AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Astronomy News
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Oh no, those Evil, all consuming super-massive black holes are at it again........

Supermassive 'sleeping giant' black hole spotted awakening in a feeding frenzy as it tears apart nearby star

[Image: black-hole-accretion1.jpg]
Something worth considering.

[attachment=594]
Here is some interesting news on the subject of other possible planets that may be habitable.

NEW WORLD REVEALED ‘Secret second Earth’ that could be home to ALIENS will be exposed tomorrow
Astronomers expected to announce discovery of potentially habitable planet orbiting nearby star

Quote:Astronomers are preparing to announce the discovery of a potentially habitable second Earth orbiting a nearby star, it has been claimed.

Last month, sources leaked news that the European Southern Observatory (ESO) had spotted an alien world orbiting Proxima Centauri, our closest stellar neighbour.

An anonymous source from the ESO told German publication Der Spiegel the discovery is the closest habitable planet to Earth, which means we could reach it within our lifetime.

But the astonishing finding was not officially announced, sparking furious speculation that the second Earth has deliberately been kept a secret.

Now the ESO is set to finally reveal details of the planet at a press conference tomorrow and astronomers are also likely to discuss whether it has the potential to support life.

“The still nameless planet is believed to be Earth-like and orbits at a distance to Proxima Centauri that could allow it to have liquid water on its surface — an important requirement for the emergence of life,” the source said.

“Never before have scientists discovered a second Earth that is so close by.”

This is great news,......but there is one problem with a habitable planet.  Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf, M class sun, and the littlest sun in the three sun system.  This means that it puts out much less light, And it is much smaller than our G2 class sun.  Consequently, the Goldilocks Zone would be much closer and smaller than our sun's system.  And planets that are too close to an M class sun, tend to be tidally locked, as our own moon is.   It will be interesting to see if the planet is just far enough away so as to allow it to revolve.  

The other two stars in the system, A & B, are yellow dwarfs like ours: one slightly larger and one slightly smaller.  But they are both orbiting each other and locating stable planets within each solar system may not be advantageous.  In other words, one solar mass would disrupt the other's orbiting satellites.  Here's the orbital pattern of the Centauri A and B.

Click to Enlarge
[attachment=614]

The gravitational attraction of the two suns may be completely detrimental to the possibility of stable lifeforms within each Goldilocks Zones.  It will be interesting to see what else is discovered about our nearest system.

For the record, binary and triple star systems are the most common systems in our galaxy. Single stars, like ours, are much less frequent.
Here's another pic showing the likely stable zones of Alpha Centauri A and B, in comparison to Sol.

[Image: alphac_ab-c.gif]
Astronomical Unit is the distance from the center of our sun, to that of planet earth's center.

If this is accurate, then it is entirely possible that habitable planets can exist within both A and B systems.    Looks like a target rich environment.  S22
We may now have somewhere to send our problem Muslims.
(08-24-2016, 08:27 AM)WarBicycle Wrote: [ -> ]We may now have somewhere to send our problem Muslims.

At the rate we are going, by the time we get out there far enough, the Islam problem will be solved one way or the other. Spiteful
Yesterday I reported on the discovery of an exoplanet around Prixima Centuari. Well, it is now official and the science community is going bonkers. I've watched several videos pertaining to this, and some are doing everything but dance around the studios. Granted, it is a very important discovery, but there are two things that can directly influence this planet in a negative way.

First, I was under the impression that Class M red dwarfs were usually very stable and not being prone to violent outbursts. But this star is an exception, having periodic outbursts and huge outpouring of high energy and radiation. That alone could make life on this planet more than problematic.

Secondly, the movement around the sun is just a little over eleven days, so the planet is very close in. Its a red dwarf, so its Goldilocks Zone is very close in. But here's the big problem. Like our moon, a planet that close would most likely be tidally locked in place. In other words, no rotation at all. The dark half of the planet would be a deep freeze and totally uninhabitable. The front side would graduate from a boiling hot center within the exposed side, and growing cooler as it moves out toward the outer edges where light is less direct. SciFi writers almost never write about this type of world, because it doesn't fit within their narrative. But my guess is that the overwhelming majority of habitable planets will be tidally locked, as this one will almost certainly be.

My best guess is that the binary pair of Alpha A and B still hole the best possibility of having a livable planet. Both are yellow dwarfs, like our sun, which is a small minority of suns. And it may be possible that the two stars will not seriously disrupt the orbit of a possible candidate.

Anyway, it is important news nonetheless. I believe Nature did a pretty good job reporting on this, and they have an excellent video to go along with it.

The exoplanet next door
We would be incredibly lucky to have an habitable planet just next door.

That life can develop there, it's possible. If some areas on the planet are around Earth's temperature, then it's almost sure that bacterial life can prolifer.

But that humans can settle there and live is another thing.
On most of exoplanets discovered so far, the problem is gravity. Because it's much more difficult to detect a small planet than a big on, most of what is found would have crushing gravity.
If this planet is only 1.3x Earth's diameter (and that's what they call "slightly bigger") gravity would be twince as strong assuming the composition is the same.

IMO, we must find a planet between 0.5 and 1.2 Earth's gravity. Beyond 1.2, it would be problematic, and from 1.5 it's forget about it.

Radiations can be a problem too. But I don't understand: If a star emits much less heat and light, it should also emits much less radiations and other cosmic rays...

About being tide-locked: The only thing such planet would need is a tilt in her axis. This would allow some area to unfreeze while other are being covering with snow, allowing water to flow and evaporate.
The atmosphere should also be thick enough to allow heat dissipation.
(08-26-2016, 05:28 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]We would be incredibly lucky to have an habitable planet just next door.

Probably right. But my guess is that Alpha Centauri A & B may have a better statistical chance. Both are "G" class like ours, and its just possible that neither sun has a large enough gravitational effect on each other within the Goldilocks Zone. There are just so many variables that finding one like our own is a crap-shoot.

Quote:That life can develop there, it's possible. If some areas on the planet are around Earth's temperature, then it's almost sure that bacterial life can prolifer.

I'm pretty sure that there is at least bacterial life on mars, as well as Europa. There is water on both, with mars' being under the surface, and Europa's being under the ice crust.

Quote:But that humans can settle there and live is another thing.
On most of exoplanets discovered so far, the problem is gravity. Because it's much more difficult to detect a small planet than a big on, most of what is found would have crushing gravity.
If this planet is only 1.3x Earth's diameter (and that's what they call "slightly bigger") gravity would be twince as strong assuming the composition is the same.

IMO, we must find a planet between 0.5 and 1.2 Earth's gravity. Beyond 1.2, it would be problematic, and from 1.5 it's [i]forget about it

Gravity really is a concern. But by the time we get out in space, I'm sure genetic engineering will have developed to the point where a human body will be able to withstand the differences.

Quote:Radiations can be a problem too. But I don't understand: If a star emits much less heat and light, it should also emits much less radiations and other cosmic rays...

One would think so. But it seems that "K" and "M" class stars have some that are not as stable as others. Proxima Centauri appears to be one of the exceptions. I didn't realize that it has period solar storms of such intensity.

Quote:About being tide-locked: The only thing such planet would need is a tilt in her axis. This would allow some area to unfreeze while other are being covering with snow, allowing water to flow and evaporate.
The atmosphere should also be thick enough to allow heat dissipation.

Axial tilt will not be part of tidally locked satellites. The planet is not revolving anyway, so there will continue to be only one side showing toward the sun.
If the planet is tidally locked, then the planet is revolving, but it is revolving at the same speed that it orbits the primary--that is what it means to be tidally locked. If the planet did not revolve, it would not be tidally locked. Its day would be the same length as its year, but it would have days and nights.

With all this speculation about finding another earth-type habitable planet--even if we found one, how would we get there? How would any significant portion of the population be able to relocate there? We don't even have faster-than-light travel. Even if we had warp drive, how many FTL ships would we have to build to transfer even a few million people to that new world? Four light years is about 24 trillion miles. That is a long, long, way to go!
(08-26-2016, 07:16 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]If the planet is tidally locked, then the planet is revolving, but it is revolving at the same speed that it orbits the primary--that is what it means to be tidally locked. If the planet did not revolve, it would not be tidally locked. Its day would be the same length as its year, but it would have days and nights.

Ron, if a satellite is tidally locked, it is revolving in sync, one way or the other, with its parent/primary.  In other words, it is not rotating on its own.  It is locked in place, as it moves around the parent.  It is the primary that is leading/revolving, not the satellite.  Naturally no objects are stationary in space, but we are referring to a parent and its satellite relationship.

Sometimes both bodies are locked together, synchronous orbit, but not usually.  Our situation with our moon is the most frequent, where the parent revolves independently of the satellite, but the satellite does not revolve independently of its parent.  Naturally, all bodies tend to revolve, but in the case here we are referring to the relationship of parent and satellite.

Mercury is also locked, but in a 3:2 spin, which is what you may be referring to.  It revolves exactly three times for every two times around the sun.  But it still works in a dependent manner of the parent sun.   There are equations that will forecast this, based on the mass of both objects.  I'm not a physicist, and have not used the equations.

Thanks for bringing this up, because there is more to tidal locking than most think.  I just learned that Venus and earth have a synchronized relationship as well.  

Quote:Venus's 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to Earth is equal to 5.001444 Venusian solar days, making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown.

Proxima b, the "Earth-like planet" discovered in 2016 that orbits around the star Proxima Centauri is tidally locked, either in synchronized rotation, or otherwise expresses a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance like that of Mercury.
IMO one parameter allowing an object to be tidally locked is its irregular mass repartition. The Moon is very uneven, so its heaviest part is easily locked toward Earth.
But a more regular sphere wouldn't be tidally locked, I think.

John, could you explain more about 3:2 spin orbit? Do mean the same face is not all them oriented toward the sun, but it's moving very slowly? So it's not tidally locked, by definition? Is it?
(08-27-2016, 06:19 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]IMO one parameter allowing an object to be tidally locked is its irregular mass repartition. The Moon is very uneven, so its heaviest part is easily locked toward Earth.
But a more regular sphere wouldn't be tidally locked, I think.

Fred, the moon's unevenness may possibly have a very minor part of this.  But the two main ingredients appear to be 1) the mass of both, or all, objects interacting with each other.  And secondly 2) the overall elliptical orbit of the satellite.   You can get a fairly good general description and the math here at the Wikipedia site on Tidal Locking.  

(08-27-2016, 06:19 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]John, could you explain more about 3:2 spin orbit? Do mean the same face is not all them oriented toward the sun, but it's moving very slowly? So it's not tidally locked, by definition? Is it?

Fred, try here.  There are more than just 3:2 orbial resonances.  Truthfully, it is beyond my pay grade mathematically, since I don't understand the physics part.  Just remember that every two times the sun rotates, mercury rotates three times, and always does this every time exactly.  I believe that is what happens.  Before today, I didn't realize there was this type of tidal locking.   And believe it or not, this type of orbital resonance is very common.  Imagine that. Doh
(08-27-2016, 09:52 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]...try here.  There are more than just 3:2 orbial resonances.

That is all about orbit, not spin. I can't see a physics theory that allows a tidally-locked object to not be locked to the gravitational center of the object it revolves around.
If you look at a tidally locked moon from above (celestial north), you will note that the moon does rotate on its axis, but at the same rate that it orbits its primary. So objectively, the tidally locked moon is not motionless on its axis. Astrophysicists do not get to make up new physics. Our Moon is tidally locked with Earth, so that the same side is always facing Earth--but the Moon does experience days and nights, as it rotates on its axis relative to the sun.

As for the relationship of Venus and Earth--seeming to be locked to each other--this gives me a sneaking suspicion that Emmanuel Velikovsky may have been right in his conclusions based on ancient astronomical observations of astrologers, that Venus erupted from the planet Saturn, swept close past Earth, with dramatic interactions between the two planets, and finally settled into its current orbit between Earth and Mercury in recent historical time. If, in fact, Venus did erupt from Saturn somehow in some sort of nuclear fusion mini-nova event, then there would have been a lot of smaller ejecta along with it, which would have rained down into the inner solar system, produced the shotgun-like cratering on the Moon, and could be the means by which the "waters above the atmosphere" mentioned in Genesis chapter one were precipitated down, to contribute to the global flood of Genesis (along with the breaking up of the vast underground water reservoirs done by all the impactors). It would also explain why we still have near-Earth passing comets, when they should all have evaporated away in as little as 12,000 years at most. Traditionalists desperate to preserve their evolution-based vast age worldview, invented the Oort Cloud (without any observational confirmation that it exists) to explain how the near-Earth passing comets could have a means to be regularly replenished in numbers, so they could still exist.

I still think the evidence Velikovsky cited from the records of ancient astrologers should be given serious weight. They had no reason to falsify their observations, and they were fully qualified to make those observations. They were paid to make them as accurate as possible, and if they did not honestly report what they observed, then astrologers in other lands would know they had falsified their observations, and call them on it. The observations of those ancient astrologers--in several different countries--conclusively indicated that the orbit of Venus was markedly erratic 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, and only gradually settled into its present state of stability.
(08-29-2016, 02:41 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]If you look at a tidally locked moon from above (celestial north), you will note that the moon does rotate on its axis, but at the same rate that it orbits its primary. So objectively, the tidally locked moon is not motionless on its axis. Astrophysicists do not get to make up new physics. Our Moon is tidally locked with Earth, so that the same side is always facing Earth--but the Moon does experience days and nights, as it rotates on its axis relative to the sun.

Ron, what you are saying is a classic example of why as the saying goes, one of us is from mars and the other is from venus.  You are looking at all this from the moon's pov.  I am looking at this from the earth's pov.  Naturally, the moon is revolving one turn for every turn of the earth.  Now, to a Loonie, that is how the universe works.  But to an Earthie, it isn't.  The only reason why the moon is moving at all is because it is locked in to its parent object, which is also revolving at the same rate.  

Now, granted, there are other things at work here.  For example, the earth's day is growing longer because the mass of the moon is acting upon it.  I believe, if I recall correctly, that every year, the earth's day gets 15 seconds longer.  And too, the moon is very slowly moving away from the earth.  Eventually, way-way down the road, the moon will break away from earth.  But that is a long-long way away.  

This is like your religious beliefs and mine.  One is unalterable and the other is.....................................well, flexible if you get what I mean.  S22

Quote:As for the relationship of Venus and Earth--seeming to be locked to each other--this gives me a sneaking suspicion that Emmanuel Velikovsky may have been right in his conclusions based on ancient astronomical observations of astrologers, that Venus erupted from the planet Saturn, swept close past Earth, with dramatic interactions between the two planets, and finally settled into its current orbit between Earth and Mercury in recent historical time. If, in fact, Venus did erupt from Saturn somehow in some sort of nuclear fusion mini-nova event, then there would have been a lot of smaller ejecta along with it, which would have rained down into the inner solar system, produced the shotgun-like cratering on the Moon, and could be the means by which the "waters above the atmosphere" mentioned in Genesis chapter one were precipitated down, to contribute to the global flood of Genesis (along with the breaking up of the vast underground water reservoirs done by all the impactors). It would also explain why we still have near-Earth passing comets, when they should all have evaporated away in as little as 12,000 years at most. Traditionalists desperate to preserve their evolution-based vast age worldview, invented the Oort Cloud (without any observational confirmation that it exists) to explain how the near-Earth passing comets could have a means to be regularly replenished in numbers, so they could still exist.

I still think the evidence Velikovsky cited from the records of ancient astrologers should be given serious weight. They had no reason to falsify their observations, and they were fully qualified to make those observations. They were paid to make them as accurate as possible, and if they did not honestly report what they observed, then astrologers in other lands would know they had falsified their observations, and call them on it. The observations of those ancient astrologers--in several different countries--conclusively indicated that the orbit of Venus was markedly erratic 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, and only gradually settled into its present state of stability.

We may never know what led to Venus and Earth having this mysterious dance that places them looking at each other at exactly the very time when both are at their closest point.  Maybe we'll figure it out.  

As for comets, again I go back to the "Mars and Venus" thing.  To you the universe is only a few thousand years old, so it would stand to reason that you would question the age of certain comets, AND also question the presence of an outer shell of objects in distant orbit out of our sight.  After all, that would made no sense within a 12,000 year age of the universe.  The same thing goes for the Kuiper Belt,......but we have positive proof that it exists.  And where do you think those objects came from?  

Too bad this all boils down to religion, because in that respect, its all down to what some other humans wrote down, and was then translated numerous times.   S4
I have read that the Kuiper Belt fails by a factor of four of being sufficient to provide for replenishment of the near-Earth passing comets. Most people trying to preserve the vast ages worldview vital to evolution know they need to have an Oort Cloud. The Kuiper Belt just won't do it. Neither will the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. It's too stable.

By the way, evolution in absolutely every respect is no more than a religion that depends upon taking fundamental assumptions by faith. Evolutionists try to stack the deck by claiming you have to assume there is no Creator in order to be objective and be "free" of assumptions--even though that is an assumption! As if it is were intelligent to hypothesize that "In the beginning there was nothing--no space, no time, no matter, no energy--and then, all of a sudden, nothing exploded and became the entire highly ordered universe!"

But the two competing worldviews can be tested. If light has been traveling for billions of years to get here, then there should be places where we can aim our telescopes and find only darkness, then a few years later see some stellar objects beginning to appear as their light is just now reaching earth. Since that has never been observed--the more powerful we make our telescopes, the more light from stellar objects we find has already appeared--that is proof that the speed of light argument used by vast-ages believers has been refuted conclusively. Adding to that is the fact that every nebula we find that is the result of an explosion from an identified, central point, even assuming expansion at close to the speed of light, has not been expanding for more than 12,000 years. Then of course there is the case of the near-Earth passing comets, which should no longer exist after more than 12,000 years. Then there is the fact that the layer of cosmic dust gathered on the surface of the Moon that has supposedly been infalling for billions of years, is only 1/2 to at most 3/4 of an inch thick, as discovered by the Apollo astronauts.
(08-29-2016, 08:31 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]I have read that the Kuiper Belt fails by a factor of four of being sufficient to provide for replenishment of the near-Earth passing comets. Most people trying to preserve the vast ages worldview vital to evolution know they need to have an Oort Cloud. The Kuiper Belt just won't do it. Neither will the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. It's too stable.

No they don't. That's probably what others have told you, but that is not necessary. Its just the polar opposite what you are stating. Here is what you Really Mean: "Most Fundamentalists trying to preserve the young age worldview vital to evolution know they can't possibly allow for an Oort Cloud." That's what you really mean.

And "Evolution", i.e. "Natural Selection" is not in any respect a religion, except to atheists, trying to make it their own issue. And like good Fellow Travelers, you(second person plural) are going right along with them, just as your(again plural) parents and grandparents allowed FDR to get away with the Big Lie, that he was a Liberal, and not a Progressive, thus allowing him to pull one of the Biggest Lies of the 20th century. Gah

Every Christian denomination, with the exception of Fundamentalist sects, has no problem with the concept. And just as no scientific theory is 100% bullet proof, some scientists have made a few slips. They are only human. Its the same thing about the Alverez's conclusion(father and son) who discovered the dinosaur extinction event was a comet. And Doctor Charles Officer, and his supporters, have been denying this for some decades now.

And actually the Alverez's may have been wrong, to a minor extent. There is a good chance that there was more than one Impactors at that time, which led to the death of the dinosaurs. They only claimed just one, while there are some others who think it may well have been multiples.
‘Interesting’ signal from 94 light-years away ramps up speculation. But could it actually be ET?


The next 50 - 75 years should be really exciting for those working in astronomy.
John, what I really mean is what I stated with 100% accuracy: The whole idea of an Oort Cloud is a total fictional fabrication, for which there has never been any observational verification. The vast, overwhelming weight of evidence conclusively proves that evolution is impossible, the universe was intelligently designed, and the universe could not be more than about 12,000 years old. I am not talking opinion, or what anyone wants to believe. I am talking about what has been conclusively proven by solid scientific observation of physical reality. Anyone who wants to preserve the current intellectual fad of vast ages for the earth and universe, so that evolution can begin to look even halfway reasonable, is denying the real facts, closing their eyes to the real weight of evidence.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24