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.

 

Astronomers Detect First 'Clear Signs of Civilization' Beyond Earth - How will you react?

page: 11
41
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It all sounds simply like the Strong Law of Small Numbers to me.


NewAgeMan
I don't have the time to lay it all out, but the data can be found in a book called

Forget their conclusion, and just examine the data. It's extraordinary, and seems to show all the hallmarks of an intelligent design, and a message of sorts intended for none other than we ourselves as sentient observers and the ONLY ones for whom such a "message" or "sign" or "signature" could be meaningful.


But there data would more than likely be skewed or have omitances to align with their conclusion as is typical of such radical theories so you cant use their data in that manner. As you point out that the earth is at its furthest from the sun its equal to the number of earths that make up the diameter of the sun... thing is the earth is only at that distance (if its correct) for what, at most a few days or maybe a few hours out of every year (I dont know the actual period), so what significance does the two numbers matching up for a small amount of time really mean when 99% of the rest of the year the earth revolves around the sun its not at these supposedly non-coincidental numbers... if the earth had a perfectly circular orbit around the sun that was that distance then yes, maybe there would be some interesting match ups, but it isnt.

And while I believe alot of things about the moon, im not going to go with the ideas presented in an online pdf or use their data they present when its called "Who Built the Moon", hey and I believe the moon has got bases on it, but there is a point where you have to pull back, since that sounds to much like the now well ridiculed 2012 Annunaki crud of last year.

I mean look at the 366 times the earth rotates while traveling around the sun in a year example. then the last line of that section you have there is the moon goes around the earth 366 times every 10,000 days... whats the significances of 10,000 days?

All it means is they worked out how many days it would take the moon to circle the earth until they got a match of 366 and then go "Oooooo look 366 again!". Same with the 109.2 numbers, given the moons circumference is (according to you, according to them) 10920.08km... the quoted 109.2's are missing 3 decimal places, so what are they because they sure as hell arent THAT exact? if they where 109.2008 THEN you'd have some spooky going on, but why dont they mention them? is it because they dont match up with the 10920.08km number for the Moon? so just drop em for consistency sake so they match the 109.2.

And ultimately, if the numbers all do match up, what do the matching up of the numbers actually have to do with life on Earth? if the numbers where out by 1 id assume no life would occur? What significance do any of these numbers have on life like us being here outside of some one claiming its some hidden signature designed to say to those who find it 'we are here' sort of thing.

This is why im saying its all bollocks, it has no significance at all in the long run, and if these numbers do in fact have meaning to our existence then we better hurry up since its not going to be all that long (relatively) before they come out of alignment, So I guess sentient life on earths gonna vanish come that day (if it had any actual significance to begin with). I just worked out based on a few numbers i googled that since humans first appeared the moon has receded roughly 7.6kms from Earth. So if its changed that much since then and we are still here, the numbers must mean nothing to the existence of life here on Earth.

Edit:- as an aside I went and looked for how often the moon rotates around the earth per year, and it seems its 13.4 or there abouts. Now if we take the 366 rotations per 10,000 days and do some maths thats around 27.31 years to do all that (if you dont take into account leap years and the like, which falls short of 10,000 by 31 days)... but really, what does any of that actually mean? beyond sliding numbers around to get matches, the orbit and rotations of planets and the sun are a orderly fixed system for the most part and like a broken cock its right twice a day. You can find any number of alignments and other eventual coincidences in such a cyclic system, doesn't mean it has any relevance, its no different than attributing the cyclic movement of the planets and stars through the constellations to predict your future for the coming week or day.

But at the end of the day the thread was about a hypothetical situation, asking what would you think and do if or when this event occurs. Not about IF such an event COULD occur due to is there or isnt there a chance of sentient life on other worlds, randomly or purposefully. As such I think our two and throw has drifted off topic and we aren't going to convince each other any time soon simply as two laymen who are actually on the same side of the fence as each other, just with one a little further away from said fence than the other

edit on 28-11-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

NewAgeMan


The moons themselves might have moons.


Unlikely. There's that whole 3-body problem.




Tidal locking is a bit of a problem however isn't it?


Not really. We've found that even tidally locked planets can circulate an atmosphere. Tidally locked moons would still have night and day cycles due to revolving around a planet.



How many moons in our solar system are not already tidally locked


Few, but again, it doesn't matter because even a tidally locked moon would receive sunlight. I might have to show you how this works in a simulation.



and what do they DO could you tell us about that and/or share some favorite moon pics of yours from our solar system? That would make for a cool addition to this thread, imho.




Off the top of my head my top 5 pictures are

1. The view of the Earth rising from the moon.






2. Europa's cracked icy surface. (Underneath that ice is an ocean twice the volume as all the oceans of Earth put together).







3. Enceladus erupting liquid water into space from a bunch of geysers as captured by the Cassini probe.





4. Io erupting a big volcano as captured by the Voyager 2 probe.








5. Titan's liquid methane lakes as captured by the Huygens probe.







You sure like moons! I think you should change your ATS Name to MoonMan


edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
By the way NewAgeMan there's a proposed mission to send a boat to sail Titan's lakes.

NASA floats Titan boat concept



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Great thread~!

After reading it, my only thought was...what if it was them, discovering Earth? What programs would they be running to find out more? If they were +300years advanced in technology, what exact would they want to know?

Personally, they should stay away until our governments of the world fix the Military Industrial Complex issues and REALLY fully fund tax dollars in to serious technology advancements and stop the trickle-down effect.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Komodo
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Great thread~!

After reading it, my only thought was...what if it was them, discovering Earth? What programs would they be running to find out more? If they were +300years advanced in technology, what exact would they want to know?


Well its hard to predict technology but in 100 years there is a very good chance that:

1. We will have detailed maps of the surfaces of the closest habitable exoplanets. Oceans, continents, vegetation all would be visible.

Massive interferometers in space will allow this.

2. We will have a list of planets which have at least simple life on them.

This is something we'll be able to detect within the next 10-20 years with ground based telescopes.

3. We will know of at least one extraterrestrial civilization.

See #2 but scale it up to include #1 as well as a multi-spectral telescope array placed at our Sun's gravitational lens (750-1000 astronomical units out - BTW: 1 astronomical unit = the distance of the Earth to the Sun or 93 million miles - 1000 AU = 0.015 lightyears).

Beyond that, its anyone's guess....

In 200 years we could very well have sent out our first interstellar probes, or perhaps even humans to the nearest habitable worlds.

How fast they'd get there would be based on the propulsion method.
(Hmmmm, that might be another chart I should make tomorrow, showing how long it would take to get to this hypothetical civilization by different methods from the conventional to the exotic).


Presumably an alien civilization would be able to do similar things but probably much more because they'd likely be far more advanced than just 200 or 300 or even 1000 years.
edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
To speculate on how far beyond us they are
is pointless.

It may verry well be that, when we get out there,
we might find planets/planet that is in its
infancy. Imagine finding a planet that looks
and acts like ours, 500k y ago.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


I can see what you're saying, but as to the book recommendation you cannot judge a book by it's title alone.

I'm still convinced however, that what we are looking at, right in our face is a "sign" or a "signature" of sorts, as the byproduct of an intelligent design (and not mere randomized collisions) based in some sort of sacred geometry, when we factor in first the double eclipse phenomenon of the moon to the sun (as seen from earth) and the shadow of the earth, the moon, as well as, the geometrical relationship between the moon and the earth, as follows





In the diagram above, the big triangle is the same proportion and angle of the Great Pyramid, with its base angles at 51 degrees 51 minutes. If you bisect this triangle and assign a value of 1 to each base, then the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) equals phi (1.618..) and the perpendicular side equals the square root of phi. And that’s not all. A circle is drawn with it’s centre and diameter the same as the base of the large triangle. This represents the circumference of the earth. A square is then drawn to touch the outside of the earth circle. A second circle is then drawn around the first one, with its circumference equal to the perimeter of the square. (The squaring of the circle.)

This new circle will actually pass exactly through the apex of the pyramid. And now the “wow”: A circle drawn with its centre at the apex of the pyramid and its radius just long enough to touch the earth circle, will have the circumference of the moon! Neat, huh! And the small triangle formed by the moon and the earth square will be a perfect 345 triangle

Ref: geometry.wholesomebalance.com...
Ref 2: nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca...
Ref 3: Strange Moon Facts

Calculation for proportionately reduced Phi Ratio triangle - off by only 17kms (although the surface of the moon is slightly "bumpy")


It is due to these two factors (eclipse, and the above), and the fact that the Moon revolves at one hundredth of the speed that the Earth turns on its axis, or approx. 1 m/s. that the various numerical coincidences arise.

An interesting factoid in relation to the Great Pyramid is that the section of the apex that's a model of the whole is precisely 1 meter in height, that's right, 1 meter, where the base of the pyramid is 400 royal cubits long, thus establishing the relationship between those two measuring systems.

I'll come back later to explore what kind of implications these phenomenon may have in relation to our search for living exoplanets and exomoons outside our solar system, and they might surprise you, so please don't make any assumptions.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Why don't we send out two GIANT optical (and radio) telescopes in orbit around the sun to create, using the phenomenon of parallax, a giant pair of binoculars??!



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Why don't we send out two GIANT optical (and radio) telescopes in orbit around the sun to create, using the phenomenon of parallax, a giant pair of binoculars??!


You just described STEREO:



We use it to study the sun. It's also going to take some good pictures of comet ISON.

STEREO Images of Comet ISON

You can get great parallax for objects within our solar system by using such a technique.

But the thing is. to see parallax at stellar distances would need a different technique. Those scopes are not far apart at all at stellar distances.

To see stellar parallax we'd use something like the Hipparcos satellite.

You'd need telescopes positioned a half a light year apart or so and for what reason?

Parallax is not what give your binoculars magnification. It's what gives them depth.



Parallax is useful in astronomy for other reasons. It can tell you precise distances of objects. That's how we know a star is 16 lighty years away rather than 20, or 2000.

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

JadeStar

NewAgeMan


The moons themselves might have moons.


Unlikely. There's that whole 3-body problem.


What about the 3-body problem prevents moons from having moons? The 3-body problem is an issue of computational difficulty, and not one that dictates any actual physical limitations in structure. Indeed, we have the extrapolation of the 3-body problem to the n-body problem (in the case of the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, and an artificial satellite around the moon such as has been introduced on numerous occasions, we have the whole 4-body problem).



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The article linked below explains why moons of moons are not a stable configuration.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...
edit on 28-11-2013 by Ross 54 because: corrected error in link address



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Ross 54
 


And the answer was YES, that moons can have moons. So there it is.

The MOONS are alive, with the sound of music...



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Yes, and a tossed coin can land on its edge, instead of heads or tails. However, this doesn't happen very often, nor is it likely to stay that way very long. Of the 180 moons in our solar system, there is no evidence that even one of them has a moon of its own.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
There are 166 moons in our solar system, which is a LOT of moons, for eight planets, or nine if you count Pluto, particularly given that Earth only has but one solitary Moon.

Lots and lots and lots and LOTS of moons...

What we were considering, as a possibility, is that of LARGE moons, moons the size of the Earth, or larger, orbiting say a Gas Giant in the Habitable Zone, and it occured to me that the moons themselves might have moons, and it's entirely possible.

Here is what we're looking at in terms of scale for the largest moons in our solar system, of which there are only 4, of all of them in OUR solar system, that are larger than Earth's moon, Io, Callisto, Titan and Ganymede.

Here's what we're looking at in terms of scale.






posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

vorpal22

JadeStar

NewAgeMan


The moons themselves might have moons.


Unlikely. There's that whole 3-body problem.


What about the 3-body problem prevents moons from having moons? The 3-body problem is an issue of computational difficulty, and not one that dictates any actual physical limitations in structure. Indeed, we have the extrapolation of the 3-body problem to the n-body problem (in the case of the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, and an artificial satellite around the moon such as has been introduced on numerous occasions, we have the whole 4-body problem).


The orbit of a moon around a moon would be unstable and would not last...

Could a moon have a moon? - Popular Science


Even if astronomers spot a moon with a moon, it probably won't last long. "Tidal forces from the parent planet will tend, over time, to destabilize the orbit of the moon's moon, eventually pulling it out of orbit," says Webster Cash, a professor at the University of Colorado's Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy. "A moon's moon will tend to be a short-lived phenomenon."

edit on 29-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Nice try, I guess.. re: exomoons with moons of their own.


But just for kicks, in terms of it being possible on a longer range basis, I wonder what would happen IF the host moon were at the outer fringe of the Hill sphere of a Gas Giant as big or bigger, than Jupiter?


The issue seems to be the same one involving why most moons end up in a tidal lock with their host planet (same face always visible from the POV of the surface, like our moon does), as well as why many planets do relative to their host star (tidally locked).



Most significant moons in the Solar System are tidally locked with their primaries, since they orbit very closely and tidal force increases rapidly (as a cubic) with decreasing distance. Notable exceptions are the irregular outer satellites of the gas giant planets, which orbit much farther away than the large well-known moons.

Pluto and Charon are an extreme example of a tidal lock. Charon is a relatively large moon in comparison to its primary and also has a very close orbit. This has made Pluto also tidally locked to Charon. In effect, these two celestial bodies revolve around each other (their barycenter lies outside of Pluto) as if joined with a rod connecting two opposite points on their surfaces.

Tidal locking occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one side of an astronomical body always face another; for example, one side of the Earth's Moon always faces the Earth. A tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. This synchronous rotation causes one hemisphere constantly to face the partner body. Usually, at any given time only the satellite is tidally locked around the larger body, but if the difference in mass between the two bodies and their physical separation is small, each may be tidally locked to the other, as is the case between Pluto and Charon. This effect is employed to stabilize some artificial satellites.

Interesting factoid, about Venus on close inspection showing the same face to the Earth but not otherwise tidally locked relative to the sun.

Venus's 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to the Earth is equal to 5.001444 Venusian solar days, making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with the Earth is unknown.

en.wikipedia.org...



curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Yes, in theory, moons can have moons. The region of space around a satellite there a sub-satellite can exist is called the Hill sphere. Outside the Hill sphere, a sub-satellite would be lost from its orbit about the satellite.

An easy example is the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Earth is a satellite of the Sun and the Moon is a sub-satellite orbiting Earth. The Moon orbits the Earth because the Moon is 370,000 km from Earth, well within Earth's Hill sphere, which has a radius of 1.5 million km (0.01 AU or 235 Earth radii). Loosely speaking, the Hill sphere defines the space where the Earth's gravity is more important than the Sun's gravity on another object. If the Moon somehow ended up outside Earth's Hill sphere, the Moon would orbit the Sun instead of the Earth just like all the other planets, asteroids, and comets. For comparison, Jupiter's Hill sphere has a radius of 0.35 AU which is much much larger than the Earth's Hill sphere. This is because Jupiter is more massive than the Earth and has a stronger gravitational pull, but more importantly because it is further from the Sun than Earth so the Sun's gravity is weaker at Jupiter than at Earth. This gives Jupiter a lot of gravitational influence on the space around it. Having such a big Hill radius could explain why Jupiter has a lot of moons and can affect the orbits of passing comets so strongly.

Can the Moon have a moon?

Yes, the Moon could have a sub-satellite. If we look at a system of the Earth, Moon, and a sub-satellite, the same idea as above applies. The Moon has its own Hill sphere with a radius of 60,000 km (1/6th of the distance between the Earth and Moon) where a sub-satellite could exist. If an object lies outside the Moon's Hill sphere, it will orbit Earth instead of the Moon. The only problem is that the sub-satellite cannot stay in orbit around the Moon indefinitely because of tides.

The Moon, like almost all other moons in the solar system, is in synchronous rotation about the Earth meaning it shows the same face to Earth at all times (its rotation period about its own axis is the same as its orbital period about the Earth), which is a result of tidal forces between the Earth and Moon. These are the same tidal forces that cause the high and low tides on Earth. In this configuration, any object within the Hill sphere of the Moon will have its orbit decay due to tides! That means the orbit of any sub-satellite of the Moon will shrink over time. In other words, the distance between the sub-satellite and the Moon will get smaller and smaller until the sub-satellite crashes into the Moon or the lunar tides rip the sub-satellite apart!

How does the Moon exist if it is a sub-satellite itself?


The reason this argument does not apply to the Sun-Earth-Moon system is that the Earth itself does not synchronously rotate (nor do any of the planets) about the Sun like the Moon and other satellites do around the planets. This allows the Moon to have a stable orbit around the Earth.

What about man-made lunar orbiters? How do they survive?

Lunar orbiters only orbit the Moon for a few years, a very short time by astronomical standards. Man-made satellites can stay in orbit around the Moon or any moon for the duration of a mission because tidal effects require thousands or millions or more years, depending on the system, to cause the loss of a sub-satellite. Because of this we can leave a man-made satellite in stable orbit around a moon for a few years using the spacecraft's rocket thrusters to correct for any changes in its orbit.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...


Tidal locking re: exoplanets.

Alien Planets With No Spin May Be Too Harsh for Life

www.space.com...

Tidal Locking Could Render Habitable Planets Inhospitable

www.astrobio.net...

Questions:

How many moons in our solar system, of the 165 remaining moons other than Earth's moon, are NOT tidally locked?

Of the remaining 7 planets in our solar system, which ones are and which ones aren't, tidally locked?

We know the Earth isn't, which spins pretty fast too at 366 times every orbit around the sun - could the fact that the earth is NOT tidally locked with the sun, and spins so quickly for it's relative size, have anything to do with the influence of our single, giant moon, which is the second most dense in our solar system and the largest of the moons relative to it's host planet?


edit on 29-11-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   

NewAgeMan

Tidal locking re: exoplanets.

Alien Planets With No Spin May Be Too Harsh for Life


www.space.com...

Tidal Locking Could Render Habitable Planets Inhospitable

www.astrobio.net...


Why did you pick two papers from 2011 on this when more recent models and research state the exact opposite?


Here are some relevant newer papers:

Stabilizing Cloud Feedback Dramatically Expands the Habitable Zone of Tidally Locked Planets - Astrophysics Journal Letters, 771, L 45, July 2013

And here's a popular article if the paper above is too heady...

Could Giant Exoplanets Support Habitable Exomoons? - Discover News - September 2013

edit on 29-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Image: An artist’s rendition of a sunset view from the perspective of an imagined Earth-like moon orbiting the giant planet, PH2 b. The scene is spectacular, but how likely is it that gas giants would have moons beyond Mars size? The answer to the question awaits further work in exomoon detection. Credit: H. Giguere, M. Giguere/Yale University.

Gas Giants in the Habitable Zone
by PAUL GILSTER on Janurary 10, 2013
www.centauri-dreams.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


It didn't exactly say the "exact opposite" just that cloud cover could extend the habitable zone wherein liquid water could be present, it didn't address in the least the environmental problems that go along with planetary tidal locking.

I don't mean to sound snarky or contrarion, because I love this stuff.

I was really hoping JadeStar, that you might be able to answer these questions, if you have access to the "inside scoop" on all things exoplanets/exomoons. I've tried Googling and just cannot find the answers to these questions.. If you can help find them I'd be most appreciative, thanks. NAM

Questions:

1) How many moons in our solar system, of the 165 remaining moons other than Earth's moon, are NOT tidally locked?

2) Of the remaining 7 planets in our solar system, which ones are and which ones aren't, tidally locked?

3) We know the Earth isn't, which spins pretty fast too at 366 times every orbit around the sun - could the fact that the earth is NOT tidally locked with the sun, and spins so quickly for it's relative size, have anything to do with the influence of our single, giant moon, which is the second most dense in our solar system and the largest of the moons relative to it's host planet?

4) So far in the planet hunting, and in particular as it relates to planets in the "Habitable Zone" which as good as it sounds means only a theoretic distance from the host star where liquid water could be present, how many or what percentage of those found have turned out to be Gas Giants vs. potential Rocky Worlds including the so-called "Super Earth's"?

In other words, for the H.Z. DO Gas Giants show up, and if so, how often?

5) Lastly - How many exoplanets have been identified so far, and how many are expected to be found within the next 2, 5 and 10 years, based on all these new instruments that are coming on stream. I know when SKA is fully operational, about 12-15 years from now, the number will be in the many millions, but until then what are we looking at in terms of raw numbers? Thanks again. Very interesting stuff, big time!


Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Don't assume my motives in asking any of these questions, because I just want to know, and I'm working up a hypothesis of sorts based on the phenomenon of the earth-moon-sun configuration which might bolster even dramatically the probability of finding not only life but other earth-like worlds, including the possibility of an alien civilization and I think that's brilliant to think of artificial lighting re: cities, and why would they hide if they've also pondered the Fermi paradox..?!

P.S.S. In that artist’s rendition (above) of a Jovian-sized exoplanet from the POV of it's earth-like exomoon, the Jovian would appear much MUCH larger even that THAT ie: consider that our own moon was once 12-15 times larger in visible diameter in the sky (if there was anyone to see it) when it was as close as 10K miles from the earth's surface. Then again we'd likely be looking at the Jovian from the outer edges of the Hill sphere of the Gas Giant to protect us from it's radiation, while it protects us from the solar wind, but even still it would be absolutely HUGE on the horizon like GIGANTIC, and if the exomoon had a small moon of it's own, those fantastic images that those street spray paint artists make on white boards with cans and the like would be less pure fantasy and more in line with what's actually possible (with or without the extra little moon).


edit on 29-11-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

NewAgeMan

Image: An artist’s rendition of a sunset view from the perspective of an imagined Earth-like moon orbiting the giant planet, PH2 b. The scene is spectacular, but how likely is it that gas giants would have moons beyond Mars size? The answer to the question awaits further work in exomoon detection. Credit: H. Giguere, M. Giguere/Yale University.

Gas Giants in the Habitable Zone
by PAUL GILSTER on Janurary 10, 2013
www.centauri-dreams.org...


You found one of my favorite blogs. You should read it frequently
I often can be found in the comments section.

As for your questions. I'm sorry, its Thanksgiving and I've not been around much but beyond that, I think you should google around because the answers are out there.

Check the OpenExoplanet Catalog for example.
edit on 29-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join