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.
Originally posted by xacto..., this technique relies entirely on star systems with planetary discs that are in sync with the ecliptic of Earth's, at least within a small range of degree, correct? ...
Originally posted by Glargod
Originally posted by xacto..., this technique relies entirely on star systems with planetary discs that are in sync with the ecliptic of Earth's, at least within a small range of degree, correct? ...
It would not have to be in sync with the ecliptic of the earth, but rather, the ecliptic of the star system being observed would have to be parallel to the vector angle of the observatory azimuth/elevation.
The odds of this occurring are not exactly big. That said, if some planets have been discovered by using this method, I would agree with you that there is an exponential amount of non-discoverable planets(using said method) out there.
edit on 6-2-2012 by Glargod because: (no reason given)edit on 6-2-2012 by Glargod because: (no reason given)
No, far from it. Kepler looked at about 145,000 main-sequence stars. So far Kepler has identified just over 2,300 candidates (systems that may have planets, but have not been verified by other means as having them). Only 61 of those have been confirmed as having planets. So while Kepler has discovered a lot of exoplanets and potential exoplanets, it's far from being "every star."
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Glargod
I think this is why the planet-hunters are now telling us that every star probably has planets. It looks like every star they are able to image with this technique (or at least every one they have inspected so far) has them.