Planet found in habitable zone around nearest star to us

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Planet found in habitable zone around nearest star to us

There's been rumours for days but I wanted to wait until there was something of substance. That came yesterday.

Pale Red Dot campaign reveals Earth-mass world in orbit around Proxima Centauri

Date:
August 24, 2016

Source:
European Southern Observatory (ESO)

Summary:
Astronomers have found clear evidence of a planet orbiting the closest star to Earth, Proxima Centauri. The long-sought world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool red parent star every 11 days and has a temperature suitable for liquid water to exist on its surface. This rocky world is a little more massive than the Earth and is the closest exoplanet to us -- and it may also be the closest possible abode for life outside the Solar System.

Exerpt:
Just over four light-years from the Solar System lies a red dwarf star that has been named Proxima Centauri as it is the closest star to Earth apart from the Sun. This cool star in the constellation of Centaurus is too faint to be seen with the unaided eye and lies near to the much brighter pair of stars known as Alpha Centauri AB.

During the first half of 2016 Proxima Centauri was regularly observed with the HARPS spectrograph on the ESO 3.6-metre telescope at La Silla in Chile and simultaneously monitored by other telescopes around the world [1]. This was the Pale Red Dot campaign, in which a team of astronomers led by Guillem Anglada-Escudé, from Queen Mary University of London, was looking for the tiny back and forth wobble of the star that would be caused by the gravitational pull of a possible orbiting planet [2].

Source Article:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160824130453.htm

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah I saw that, but what

 Yeah I saw that, but what is interesting is the star it orbits...


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. Awesome how this

Indeed. Awesome how this comes after there are already plans to send a probe there. Crazy to think that in 50 odd years we could have pictures of the planet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Yea that is awesome, but

 Yea that is awesome, but we could focus more resources on science in general if we didn't have to waste so much money worldwide protecting old and polutiong fuels and religious insecurities. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Indeed. Awesome

Vastet wrote:
Indeed. Awesome how this comes after there are already plans to send a probe there. Crazy to think that in 50 odd years we could have pictures of the planet.

That would be awesome.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Of couse if they said what

 Of couse if they said what is likely the truth: we don't know what conditions are like on this planet,  they'd likely get less funding. They have to hype this up for marketing reasons. Science is a business, so take it with a grain of salt.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That hasn't been withheld at

That hasn't been withheld at all. And the only project in the works for that system is a private endeavour. There's nothing for you to bitch about here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That hasn't

Vastet wrote:
That hasn't been withheld at all. And the only project in the works for that system is a private endeavour. There's nothing for you to bitch about here.

Apparently I'm not the only skeptic that is "bitching".http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/yes-we-ve-discovered-a-planet-orbiting-the-nearest-star-but/

We know next to nothing about this planet, so how does habitable even enter the discussion? Because when they want funding from any source and this word helps sell more exploration. Why? Because the earth is so overcrowded.

Besides, I'm supposed to believe that the earth is barely habitable and if I'm allowed to use low cost oil, it will soon be uninhabitable. The only thing that keep our planet habitable is me accepting being a slave of a progressive government run by someone like Bernie Sanders. So if the earth is that fragile due to human activity, why should I think humans could ever make a planet 4 light years away habitable? We can't even use geo-engineering to save our own world.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:We know next to

EXC wrote:
We know next to nothing about this planet, so how does habitable even enter the discussion?

You clearly don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand. Look up habitable zone or goldilocks zone.

EXC wrote:
Because when they want funding from any source and this word helps sell more exploration. Why? Because the earth is so overcrowded.

Lol wut? We could find a billion perfect copies of Earth and it wouldn't do shit for solving population problems. Your argument is built on a faulty premise.

EXC wrote:
Besides, I'm supposed to believe that the earth is barely habitable and if I'm allowed to use low cost oil, it will soon be uninhabitable. The only thing that keep our planet habitable is me accepting being a slave of a progressive government run by someone like Bernie Sanders. So if the earth is that fragile due to human activity, why should I think humans could ever make a planet 4 light years away habitable? We can't even use geo-engineering to save our own world.

Noone rational would suggest the Earth is barely habitable, so again you're building an argument on a faulty premise.

Also, it's kinda hard to tell 7 billion people in 150 odd countries with millenia of established infrastructure to do terraforming. An empty planet would be simple by comparison.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
http://www.scientificamerican

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/habitable-zone-redefined/

I know about the habitable zone, before astronomers could discover exo-plantets, it was a narrow criteria. Now they can discover many planets, the criteria changed to include a lot more worlds. Just a a conincidence I'm sure that astronomers gain fame and funding for discovering habitable worlds. Also, I'm not the only skeptic.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/yes-we-ve-discovered-a-planet-orbiting-the-nearest-star-but/

Vastet wrote:
Noone rational would suggest the Earth is barely habitable, so again you're building an argument on a faulty premise.

Sorry, I'll have to have sarcasm quotes for you. The whole climate change to push the globalist/progressive political agenda depends on buying into this premise. If the earth were not barely habitable, the climate would not be so fragile as to depend on what type of car I drive.

 

Vastet wrote:

Also, it's kinda hard to tell 7 billion people in 150 odd countries with millenia of established infrastructure to do terraforming. An empty planet would be simple by comparison.

Yet the Climate Change crowd like the progressives parties in Canada want to tell 7 billion people what they must do now to save the earth. And anyone that opposes them is un-scientific.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC

EXC wrote:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/habitable-zone-redefined/
I know about the habitable zone, before astronomers could discover exo-plantets, it was a narrow criteria.

It's still a narrow criteria. It always will be. What's your point? That we can learn more and refine our expectations over time? Not news.

EXC wrote:
Now they can discover many planets, the criteria changed to include a lot more worlds. Just a a conincidence I'm sure that astronomers gain fame and funding for discovering habitable worlds. Also, I'm not the only skeptic.

Most people discovering worlds in the data are volunteers. Noone doing discoveries gets fame or fortune. They don't even get to name anything. You might get both fame & fortune by coming up with a new way to detect planets, but not for simply sifting through data. So again you're operating on a faulty premise.

EXC wrote:
Sorry, I'll have to have sarcasm quotes for you. The whole climate change to push the globalist/progressive political agenda depends on buying into this premise.

Bullshit it does. All it suggests is that climate can change. Not that the Earth is barely habitable.

EXC wrote:
"If the earth were not barely habitable, the climate would not be so fragile as to depend on what type of car I drive.

Ridiculous. Even if the Earth were infinitely habitable, it could still become uninhabitable to us. We are the vulnerable factor, not the Earth.

EXC wrote:
Yet the Climate Change crowd like the progressives parties in Canada want to tell 7 billion people what they must do now to save the earth. And anyone that opposes them is un-scientific.

It's not the Earth that needs saving. And yeah, denying scientific evidence is by definition unscientific. So what?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.