Proxima Centauri has an earth like planet!

[Romulan_spy]

Our closest neighbor, Proxima Centauri, just 4.25 l.y. away, has an earth like planet. We need warp drive now!
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-earth-like-planet-proxima-centauri.html

 

[sojourner]

Could this be a cause of the dim of KIC 8462?

 

[Romulan_spy]

Could this be a cause of the dim of KIC 8462?

I doubt it. Isn't KIC8492 a completely different star system?

 

[sojourner]

I doubt it. Isn't KIC8492 a completely different star system?

It's a joke. Reference any post made by Dryson in this subforum.

 

[BillJ]

I wouldn't be making vacation plans, just yet.

In addition, they claim that the discovery was made by the European Southern Observatory (ESO) using the La Silla Observatory's reflecting telescope. Coincidentally, it was this same observatory that announced the discovery of Alpha Centauri Bb back in 2012, which was also declared to be "the closest exoplanet to Earth". Unfortunately, subsequent analysis cast doubt on its existence, claiming it was a spurious artifact of the data analysis.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Is there Unobtainium for the taking there?

 

[Santaman]

I claim that planet it the name of ME!

 

[Metryq]

"Earth-like" exoplanet translates to hyping for more funding. "We were moving at the technically feasible limit of measurement" means they're not entirely sure a planet is there, yet already it is known to be "Earth-like." Venus and Mars are Earth-like, too, and the Moon is within the habitable zone, but I wouldn't be house shopping just yet. Comets—much closer than Proxima—were thought to be icy, yet every close-up mission has proven that idea wrong.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Oh no…

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1e/1d/93/1e1d93253b3234d46a5a1ea25c2e3394.jpg

 

[USS Triumphant]

I'm not going to draw any conclusions for anyone, but I want to share this. And you can say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but honestly, I'd have to care more about the implications for that to be true, I think, and at this point in my life, I really don't.

One morning when I was getting ready for school in 1982, there was a story on the news about astronomers finding a planet in the habitable zone of Proxima Centauri.

One morning while I was driving to school in 1991, there was a story on the news stating that the planet they thought they had found in 1982 was not, in fact, actually there, but was the result of an error at the observatory.

It would take approximately 8.5 years for a relativistic signal to be sent there and for us to receive any response.

And now a planet has been discovered in the habitable zone of Proxima Centauri again, only, no, wait, it's just some sort of "spurious artifact of data analysis" again.

Okay. Whatever.

 

[Metryq]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Science is a method, not a group of people, although sometimes it is reified. Those who are professional scientists are just as human as the rest of us, and so prone to honest human mistakes, as well as human hype (for whatever reason).

It is when mistakes are not corrected that I begin to worry.

 

[USS Triumphant]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Science is a method, not a group of people, although sometimes it is reified. Those who are professional scientists are just as human as the rest of us, and so prone to honest human mistakes, as well as human hype (for whatever reason).

It is when mistakes are not corrected that I begin to worry.

True - and it could very well be that the same artifacting that caused the first mistake caused this recent one, too.

It's just the timing of the first retraction that had me excited and suspicious at the time. (I was 16, and could still be assed to care. Nowadays, I'm pretty sure that the people in charge of everything are just dickweeds looking out for themselves at the expense of me and the people I care about - and I don't see where it much matters whether the a*holes are just regular old humans, or ancient alien lizard people, or whatever they are. )

 

[Metryq]

You're not crazy. Those lizard people really are out to get you.

 

[Ronald Held]

I will take it more seriously when it appears in the confirmed exoplanets database.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

"Earth-like" exoplanet translates to hyping for more funding. "We were moving at the technically feasible limit of measurement" means they're not entirely sure a planet is there, yet already it is known to be "Earth-like." Venus and Mars are Earth-like, too, and the Moon is within the habitable zone, but I wouldn't be house shopping just yet. Comets—much closer than Proxima—were thought to be icy, yet every close-up mission has proven that idea wrong.

In my opinion, more funding is good. Considering the current limits on what we can know of an exoplanet, the definition they use to call one Earth like is pretty fair. Venus and Mars would definitely qualify because they are rocky, close in size to earth, and are in the habitable zone for liquid water. When we are able to observe more things about exoplanets, especially their atmospheres, then I am sure the definition will be narrowed down some.

 

[Dryson]

http://www.universetoday.com/130276/earth-like-planet-around-proxima-centauri-discovered/

Another article to read.

I would have to think that telescopes in 2016 would be a little bit more advanced than telescopes from 1982. Hopefully when the JWST goes online Proxima Centauri will be the first point in space that is looked at.

The question is could a planet have water on it and be completely barren or near completely barren of any plant life and still have an oxygen atmosphere?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/atmospheric-oxygen-can-be-created-without-plant-life/

 

[Ronald Held]

Waiting for the research grade article...

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Science points to the notion that most, if not ALL stars have at least some planetary bodies around them. This does not translate to impetus for more funding (more likely it's a "okay, so what?) to refine our techniques of identifying exoplanets, so we need hype like this in the media, right?

Mark

 

[Doom Shepherd]

For purposes of these popular articles, "Earthlike" only means "small and rocky instead of big and gaseous."

But hell, I had to spend yesterday explaining to a random Gomer with a degree from "The School of Hard Knocks, University of Life" that no, the fact that the system has three stars does Not mean that "life will be pulled apart," whatever the hell THAT is supposed to mean. (I mean, the guy acknowledged that astrophysicists have proven that stable orbits could exist inside the system's habitable zones, but he STILL insisted that "life would be pulled apart."

 

[Dryson]

Science points to the notion that most, if not ALL stars have at least some planetary bodies around them. This does not translate to impetus for more funding (more likely it's a "okay, so what?) to refine our techniques of identifying exoplanets, so we need hype like this in the media, right?

Mark

There is nothing wrong with hype surrounding planets with the possibility of life on them, even if that life is only plants and microbes. Keeping people excited about needing more funding for such a search will one day conclude with a first discovery of a habitable planet. Once a habitable planet has been found all of the complaints about funding for space exploration being useless and better spent on human welfare will be eradicated permanently.