|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 29, 2022 18:36:15 GMT
Lately 9/13/22 made a post about the aliens, but when I was reading a post I saw this and it made my eyes widely open: www.joe.co.uk/life/scientists-discover-nearby-planet-covered-in-water-355737?fbclid=IwAR1xzzpzCvpg54OjjkKTlDgqqZMN550-Wq1J00iYuXy5FsGv8stH_m83cEMScientists discover nearby planet that is almost entirely covered in water
The exoplanet is around 100 light years away from Earth Scientists have reportedly stumbled upon a nearby planet that is thought to be almost entirely covered water, making it the first of its kind to be discovered by humans.
A team of astronomers at the University of Montreal located the exoplanet designated TOI-1452 b during their research published in the peer-reviewed Astronomical Journal on Wednesday. The previously unidentified planet is situated in the Draco constellation, some 100 light years or so away and its composition said to be striking similar to Earth, albeit more massive.
The researchers believe that the mass of the planet suggests it is largely made up of something less dense than rock but denser than gas: the logical conclusion being a potential global ocean.
With help from university's observatory, they determined that approximately 30 per cent of TOI-1452 b's mass comes from liquid, signifying a deep global ocean akin to the deep waters experts believe sits below the icy crust of Saturn’s moon, Enceladus.
In contrast, while oceans cover around 70 per cent of the Earth's surface, they make up less than one percent of our total mass, with our planet predominantly composed of rock and metallic elements.
With help from NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite - commonly known as the TESS spacecraft - and subsequent, new methods analysis at the Observatoire du Mont-Mégantic (OMM), they were able to confirm the planet's existence and its radius.
From there, another telescope situated in Hawaii was able to calculate the mass of the nearby planet and while it's still not certain if TOI-1452 b is an ocean world, the presence of waters means it likely has the conditions to support life, not dissimilar to Mars.
The researchers are now hoping that even closer examination by the James Webb Space Telescope should be able to answer many of the questions we have about this new planet outside of our solar system. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 7, 2022 1:49:08 GMT
If we can see it then why were they unsure about it's size that they had to use other means to confirm it ? And then other means to figure out it's density? I mean can we see it or not? How can we see it good enough to figure out that it's made of something other than dirt yet have trouble figuring out how big it is ? It all sounds confusing to me and it sounds like a lot of assumptions from the imagination
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 7, 2022 4:28:27 GMT
I am not surprised. Anything is possible. Even a planet made of bird feathers. People are just not that open minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 8, 2022 9:53:50 GMT
If we can see it then why were they unsure about it's size that they had to use other means to confirm it ? And then other means to figure out it's density? I mean can we see it or not? How can we see it good enough to figure out that it's made of something other than dirt yet have trouble figuring out how big it is ? It all sounds confusing to me and it sounds like a lot of assumptions from the imagination Earlier it happened not once when scientists were wrong, this case isn't the exception. I don't know, however this isn't something unusual that a planet covered in water, since H² and O³ spread everywhere in cosmos. I'd say the presence of aliens or something may be positively said only if they had identified H²S or some other organic remains as CH²OH or kinda. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 8, 2022 9:54:53 GMT
I am not surprised. Anything is possible. Even a planet made of bird feathers. People are just not that open minded. Exactly! That is absolutely true, this isn't a surprise. I've just answered the same to Maya-El. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 8, 2022 10:18:42 GMT
I'm not arguing that the planet doesn't exist because I'm close minded or something not hardly infact I'm 100% confident that there is life on other planets
What I meant was it sounds funny how one group sounds like they can hardly see the planet while the other groupe sounds like they can see it but in a funky way and then another group can see it but in a different funky way and it sounds to me like they can't actually see it and they are just speculations based off of some computer data that's not actually a visual for the point like science loves to do there these days is Right modern day fairy tales
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 8, 2022 11:49:52 GMT
So the only substance more dense than gas and less dense than rock is water?
There is no way they can do a spectral analysis from that distance to determine
its composition.
Whenever an article starts with "scientists say", these days,
its most likely just more funding embezzlement and quackery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 8, 2022 17:22:39 GMT
So the only substance more dense than gas and less dense than rock is water? There is no way they can do a spectral analysis from that distance to determine its composition. Whenever an article starts with "scientists say", these days, its most likely just more funding embezzlement and quackery. Might be. Journalism isn't the field to trust. But that article isn't the only one. I don't know who started that. Why do you think that spectral analysis cannot be use to find out a chemical composition? It's been using to do it since Newton, but today's lab equipment isn't the same 350 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 8, 2022 19:21:42 GMT
So the only substance more dense than gas and less dense than rock is water? There is no way they can do a spectral analysis from that distance to determine its composition. Whenever an article starts with "scientists say", these days, its most likely just more funding embezzlement and quackery. That's what I thought |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 12, 2022 15:54:10 GMT
So the only substance more dense than gas and less dense than rock is water? There is no way they can do a spectral analysis from that distance to determine its composition. Whenever an article starts with "scientists say", these days, its most likely just more funding embezzlement and quackery. Might be. Journalism isn't the field to trust. But that article isn't the only one. I don't know who started that. Why do you think that spectral analysis cannot be use to find out a chemical composition? It's been using to do it since Newton, but today's lab equipment isn't the same 350 years ago.
There are only 2 ways to detect exoplanets, neither is observed light. Spectral analysis requires observed light to see the physical composition of the source of light.
Exoplanets are mostly detected by observing their gravity effects wobbling the parent star, and in a few cases they can be eclipsing the star - so all you get is a shadow in front of the star.
The actual light from the planet is nowhere near visible from this distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 14, 2022 9:54:21 GMT
Might be. Journalism isn't the field to trust. But that article isn't the only one. I don't know who started that. Why do you think that spectral analysis cannot be use to find out a chemical composition? It's been using to do it since Newton, but today's lab equipment isn't the same 350 years ago.
There are only 2 ways to detect exoplanets, neither is observed light. Spectral analysis requires observed light to see the physical composition of the source of light.
Exoplanets are mostly detected by observing their gravity effects wobbling the parent star, and in a few cases they can be eclipsing the star - so all you get is a shadow in front of the star.
The actual light from the planet is nowhere near visible from this distance.
I'm not an expert here, but I see any reason to refuse an exoplanet to be covered in water, moreover it seems to be a viral news, spreading bu almost every scientific channel. Water isn't something impossible to be recognized via spectre analysis, considering greatest amount of the new tools for researches. Besides, water is something to have been studying for centuries. www.foxweather.com/earth-space/newly-discovered-super-earth-exoplanet-could-be-water-worldscitechdaily.com/water-world-astronomers-discover-an-extrasolar-world-that-may-be-entirely-covered-in-a-deep-ocean/cosmosmagazine.com/space/exoplanet-ocean-waterworld/?amp=1 |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 22, 2022 7:44:02 GMT
The Sun has a density 1.4 times water. Saturn 0.7 density of water Uranus 1.3 Jupiter 1.3
Very close to water, and yet none consist of water. If you claim to discover water on an exoplanet and publish in quackademic journal then you are legally allowed to defraud the taxpayer
plenty big money here for typical forked-white-tongues to babble about their star trek fantasies without the vaguest connection to a solid logical analysis
most planets with water, like earth and various moons of outer planets, which are covered in ice have an average density much higher than water earth is over 5 times the density of water and those moons are typically over 3 times the density of water
the fact that such pseudoscience 'goes viral'
just proves the fallacy of democracy as being mob mentality devoid of genuine philosophical value
they all just got their snouts in the same free money trough
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 22, 2022 12:40:05 GMT
The Sun has a density 1.4 times water. Saturn 0.7 density of water Uranus 1.3 Jupiter 1.3
Very close to water, and yet none consist of water. If you claim to discover water on an exoplanet and publish in quackademic journal then you are legally allowed to defraud the taxpayer
plenty big money here for typical forked-white-tongues to babble about their star trek fantasies without the vaguest connection to a solid logical analysis
most planets with water, like earth and various moons of outer planets, which are covered in ice have an average density much higher than water earth is over 5 times the density of water and those moons are typically over 3 times the density of water
the fact that such pseudoscience 'goes viral'
just proves the fallacy of democracy as being mob mentality devoid of genuine philosophical value
they all just got their snouts in the same free money trough
It's not difficult to accuse dozens (if not thousands) of scientists in lie, but it's not as easy to go with it for a courtesy and wins it. I don't know how they measure all that, but such a widespread falsely supposes too many scientists involved in that conspiracy, which is again – another conspiracy theory. It's not impossible for companies or corporations to wool and wash people's heads, however none can't easily say to know whether or not there is such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 28, 2022 11:10:27 GMT
The Sun has a density 1.4 times water. Saturn 0.7 density of water Uranus 1.3 Jupiter 1.3
Very close to water, and yet none consist of water. If you claim to discover water on an exoplanet and publish in quackademic journal then you are legally allowed to defraud the taxpayer
plenty big money here for typical forked-white-tongues to babble about their star trek fantasies without the vaguest connection to a solid logical analysis
most planets with water, like earth and various moons of outer planets, which are covered in ice have an average density much higher than water earth is over 5 times the density of water and those moons are typically over 3 times the density of water
the fact that such pseudoscience 'goes viral'
just proves the fallacy of democracy as being mob mentality devoid of genuine philosophical value
they all just got their snouts in the same free money trough
It's not difficult to accuse dozens (if not thousands) of scientists in lie, but it's not as easy to go with it for a courtesy and wins it. I don't know how they measure all that, but such a widespread falsely supposes too many scientists involved in that conspiracy, which is again – another conspiracy theory. It's not impossible for companies or corporations to wool and wash people's heads, however none can't easily say to know whether or not there is such a thing. You doubt conspiracies exist? But i made no such claim.
When poachers pillage the oceans, they make no plans to conspire they just take what they care to.
80% of 'jobs' are confidence tricksters. I suppose you are still wearing your 'mask' then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 28, 2022 14:45:24 GMT
It's not difficult to accuse dozens (if not thousands) of scientists in lie, but it's not as easy to go with it for a courtesy and wins it. I don't know how they measure all that, but such a widespread falsely supposes too many scientists involved in that conspiracy, which is again – another conspiracy theory. It's not impossible for companies or corporations to wool and wash people's heads, however none can't easily say to know whether or not there is such a thing. You doubt conspiracies exist? But i made no such claim.
When poachers pillage the oceans, they make no plans to conspire they just take what they care to.
80% of 'jobs' are confidence tricksters. I suppose you are still wearing your 'mask' then?
I didn't have an intention to speak about any conspiracies. I mentioned only that it was a possible way to think that. And it's indeed possible - any conspiracy theories are always possible, but highly difficult to be recognized in many cases. All I wanted to say is just interpretation of those famous words of Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time". There are many astronomers, so I don't think too many of them are just fools. I'm sure that it's also possible for scientific communities to have their own opinions about different experiments or researches. |
|
