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.

# NASA has discovered 7 Earth-like planets orbiting a star

page: 5
59
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 05:51 AM

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: InachMarbank

Actually, its relatively simple.

When light passes through an atmosphere, that atmosphere filters out certain parts of the spectrum, to varying degrees. Different chemicals being present, results in different parts of the spectrum being absorbed by it. By examining the light received by telescopes and the like, from a given location or body, scientists can figure out what chemicals are present, by seeing which parts of the spectrum have been absorbed.

What is the magnifying power of the telescope that spotted these?

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:09 AM
a reply to: InachMarbank

I think when one reaches the point where one can resolve detail at the range we are talking about, the traditional idea of magnifying power takes a jump out of the window, because the numbers are stupid.

Lets put this in perspective. One of the scopes involved in the Trappist experiment, has a 3.8 meter mirror. It also has active systems on board which account for instabilities in the image caused by our own atmosphere, and other factors too, but lets look just at the width of the mirror for a moment.

Now, I have a telescope in my bedroom. It has a 76mm mirror on it, and its power of magnification is 525x. I point blank refuse to do the mathematics involved with figuring out what the traditional measure of power would be for something THAT many times larger than my telescope. I am certain I would get the mathematics wrong in any event, it not being my forte.

However, taking just the mirror size and quality into account, one can see that these telescopes must be very powerful indeed. But when you also factor in that they are partially robotic, stabilised by machine, and automatically account for things like the warp and weft of our own atmosphere, can be calibrated to account for other variables besides that, you get some idea of the power they have.

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:53 AM

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: InachMarbank

I think when one reaches the point where one can resolve detail at the range we are talking about, the traditional idea of magnifying power takes a jump out of the window, because the numbers are stupid.

Lets put this in perspective. One of the scopes involved in the Trappist experiment, has a 3.8 meter mirror. It also has active systems on board which account for instabilities in the image caused by our own atmosphere, and other factors too, but lets look just at the width of the mirror for a moment.

Now, I have a telescope in my bedroom. It has a 76mm mirror on it, and its power of magnification is 525x. I point blank refuse to do the mathematics involved with figuring out what the traditional measure of power would be for something THAT many times larger than my telescope. I am certain I would get the mathematics wrong in any event, it not being my forte.

However, taking just the mirror size and quality into account, one can see that these telescopes must be very powerful indeed. But when you also factor in that they are partially robotic, stabilised by machine, and automatically account for things like the warp and weft of our own atmosphere, can be calibrated to account for other variables besides that, you get some idea of the power they have.

I read up here that the arithmetic is pretty simple to figure out the magnification power.

www.northern-stars.com...

"To calculate the magnifying power of any telescope you simply divide the focal length of the objective lens or mirror by the focal length of the eyepiece. Remember to use the same measuring units, eyepieces are generally sold by their focal length in millimeters, telescopes are often sold by their focal lengths in centimeters or inches. Don't forget to convert first!"

Does anyone here know the
1 focal length of objective mirror
2 focal length of eyepiece
of the telescope that spotted these?

That would give us the magnification power right?
edit on 24-2-2017 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:10 AM

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:11 AM
a reply to: InachMarbank

Here is how one goes about finding the Resolving Power of a telescope:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Magnification of a object within a telescope or "Power" aka "Magnification Power" is dependent upon the eye piece used with the telescope, as that is what "magnifies" what is being used.

A telescope's "Magnification Power" is dependent upon the angular resolution of the object being viewed and the eye piece being used to magnify that image. Therefore a telescope's "power" is the ratio of the telescopes focal length to the eyepiece.

So let us say you have a 1400mm focal length of your telescope and you are using a 10mm eyepiece with it. The "Power" of magnification in that set up would be:

1400/10 = 140x

The bigger the eyepiece, the less magnification it does. Let's say you use a 25mm eyepiece on the same telescope:

1400/25 = 56x

But if you used a 3mm eyepiece:

1400/3 = 466.66x

Keep in mind however, that while you can get your magnification higher and higher, to see any detail will depend upon the telescope's resolving power or Angular Resolution.
edit on 2/24/2017 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 09:35 AM

originally posted by: InachMarbank

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: InachMarbank

Actually, its relatively simple.

When light passes through an atmosphere, that atmosphere filters out certain parts of the spectrum, to varying degrees. Different chemicals being present, results in different parts of the spectrum being absorbed by it. By examining the light received by telescopes and the like, from a given location or body, scientists can figure out what chemicals are present, by seeing which parts of the spectrum have been absorbed.

What is the magnifying power of the telescope that spotted these?

It should be noted that these planets were not found by being directly observed. Instead, they used the "transit method" or "transit photometry", which detects planets that pass in front of a star (a planet that needs to be on a direct line between us and the star) by sensing the tiny changes in the star's brightness as the planet passes in front of -- or "transits" -- the star.

The telescope that did this was the European Southern Observatory's La Silla Telescope in Chile.

The Kepler Space Telescope, which is credited with finding the most exoplanets (over 1000, plus a couple thousand more candidates not yet confirmed), also uses the transit method to find exoplanets.

edit on 2017-2-24 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 09:56 AM

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ThoughtIsMadness
The cool thing is the size of the sun and the temperature at which it burns.

Being such a small star and the habitable zone being so close would force the earth like planets to orbit the Sun in like days as opposed to our 365.25.

very cool stuff

If we lived on one of those planets, our life span would be how much longer?

No... It would be shorter. Way too short.

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:15 AM

originally posted by: CapricornPrime

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ThoughtIsMadness
The cool thing is the size of the sun and the temperature at which it burns.

Being such a small star and the habitable zone being so close would force the earth like planets to orbit the Sun in like days as opposed to our 365.25.

very cool stuff

If we lived on one of those planets, our life span would be how much longer?

No... It would be shorter. Way too short.

Well...if the planets were good for human habitation, then our life spans would generally be the same.

carewemust's question about lifespan seemed to be based on the fact that years on those planets would be much faster than a year on Earth (lasting a few Earth days rather than 365 Earth days), meaning that people would be living through hundreds of years on those planets in the span of a few Earth years...

...HOWEVER, that doesn't really mean our life spans would change. It simply means we would change the way we measure that lifespan. For example, I weigh 185 pounds, but if I weigh myself using a different way to measure weight -- such as the kilo -- then that makes me about 84 kilos. However, that does not mean I'm any lighter when I use kilos.

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:46 AM
Question...

Wouldnt the weather on these planets be nuts?

The winds and.. if there is water.. the waves would be crazy no? Since they orbit their sun so quickly?

do they know if the planets are locked or not?

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I think CapriconPrime was making a point about the probability that radiation would be much stronger, as close to the parent star as those planets are.

Its a reasonable point. Its perfectly possible that the planets which are in the habitable zone are also close enough to the star to be at greater risk of radiation exposure, regardless of the fact that the atmospheres of these planets might shield one from a certain degree of it.

Speaking of which, these planets must have FANTASTIC aurorae.

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:34 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

That's all very true.

However, I was basing my reply on the context of the question by carewemust (to whom CapricorPrime was replying). carewemust's question was based on a post about the "years" for these planets only lasting a few Earth days.

as in...:

originally posted by: carewemust

"originally posted by: ThoughtIsMadness

The cool thing is the size of the sun and the temperature at which it burns.
Being such a small star and the habitable zone being so close would force the earth like planets to orbit the Sun in like days as opposed to our 365.25."

If we lived on one of those planets, our life span would be how much longer?

edit on 2017-2-24 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:19 PM

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: InachMarbank

FYI :

Trappist North

Trappist South

I'm not sure those links show the focal lengths of the telescope and eyepiece.

It says diameter is 60 cm and unvignetted field of view is 50 mm diameter.

I don't think those are the same thing as the focal length of the telescope and eyepiece...

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:53 PM

originally posted by: carewemust
These discoveries always bring up the thought.. "What if God chose not to create 'intelligent' life anywhere but Earth?"

Or perhaps we are not the intelligent life....

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 09:13 PM
Slow Disclosure.

Or maybe just funding justification.

Interesting nonetheless.

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:37 AM
a reply to: InachMarbank

How can you detect oxygen (or other atmospheric elements) trillions of miles away?

The can do this almost the same way they detect how a planet is there, when the planet passes the sun the light spectrum changes depending on the planets atmosphere. Its amazing how far we have come in 20 years.

Now, different elements absorb light, rather than allowing it to pass through, but they only absorb certain parts of the light spectrum. This generates a “light signature”.

And its remarkably simple.

If we were to look at a light spectrum coming from Earth, for example, the “barcode” would be missing the frequencies that correlate to nitrogen, oxygen and argon would be missing, as those compose Earth’s atmosphere (78%, 21% and 1%, respectively).

This link helps with blue red shift and explains how they can tell the chemical composition

edit on 25-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 03:48 AM

originally posted by: Justaposter

originally posted by: carewemust
These discoveries always bring up the thought.. "What if God chose not to create 'intelligent' life anywhere but Earth?"

Or perhaps we are not the intelligent life....

OR... The easiest explanation, God had NOTHING to do with it
in the first place, because there isnt any...
edit on 2017/2/25 by Miccey because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 05:26 AM

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Seven more barren planets detected. Not sure how this is news. These announcements by NASA get so tiresome.

Barren? So you've already been to these planets, explored them and come to this conclusion? Cool story bro...

Nobody, not even NASA can tell us if these worlds are barren (NASA may not even be able to tell us if they're not). If they even have plant life it's still a seriously exciting discovery. Some people will only be happy when NASA announce conclusively that we are not alone in the Universe, for the rest of us these discoveries are pretty awe inspiring...

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:27 AM

originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: InachMarbank

How can you detect oxygen (or other atmospheric elements) trillions of miles away?

The can do this almost the same way they detect how a planet is there, when the planet passes the sun the light spectrum changes depending on the planets atmosphere. Its amazing how far we have come in 20 years.

Now, different elements absorb light, rather than allowing it to pass through, but they only absorb certain parts of the light spectrum. This generates a “light signature”.

And its remarkably simple.

If we were to look at a light spectrum coming from Earth, for example, the “barcode” would be missing the frequencies that correlate to nitrogen, oxygen and argon would be missing, as those compose Earth’s atmosphere (78%, 21% and 1%, respectively).

This link helps with blue red shift and explains how they can tell the chemical composition

Thanks for that explanation.
Do you know the magnification power of the TRAPPIST telescopes?

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:27 AM

edit on 25-2-2017 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:27 AM

edit on 25-2-2017 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)

59