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.

 

European Observatory to Make 'Major' Alien Planet Announcement Monday

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1

European Extremely Large Telescope


Am I the only one that finds this name rather uninspired?



What should they call the next one...

Even Bigger Telescope Then European Extremely Large Telescope




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
www.space.com...


i believe that is the announcement at least.


so more planets that "could sustain life".

exciting? yes. but not all that world changing i dont think. yet at least...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
That's it?

That's the big announcement?

What a bunch of gutless wonders...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PW229

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Not if they find trace gases in an exoplanet that could only be the result of industrialization.


While I agree that such discoveries could allow us to target our search for transmissions more carefully the idea that there are gases that can only be the result of industrialisation is absurd. Care to name one of these gases that cannot be explained by planetary processes?

My guess is that ESO have simply found a LOT more exoplanets rather than anything of substance (no pun intended).
edit on 12-9-2011 by PW229 because: Cleared up quote.


Here you go bud.


Not all gases are created by nature, some are produced by people. Methane rises into the atmosphere from decaying plants and animals. Carbon monoxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) enter the atmosphere because of industrial activities.


SOURCE

There are combinations of things that do not occur in nature.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


While there is no significant source of naturally created CFCs, there are some volcanic processes that can naturally produce CFCs:

cfc.geologist-1011.net...


Methane can also be created through non-organic means. We know of lakes and seas full of Methane and methane rain on Saturn's moon Titan.


Carbon Monoxide (CO) can also be produced from non-industrial and/or non-organic sources. Here is an article describing the high concentrations of CO in the atmosphere of Pluto and possible explanations as to why it is there:

www.space.com...



edit on 9/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


I appreciate your efforts but I think your source is aimed at the atmosphere of Earth. Methane can be produced by geophysical and non-organic chemical processes. A fact seen throughout our own solar system *1

*1: www.space.com...
*1: en.wikipedia.org...

CFC's are an interesting point and it is hard to imagine how they can be naturally produced (chemists chime in on this one) but it is possible, albeit in a small amount. There is a long standing argument that CFC's are a clear indication of industrialised life but equally there are arguments for CFC's being produced by volcanic processes *2. With that doubt in mind it is safe to argue that there is no gas that can be measured that will give a clear indication of industrialisation.

*2: cfc.geologist-1011.net...

Edit: I see Soylent has posted the Geologist101 link concerning CFCs, I draw your attention to his post.



edit on 12-9-2011 by PW229 because: Clarification



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PW229
 


Even though there may be natural processes that produce CFCs, I would venture to say that if significant amounts of CFCs were ever found in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, that could be good evidence of industrialization -- at least it would be fodder for speculation. I'm sure the next step after finding a planet with significant CFCs would be to rule out all possible natural ways that large amounts of CFCs could build up in an atmosphere. This alone would keep the science community arguing for a while.

However, all of this is premature, seeing that we have never detected CFCs in atmospheres before.

I do wonder though...
Even forgetting for a moment whether CFCs can be natural or not, do we even have a "definitive" method for detecting CFCs at all in exoplanets? Or could the discovery itself be doubted due to doubts about the accuracy of the analytical methods?


edit on 9/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You can run a spectral analysis on the light coming from the planet if it is close enough to see the reflected light. Also, if we did find high amounts of CFCs, we could make a good case for watching that planet for other signs of life such as radio transmissions. Even at 30 light years it would be hard to detect but doable.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


An analysis as close as Venus?

www.universetoday.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You can run a spectral analysis on the light coming from the planet if it is close enough to see the reflected light. Also, if we did find high amounts of CFCs, we could make a good case for watching that planet for other signs of life such as radio transmissions. Even at 30 light years it would be hard to detect but doable.


I suppose what I'm asking is this:

How reliable is spectral analysis of exoplanets?

Does spectroscopic analysis of a planet 30 light years away yield definite non-deniable results that the great majority of scientists could say "Yes -- there is virtually no doubt that planet has significant levels of CFCs", or could there still be some room to validly question that analysis.

A scientist must rule out other possibilities (or statistically nullify those possibilities) before making scientific claims. If CFCs are detected through spectral analysis, what is the statistical likelihood that the spectral analysis may result in a "false positive" for CFCs?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PW229
 


Yeah but the temperature of Venus is way different than Earth. The planets that they are interested in would have a closer temperature to what Earth has. Also, who is to say that the CFCs in the Venusian atmosphere were not created by a long dead civilization. I know its a stretch but we little way of knowing one way or the other.

The real tipping point will be when they discover artificial radio waves coming from one of these recently discovered exoplanets.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PW229
 


Thank you for that. I didn't know about the CFCs in Venus' atmosphere.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I don't think they even have a tool to do spectrum analysis on exoplanets yet. The tool they will need will be like the Hubble space telescope.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
And here's the press release from ESO about their meeting today. 50 new earth type planets.

www.eso.org...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
...

"In the coming ten to twenty years we should have the first list of potentially habitable planets in the Sun's neighbourhood. Making such a list is essential before future experiments can search for possible spectroscopic signatures of life in the exoplanet atmospheres," concludes Michel Mayor, who discovered the first-ever exoplanet around a normal star in 1995.


SOURCE
...


Let this quote soak in for a moment.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


The only problem I have with the phrase "Habitable Planet" is the question "what exactly constitutes a habitable planet"?

For example -- a planet with an atmosphere like ours, but is 3.5 times as massive (and say 3.5 times the gravity) may not be all that habitable due to the fact that most humans would not be able to even walk an such a planet due to the gravity. However, that planet would fall under the term "habitable planet".

I suppose one could argue that we may someday develop gravity-assist machines that people can wear everyday just to move around and not be suffocated under their own weight as they sleep, but that's not exactly the idea most people have in their heads as "habitable".

I just want to caution that when astronomers use the term "Earth-like planet" they are NOT talking about a planet that is just like Earth. A planet that falls into the astronomical category of "Earth-like" can still have a poisonous atmosphere, too much gravity for a person to walk, no protection from deadly radiation, and overall average temperatures that can be like the extremes on Earth -- such as either like Alaska or the Sahara.


edit on 9/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
They don't do space stuff...

I may be wrong just saying.

Looking at this, I think you are.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It breaks down to the spectrography results from the HARPS and the relative distance each planet is from the star it is orbiting.

Of the hundreds of planets they have looked at so far, 50 were in the goldilocks zone and had a lower mass consistent with an Earth-Like planet.

Also in the press release, they explained that they had found several neptune-like planets and a potential Super-Earth some 35-lightyears away.

They plan to do further tests on this super-earth to try and determine if it has water on it's surface. The planet is currently called HD 85512 b.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
HERE LET ME SAVE YOU THE TIME AND POST MONDAY'S HEADLINE



Alien planet Nibiru is real and going to destroy us all Tuesday.

Have a nice day!




rotflmao



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Exciting times, can't wait to see the data on closer examinations of some the habitable zones.

edit on 13-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join