It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Habitable Worlds Gliese 581d and Gliese 581g Most Likely Do Not Exist

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Because science is self-correcting I am posting an excerpt from this story about research which indicates two of the most Earth similar planets have been found to likely be false positives. In plain terms, probably do not exist.

From Universe Today:


Two potentially habitable planets in the Gliese 581 system are just false signals arising out of starstuff, a new study said. Gliese 581d and 581g are (study authors said) instead indications of the star’s activity and rotation. It’s the latest twist in a long tale about the system as astronomers struggle to understand how many planets could be orbiting the star.
“Our improved detection of the real planets in this system gives us confidence that we are now beginning to sufficiently eliminate Doppler signals from stellar activity to discover new, habitable exoplanets, even when they are hidden beneath stellar noise,” stated Paul Robertson, a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State University, in a press release.
“While it is unfortunate to find that two such promising planets do not exist, we feel that the results of this study will ultimately lead to more Earth-like planets.”



edit on 4-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar
Sad...or a NASA cover-up




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
That would be a total bummer but with the rate they are finding planets, itll only be a few years before they are replaced. I bet they are there though....with aliens!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I think it's great that we can go back and correct mistakes with better technology. Yes, there will be some instances where what we thought were planets are not planets, but we will better detect actual planets going forward.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood

Two potentially habitable planets in the same system... they probably accidently stumbled upon an advanced colonial civilization. Nothing to see here, move along... Maybe Stephen Hawking is right, probably best avoided.




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Volund

LOL. Nah. We blew em up with our inter-galactic fleet.

NSA NOTE: If fleet is real I hereby volunteer.

just covering my bases.
edit on 4-7-2014 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
In all seriousness this might not be a final verdict...it seems like that system is big, noisy and still has lots to tell us

You should add that pic of all the planets Jade.

edit on 4-7-2014 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
I think it's great that we can go back and correct mistakes with better technology. Yes, there will be some instances where what we thought were planets are not planets, but we will better detect actual planets going forward.




It hits the gut hard, but it's one of the greatest things about science -- that we are continually improving, correcting, and refining old information.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
In all seriousness this might not be a final verdict...it seems like that system is big, noisy and still has lots to tell us


^^^ THIS.

Since the Gliese 581 system is only 22 light years away the TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Satellite) mission due to launch in 2017 can look for transits if Gliese 581 b, c, and any others transit the star that will reveal a clearer idea of what is there than noisy radial velocity data.



You should add that pic of all the planets Jade.



Here you go, up to date of course





posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Well seeing as how a lot of things they say exist they have no concrete proof of and havent actually observed, this was bound to happen at some point. This is the problem with inferring things and calling it scientific proof. I for one find it silly to believe that they know whats going on light years away but dont even know whats at the bottom of our oceans in great detail. They dont even fully understand the solar system we reside in completely to be able to understand others.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
It's a bummer, but it's bound to happen here & there, exoplanet IDing is, IMO, still a new science we're hammering out. We can learn from this and adjust accordingly for future searches


a reply to: rustyclutch
Don't be such a Negative Nancy, it's called growing pains. Looking for these planets is a new thing for us, considering how long humans have been around & our tech age's length thus far. Give it time, you can't perfect something if you don't try at all, figurative bumps & scrapes included.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
Well seeing as how a lot of things they say exist they have no concrete proof of and havent actually observed, this was bound to happen at some point. This is the problem with inferring things and calling it scientific proof. I for one find it silly to believe that they know whats going on light years away but dont even know whats at the bottom of our oceans in great detail. They dont even fully understand the solar system we reside in completely to be able to understand others.


You are fairly wrong here.

Light carries information and that light is what we astronomers study for all its various interactions because light is changed when it passes through other things or passes near things. These changes are lab tested. It's called Spectroscopy. Spectroscopy is concrete and has been used outside of astronomy right here on Earth.

Spectroscopy is key in how we learn about the universe

Light is concrete proof.

How much light comes from the bottom of our oceans?
edit on 4-7-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Thorneblood
why would NASA want to interfere with a Swiss, german and french funded Chilean operated venture?



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah
Pointing out that scientists feed us a bunch of pseudoscience isn't being negative its being honest. When they post their journals and write articles on things that arent science maybe they should point out that they could be right or have no idea what they are talking about. I commend the fact they came out and said they were wrong. Maybe they should stop "discovering" things they cant prove exist and have no way of getting to and fix the messes they have made on this planet with their same pseudoscience in other areas.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: suicideeddie

I'm sure there is a FIFA joke here.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

So you are saying its reasonable for them to not know whats 100 miles beneath their feet for sure but know whats floating in space billions of miles away with even an iota of certainty? Comedy. Thats like me knowing whats in Obamas refrigerator and not knowing where i keep the toilet paper in my own bathroom. The fact of the matter is their science is all equations. Self proving equations. They thought it was a planet because of their equations. Not because a planet was actually ever observed. If you want to call equations that give out false readings science be my guest. Dont expect everyone else to hold them with the same merit.
edit on 4-7-2014 by rustyclutch because: typos



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

If this info came from anyone but you, Jade I'd say it were misinformation. However, since you're an actual scientist and not just one who is clamoring for stars and flags, I'll take this info to heart. Bssed off this new update, how many habitable worlds are left in the Gliese system?


edit on 4-7-2014 by lostbook because: word edit



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

observing something passing in front of a light is not proof of anything except that something passed in front of that light. The difference between the ocean and a light billions of miles away? We can get to it. We can swim in it. We know its there, but we dont know what lies at the bottom of it globally. We are trying to colonize space why? This planet even after a nuclear armageddon would be far more hospitable to life than say....mars. You have to forgive me if I dont accept things as the 100% truth from people who often make mistakes about these sort of things. I will believe them about all these planets they claim to exist when they have pictures of them or we meet someone from one of them. Being an astronomy major you get forcefed these equations all day but personally you have never observed any of these phenomenon in a lab setting. You are just repeating the science as it was taught to you, and obviously that science fails sometimes. Hence the whole reason for this discussion.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: rustyclutch

Oh dear, someone is a bit grumpy-wumpy with the scientists, aren't we?

That is how science works and, if you took the time to actually read any of these papers when they announce things, you'd see that they put caveats in about "suspected" this and that - they are quite open about what they don't know but using what we do know, we can make educated guesses.

Also, the whole reason for publishing a paper is not to announce some grand new thing as the new "truth", but to put their discovery and methods out there for their peers to test themselves and either confirm or deny it. Once it has been peer reviewed, retested and reproduced, then it starts to become an accepted idea.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

It's good news. In the greater scheme of things, our discovery of 'habitable' exoplanets is just an early chapter in something that will become encyclopaedic in the future. Sure, we make a few mistakes now and they're all teachable moments when we look at other exoplanets and those we've yet to discover.

Even the article is hesitant and the two possibly phantom planets might be reinstalled/confirmed as real bodies later on - albeit unlikely. In that way, they still represent footnotes in the story of our search for habitable worlds.




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join