagine that you would simply get used to it after a while, and would bet that you would wind up looking like a weightlifter if you lived there very long.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are not really equatable situations. We're talking about long-term exposure to a level of gravity nearly two and a half times what every system in our body has evolved to.
Re:600 light years... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but that's not a very happy version of "survive". At constant 2.4G, you'll have major circulatory, digestive, and bone strength issues. On the other hand, after a few hundred generations, we'd have dwarves that would look right at home in a Tolkien story. Probably be incredibly strong and durable, too. Homo Sapiens Khazad.
Re:600 light years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. If it's the same density then 2.4x radius would be 14x the mass. I'm trying to picture a planet with intelligent pancake beings.
Or they'd have a stronger physiology. Or live in the water. Or perhaps a thousand other options we haven't thought of.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. If it's the same density then 2.4x radius would be 14x the mass. I'm trying to picture a planet with intelligent pancake beings.
Or they'd have a stronger physiology. Or live in the water. Or perhaps a thousand other options we haven't thought of.
Like the difference in atmospheric pressure - assuming, for the fun of it, a similar composition to Earth's atmosphere, N, O, Ar, CO2 and so on. Takes smaller amount of breathing as a lungful of air presents more O2 than Earth's at sea level. Of course, hoofing around, feeling more weight on your legs could tend to favor smaller humans, with subsequently less mass. Imagine your heart trying to get that blood to your brain when you are 6'2".
Re: (Score:2)
But still constrained by the Periodic Table of Elements and the properties of matter. Unless you think it's different out there?
Well, obviously, for such a nearby region.
But new data [sciencedaily.com] suggests Stanislaw Lem might have been on to something. ("A Perfect Vacuum", "The New Cosmogony" [google.com])
Re:600 light years... (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed. If it's the same density then 2.4x radius would be 14x the mass. I'm trying to picture a planet with intelligent pancake beings.
Hal Clement did a nice job in Mission of Gravity [wikipedia.org]. The planet Mesklin has 3 g at the equator and 700 g at the poles. Nice read. Clement knows his physics, so it is quite interesting on that level as well.
Re: (Score:3)
If the planet is the same density as our planet, then the surface gravity should work out to 2.4 times the surface gravity of Earth, except that it actually probably wouldn't. Consider that the effects of gravity fall off with distance following the inverse square law. So, if you're standing on the surface of this alien planet, a gigaton of matter at its core is going to be 2.4 times as far away than a gigaton of matter at Earth's core is from someone at the surface of Earth. So, that gigaton of matter woul
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. I think I may have been making some erroneous assumptions about this. I did some quick thought experiments about adding layers of extremely light material and failed to realize that it would significantly change the average density of the planet. There are, of course, certain assumptions you have to make about the distribution of the spherically-symmetrical body for what you say to work, but those assumptions are, of course, completely safe ones (in fact, for them not to hold would be miraculous) in an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It says that this planet's radius is approximately 2.4 the radius of the Earth, but it doesn't say anything about its mass or density. How much you'd weigh depends on the mass of the planet in addition to its size.
Earth size and not rocky means it's going to be largely composed of frozen gas. Not the ideal place to set up shopt after a 600 ly journey, but also not likely to be in the Goldilocks zone, which Kepler 22b is supposed to be in. Question is, does it have water vapor in the atmosphere? When the plant passes in front of a star they can usually get a pretty good spectrum to tell them what's there. Have to wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
It says that this planet's radius is approximately 2.4 the radius of the Earth, but it doesn't say anything about its mass or density. How much you'd weigh depends on the mass of the planet in addition to its size.
Earth size and not rocky means it's going to be largely composed of frozen gas.
Frozen gas and liquid water? The very first phrase of TFA:
NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first planet in the "habitable zone," the region where liquid water could exist on a planet’s surface
More info about the star? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More info about the star? (Score:5, Informative)
I've looked a bit this morning and can't find anymore info about the star itself. What its apparent magnitude it? What constellation its in? Etc.
All I can figure out is its referred to as Kepler 22 which only makes sense in relation to the program. But I'd love to be able to try and see the star through a telescope.
Go to the exoplanet encyclopedia website instead of a place that headlines "Psychics and Missing Babies -- Dissecting the Blame Game" and "Top Tips from 2011 to Help Earth, Economy: Photos"
http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-22 [exoplanet.eu]
Son of a B, e.eu has got nothing. Simbad's got nothing. There is nothing at all other than it exists and there are press releases all over along with fluffy talk about the release. But even the "official record" has nothing. Give it time and it'll get populated. Heck by the time you read this, e.eu might have data.
This is what Kepler-16 looks like on simbad, someday we'll have this level of data for -22
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Kepler-16 [u-strasbg.fr]
I donno what a simbad is, a friend of mine went around calling it "sinbad" like the sailor for a while. Which is probably a cooler name, at least in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I donno what a simbad is, a friend of mine went around calling it "sinbad" like the sailor for a while. Which is probably a cooler name, at least in the US.
According to the documentation for the app that the web interface talks with:
SIMBAD is the acronym for:
Set of
I dentifications,
M easurements and
B ibliography for
A stronomical
D ata
Re:More info about the star? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no expert on this but I've got an awesome app on my iPhone called Exoplanet. It's always got new planets like this one before I even read about them.
The host star is KIC10593626
It's mass is 0.97 solar masses
It's radius is 0.98 solar radii
It's 587.1ly away
Stellar Metallicity is 0.000[Fe/H]
Spectral type is G5
Magnitude (V) 0.000
Right ascension is 19h 17m 70s
Declination is +47* 52' 90"
Hope that helps you, And please tell me if you think this would be visible through a telescope. There's a dark sky preserve near here with a 20" telescope that I've been meaning to visit
Re:More info about the star? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries. BBC says "Astronomers confirm 'Earth twin'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655 [bbc.co.uk]
Let's get going.
Does it support (our kind of) animal life? (Score:2)
So, when will we be able to get a spectrographic reading on its atmosphere to see if there is free oxygen there? If an amateur using a 10" scope can see the dust around another star, is there any way the very best techniques using twin 10 meter scopes with' anti-aberration lasers can block out enough of the stars light to see just the planet's atmosphere?"
Re: (Score:2)
So, when will we be able to get a spectrographic reading on its atmosphere to see if there is free oxygen there? If an amateur using a 10" scope can see the dust around another star, is there any way the very best techniques using twin 10 meter scopes with' anti-aberration lasers can block out enough of the stars light to see just the planet's atmosphere?"
No. Not even close. Yet.
better space probes have been proposed (Score:2)
habitable maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:habitable maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Did you have to Rule 34 the thread already?
Re: (Score:2)
Had to happen, it's a Rule!
centipeds? in my vagina? (Score:2)
really, really, really think long and hard before GIS'ing that one, mate. I'm not kidding.
Re:habitable maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If it had a density equal to that of Earth's, it'd have a surface gravity only 1/3 higher than Earth's, by my calculations
Something is wrong with you calculation.
Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so they've located Amazonia [theinfosphere.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Habitable Planets (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of you may already be aware of this, but it is likely that going forward we will find these "goldilocks" planets with more regularity. Kepler luanched in 2009 with first observations in Jan 2010 and discovers planets using the transit method. Basically, a planet blocks part of its home star's light, and sensitive instruments can pick up on this difference in light. Two transits create a pattern to follow up on, the third transit is considered confirmation of the existence of a plant. So almost 3 earth years of observations means finally being able to detect planets with year long orbits (slight error in logic, depending on when you catch the planet in the act...)
So we are getting to the point where the data should start pouring in on planets more similar to our own. In another 12 months, I would expect to see hundreds if not thousands of planets similar to our own. That is when I think things get interesting. Say we find only 100 "habitable" planets... follow-up observations should give us an idea about the existence or nonexistence of life. Is it common? Is it uncommon? Are we just one of millions of life bearing planets? Are we an outlier? The mind boggles at what we will learn.
This is an interesting time to be alive :)
Re: (Score:2)
And... how come we haven't heard from any other civilizations on any of those planets?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're hundreds of light years away and we've only been communicative for less than a century. Given the inverse square law, communication between systems will probably need to be very intentionally focused with high gain antennae. In order for a message to have been sent to us that we can pick up, someone else would have had to see our planet in the habitable zone, see the oxygen levels in the atmosphere and attempt contact. They may have done so 50 times already, and would have gotten nothing back-- beca
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if their civilization is sufficiently advanced they already know we are stupid and boring. When is the last time you sat down and introduced yourself to a rat?
Re: (Score:2)
When is the last time you sat down and introduced yourself to a rat?
There was this one town hall meeting...
Re:Habitable Planets (Score:5, Funny)
And... how come we haven't heard from any other civilizations on any of those planets?
They received a bunch of broadcasts containing our political debates, and concluded that there is no intelligent life on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll buy that.
Re: (Score:2)
They received a bunch of broadcasts containing our political debates, and
... their preemptive strike in en-route.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they're just not looking in the right place. [slashdot.org]
Re:Habitable Planets (Score:4, Informative)
Say we find only 100 "habitable" planets...
Considering how very small the patch of sky Kepler is watching actually is, if we find 100 "habitable" planets in it, and then extrapolate that across the rest of the sky, the number of potential habitable planets would be huge. Of course, right now there are only around 54 or so habitable zone candidates, out of 1000 "planet" candidates, and all of them are still waiting for confirmation. Still, if even half of those are valid, then that indicates a massive number of qualifying planets in the galaxy.
For the interested, here's a link to a NASA graphic of Kepler's search zone:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/multimedia/images/kepler-target-in-the-milkyway.html [nasa.gov]
It's much better than that! (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that Kepler looks at stars using the "transit" method. Basically it stares at the little point of light for a looooong time, never blinking and waits to see if the light drops just a teeny bit due to something passing in front of it. How long? Well since it has to calculate the orbital period, it must watch at bare minimum for at least 1 year to see 2 passes (assuming its looking for a planet in an earthlike orbit around a sun-like star). Then, in order to make sure that it isn't some OTHER planet passing in front of the star, or an object in our solar system, or "sun spots" on the star, or maybe space butterflies getting in the way, the scientists must wait for a THIRD confirming pass (at the predicted time of course with the same drop in intensity) to be sure the observation is "real".
I think these guys have found the first "earth-sized" object that has made three confirmed passes. Note that the period is a bit less than a year so they've had enough time to get three observations in the three years. Soon, they'll be announcing confirming "third passes" on more and more planets that have periods in roughly the one-year window that indicates it's in the habitable zone around a sun-like star.
There are two things to note here: First, Kepler can only see planets that pass between it and the target star, that is the planet's orbit must be almost exactly edge on for us to see it. How close to edge on must it be? Well for example; the earth's orbit is a circle (very) roughly 100 million miles from the sun and the sun is roughly 1 million miles across. So, if the orbit was tilted more than 1/100 or 1%, from some distant observer, they wouldn't see it cross in front. (The size of the earth is inconsequential in this calculation because it is so small in relation to the sun). Similarly, for the kind of planets Kepler is looking at circling around sun-like stars, we are only seeing BY PURE CHANCE 1% of them. So if we see 100 planets circling these stars in their habitable zone; that means there are really 10,000 of them! So for a sample size of 150,000 stars, that means that one out of every 15 sunlike stars has planet in it's habitable zone! Amazing, especially when you consider our galaxy to have perhaps 10 BILLION sunlike stars!
Secondly, Kepler was launched before astronomers "discovered" that the best place to find "habitable" planets wasn't around sunlike stars but around smaller cooler stars. For various reasons, the habitable zone (where water can be a liquid) is proportionately larger in these "mini" solar systems (everything is smaller, like the orbits). They realized that even if a planet was tidally "locked" so that one face was always facing the sun, the atmosphere would redistribute the heat enough so the planet would be "habitable" (must sure be windy though). Another advantage is that these smaller stars live much longer than our sun giving life longer to come to well... life! Finally these smaller stars are much more numerous than sunlike stars. Anyway, I think Kepler was focusing mainly on sunlike stars and not these smaller, more numerous and perhaps easier to detect (because the orbits are smaller you don't have to wait as long for three passes) targets. Maybe Kepler II will go after them!
Just so that you know, Kepler is likely (has already?) been giving tons of other interesting data. I understand that its sensors are sensitive (and stable enough!) so as to detect possible sunspots in these stars. Also by paying close attention to the timing of the transits, they can determine whether other planets are gravitationally "tugging" at the transiting planet and perturbing its orbit (that's how Neptune was discovered). Finally, the resolution of the 'light curve" of the transit may be sharp enough to reveal any large moons in orbit around the transiting planet. So even if the planet in the habitable zone is too large to support life as we know it, it may have a right sized moon! (think "Pandora").
Oh the irony... (Score:4, Funny)
...to spend a ton of time, effort, and research to find Earths twin, only to find the race of carbon-based life forms living there has completely fucked up the entire planet by abusing its natural resources.
"Well shit. NASA, you're not gonna believe this...we found alien life alright...and they're as fucked up as we are."
Re: (Score:2)
Haha an ending worthy of a Twilight Zone episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh the irony... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh the irony to spend a ton of time, effort, and research to find Earths twin, only to find the race of carbon-based life forms living there has completely fucked up the entire planet by abusing its natural resources.
That's pretty much how the inhabitants of the alien planet our going to feel when they discover us. Or maybe they already have, but are smart enough to stay away.
I wonder if THEY have found us? (Score:2, Interesting)
Who'll get FTL drive first ...
Re:I wonder if THEY have found us? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For all we know they've already been here before we even crawled out of the muck. Remember, "our" timeline in history is a speck of sand in miles and miles and miles of distance. By the time we get to their planet, hundreds of civilizations could have existed and had been wiped out already. Makes it kind of depressing, really.
"...right in the middle of its 'habitable zone'... (Score:2)
Looks like the inner edge to me. With that much mass I suspect that it is Venusian (or maybe a boiling water planet).
Amusing discussion with my boss (Score:3)
We went back and forth for about 10 minutes with him trying to explain his point... the entire time I bit my toungue so that I wouldn't bring up the fact that he's a Catholic which is entirely based on faith. There's no proof of God existing yet billions of people (over multiple religions) believe there is.
He's normally a level headed guy and never pulls the religion card out, which is why I didn't either. But how he misinterpreted the article to mean scientists confirm there's a planet out there with liquid water really frustrated me.
I've got a bad case of the Mondays
Does it have a magnetic field? (Score:2)
Is there any way we can see this? This is what protects us from becoming flesh flavored Hot Pockets(tm).
Re:What do we do now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do we do now? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bemoan our lack of FTL transit and paw desperately at the sky, while our sad little mudball continues to shout itself to pieces over meaningless displays of tribalistic self-importance, treats the future as its greatest enemy, and continues to believe that such is the best course of action.
You know the difference between a pessimist and an optimist?
Pessimists suck :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Religiosity is down, but conversion to crazy fringe factions is up.
You contradict yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do we do now? Shoot radio broadcasts in that direction?
Yeah, we could do that.
Start building a probe?
No, it would take literally millions of years for a probe to get there using current technology. Better bone up on R&D and try to invent fusion rockets or warp drive first.
Re:This just in... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But surely everyone can accept that all planets have an evil twin?
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Funny)
I really hope we find the Earth evil twin. Surely it will be a world swamped by corruption, hunger, war and incompetence.
Oh wait....
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Funny)
And wearing a goatee.
Re:Take that... (Score:4, Insightful)
So do I, it would be a real bummer to find the Good Twin(tm) out there.
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Insightful)
When we land there and find that there is indeed such a planet, that's when we say: "Take that oh deniers of the science. It works bitches,"
If you're trying to show that science works, stick with examples where science has made seemingly outlandish predictions that later turned out to be true. Like the relativistic effects that need to be dealt with for GPS to work. Or go with the daily grind of science that is pumping out useful technologies in the form of airplanes, computers, plastics, and medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
a planet 600 light years away that stands a good chance of having liquid water.
When we land there
ROFL. Yeah, when we land there. It's ONLY 600 light years after all.
I understand your skepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
ROFL. Yeah, when we land there. It's ONLY 600 light years after all.
I get it, I really do. We've only barely been to our own moon. We can't even get to mars. If we said we were going to send a probe you'd have every right to laugh, let alone a manned mission.
But hear me out first.
Mankind has only been engaged in industry for a couple of hundred years. And that was enough to get us to the moon. And humanity has no signs of ending anytime soon. What will we be capable of in another thousand years? Ten thousand? A million? Because if we don't do anything stupid we have that time. Our sun has a few billion years left in it.
It's important to look for extrasolar planets. It is important to see if they can maintain human life.
Reason being, that's the first step. We won't ever try to leave this solar system if we have no expectations to be able to survive out there. Now we are finding out that there are planets out there that might be able to support us. Now we have a reason to want to try to reach them. Yes, 600 light years is an uncrossable barrier to us. Today. But if you told the Wright brothers that we'd be walking on the moon in 70 years they would have told you you're nuts. They wouldn't have believed it. Another uncrossable barrier. To them. Not to us.
Finding these planets is exciting. It says that there is a reason to try to go. It kindles a desire to go see them. And given a million years of human progress, the science *will* come. Maybe it won't be as sexy as warp ships. Maybe it'll just be colony ships moving at a fraction of light speed and take a thousand years to get there. But one way or another, we will get there.
We will most likely visit this planet. Someday.
Re:I understand your skepticism (Score:4, Interesting)
We could start building a super-Orion pulsed nuke generation ship now and complete it in maybe 100 years. Then we launch humanity's first starship from L1 Lagrange Station manufacturing/assembly facility and it would only take another 6000 years or so to reach the planet. OTOH we could reach Gliese 581 in only 200 years, Tau Ceti or Epsilon Indi in 120 years, Epsilon Eridani in 105 years, or Alpha Centauri in a mere 44 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I understand your skepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you told the Wright brothers that we'd be walking on the moon in 70 years they would have told you you're nuts. They wouldn't have believed it."
But if you told the Apollo astronauts that 40 years later we wouldn't be able to go back to the moon or if you told the Mercury astronauts that 50 years later the US would no longer be able to put a man in orbit, they would also think you were nuts.
Progress only happens because we do things, not just because time passes.
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Informative)
Kepler can only see planets with orbits that are edge-on, so they pass in front of the star and make a noticeable drop in it's brightness. Make the reasonable assumptions that the orbits are randomly distributed, and stars with planets in the habitable zone are also randomly distributed. Then we should expect that for every planet Kepler finds, there will be one 7 times as close it does NOT find, and another 340 more in between those distances it does not find.
Additionally, Kepler is only looking at 1/350th of the sky, in the direction of the constellation Cygnus. So add another factor of 350 more planets if you were searching in all directions. That gives you another factor of 7 in expected nearest distance.
Think of it this way: Kepler was not designed to find every nearby planet. It was designed to find the ones that happened to be in the right orbits so that it could see them, in a small part of the sky. It will give us a statistical sample of planets, from which we can estimate the total population. For each one it finds, there are 50-100,000 more out there, which is a LOT of planets.
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Informative)
Best example of this: radio waves. Hertz tried to prove that Maxwell's equations were bogus, because if they were correct there would be ridiculous things such as electromagnetic waves between antennas. It works, bitches!
Wrong. Hertz created setups to deliberately try to prove that electric fields (and magnetic, but same thing) move at a speed less than infinite, to prove that Maxwell was right, not that he was wrong. Hertz also showed that light was an electromagnetic wave (or, rather, that they traveled at the same speed), and speculated that you could create light directly by ultra-high-frequency AC currents.
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to have missed all those people out there who think science doesn't work.
I know people skeptical of man-made global warming. I know of many others that aren't hard-core Darwinists (to various extents; not all Young Earth Creationists).
I know of absolutely no one who denies all of science as a discipline of knowledge. Definitely as a discipline which claims total knowledge, but not as a valid path of knowledge of the natural world.
I guess that's a long way around the barn to say "you are arguing with a straw man."
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that those who are "skeptical" of "man-made global warming" (with a few rare exceptions), and those who "aren't hard-core Darwinists" (a euphemism for "intelligent design", I take it?) by necessity have to reject science as a methodology in order to maintain their beliefs. They accept "science" as the name for a field which gets them useful toys, while completely rejecting the way in which it functions.
Also, the word "Darwinist" is asinine. It's a perfect illustration of the difference between people who take things on faith, and those who try to maintain a scientific approach to life in general. For the former, an idea is necessarily tied to the person who proposed it, and its validity hinges entirely on the character and reputation of that person. For the latter, the individual is irrelevant. Calling someone a "Darwinist" is as absurd as calling them "Newtonist", "Einsteinist", "Maxwellist", or "Saganist". It's a word which has been manufactured by theists for the sole purpose of framing the debate in a way with which they're comfortable; as the weighing of the opinions of prominent figures, rather than an honest, objective analysis of the data.
Re:Take that... (Score:4, Insightful)
"by necessity have to reject science as a methodology"
Not at all. They just disagree with certain conclusions or in the case of man-made global warming think the case is inadequate so far.
That's not disagreeing with science as a methodology. Although evolution as a historical science is a hell of a lot different than physics, chemistry, or straightforward biology in the methodology department. That's not a fault. That just has to do with dealing with the past and not being able to run experiments.
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all. They just disagree with certain conclusions or in the case of man-made global warming think the case is inadequate so far.
There are a few such individuals, but they're extremely rare. 5 years ago, I would have fallen into that category. It didn't take long to figure out where I went wrong. 5 years after I corrected my error, I see all the same characters still telling the same tired old lies, still ignoring the data, and still refusing to look at the science as separate from the politics. You generally cannot have a rational discussion with an AGW denier because their objections are not based in reason - they are emotional
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some people are just skeptical that computer models = science. I have another name for a computer model: a computer hypothesis. It is nothing more than a hypothesis that needs to be tested experimentally. The models make a testable prediction and science requires actually waiting to see if the prediction comes true.
Could the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis be true? Sure. Is it true? There is still insufficient data to demonstrate it, but maybe in another 50-100 years we will have enough. If the evid
Re: (Score:3)
This may be a bit like the hacker/cracker terminology discussion, though.
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree in the instance of androgenic global warming. It's just that science doesn't have all the data on that yet, nor do we know the models are correct. As to the rest, well, pretty much yeah.
I disagree in the instance of evolution. It's just that science doesn't have all the data on that yet, and I find it hard to believe that I'm related to monkeys. As to the rest, well, pretty much yeah.
I disagree in the instance of vaccinations. It's just that science doesn't have all the data on that yet, and I find it hard to believe that some lab geek knows what's best for my kids. As to the rest, well, pretty much yeah.
Do you see a pattern emerging?
Re:Take that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you see a pattern emerging?
A see a fallacious pattern, in the service of rhetoric, sure. But you know perfectly well you're ignoring the key part of this. It's not about "denying climate change." It's about raising an eyebrow when someone like Al Gore, who's positioned himself and his friends to make millions of dollars off of their hysterical characterizations of the situation, insist that human activity is the (and the only) driver of climate change. And that putting US tax dollars into specific funds, projects, and foreign investment groups - in which he is invariably invested - will solve the problem.
I will gladly deny his shrill, breathless assertions and his oily pitches for pumping money through his world-saving carbon credit cash cow operations as an accurate representation and treatment of the situation. And there are millions of people who echo his lines, more or less word for word, or who have their own vested interests in similar distortions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
One can accept the facts of how an electric circuit works to light a lightbulb for example without accepting the facts of how man-made CO2 in the atmosphere warms the Earth. This does not have anything to do with accepting or rejecting science.
Rejecting results of experiments and observations conducted using the scientific method because they do not fit with one's preconceived notions or they are not conducive to making a profit is reje
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Kepler can only see planets with orbits edge-on to us, and it's only looking in one specific direction. For each planet it finds, we can expect there are 50,000 more that are closer. On average, the closest will be 30-40 times closer than the one it finds, thus 15-20 light years in the case of Kepler-22b. Still a long way away, but easier to get to.
And no, the next best plan is not to explore it with robots, it's to use the Sun itself as a gravitational lens in a mucking huge telescope. To use it for that, you need to get to the focus distance of the Sun, which is more than 550 AU out. As a practical matter, you likely need to be more like 1000 AU out, since at the minimum distance you are focusing light that just barely grazes the Sun's surface, and the light from the Sun itself is hard to block out in that case. Farther away you can use an occulting disk to block the Sun + some margin around it.
Because of the huge diameter of the Sun as a lens, you can get absurd levels of detail at a nearby star, on the order of 0.4 meters per light year of distance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now what? Everybody says, "Woohoo!" and goes home? I just don't see how this has any importance, whatsoever, because I don't see how it can have any measurable effect on any decision made by anyone on this planet in the foreseeable future.
If you don't already see the importance in discovering life outside of our own planet, then I doubt you ever will. Go out into the world sometime, enjoy it, and see if you don't come back wanting more life in this universe. (Please note, I said 'into the world'. The 'world' is not just the human world. The human portion of this world is only the tiniest fraction of the greater whole. As Ed Abbey would say: Go to a national park, park your car, get out, and crawl on your stomach across the rocks and plants.
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue that the question of whether humans occupy a privileged position in the universe does affect the decision making of many people.
...in how they relate to each other, the non-human life on this planet, and our collective environment from second to second, day to day, year to year, generation to generation, and so on and so on.
Not too long ago, believing the earth wasn't the center of the universe could get a person killed. Remove certain strong beliefs and people wont feel they can throw anyone to the fire for simple, erroneous judgements. This leads to enhanced freedom from persecution and greater general happiness, I recon. Maybe le
Re: (Score:2)
[...] I don't see how it can have any measurable effect on any decision made by anyone on this planet in the foreseeable future.
Because the decisions made by the myopic semi-intelligent simians on some stupid backwater mud ball in the bad part of the galaxy are the only measure of "importance." Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't see how this has any importance, whatsoever, because I don't see how it can have any measurable effect on any decision made by anyone on this planet in the foreseeable future.
Here's an interesting way it could have an effect:
1. US Government discovers habitable planets within, say, a century of here.
2. US Government scares the population of Earth by pointing out that this habitable planet might be filled with evil aliens who want to take over Earth.
3. US and foreign governments and UN all scramble to do whatever is necessary to take on the aliens, pouring massive amounts of cash into R&D, engineering projects, construction of defensive tools, space launching capabilities, an