Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As humans look farther into the universe and discover more and more planets beyond the sun, many wonder how typical our own solar system is. Often astronomers in the planet-hunting business say discoveries of Earth-like worlds are just around the corner.
But a new study indicates our setup may be rare indeed.
There's something there, but at this point, we do not have the technology to detect Earthlike planets outside our Solar System, and last I heard, we won't have that tech for 10-15 years yet. So, we are in the same state with regard to Earthlike planets as we were before 1995 for all planets: the only ones we know about are the ones in our own system. Extrapolating from a sample of one system is ... politely described as hazardous.
... Just last week, astronomers announced they had discovered three super-Earths — worlds more massive than ours but small enough to most likely be rocky — orbiting a single star. And dozens of other worlds suspected of having masses in that same range were found around other stars. ...
The problem with the super earths is that they are in fact extremely close to the star. I've made the estimates for the super earths orbiting star HD 40307 on another thread and the furthest away one was at about half the distance between mercury and the sun.
The further away you want to detect it, the bigger it has to be.
I think it's important to also recognize that we're not actually looking twenty million light years away and seeing "large earths" but rather we are measuring the "warble" effect that massive gravitational objects such as a super-Earth have on the star. In other words, the gravity of the planet (which we cannot see from such distances) shows a sort of "warble" on the star itself. So, what we are actually detecting is how powerful that "warble" is and that can calculate not only the distance of the planet from its sun but also the size of the planet as well.
At least, that's how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, coojoaquin?
I think it's important to also recognize that we're not actually looking twenty million light years away and seeing "large earths" but rather we are measuring the "warble" effect that massive gravitational objects such as a super-Earth have on the star. In other words, the gravity of the planet (which we cannot see from such distances) shows a sort of "warble" on the star itself. So, what we are actually detecting is how powerful that "warble" is and that can calculate not only the distance of the planet from its sun but also the size of the planet as well.
At least, that's how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, coojoaquin?
Lol I like the word warble but yeah, the information regarding the super earths comes from measurements of the star itself. Of course a small, far away planet does not have any noticeable effects on the star it orbits so we can't detect our twin from another system using that method.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
