reply to post by JadeStar
As for the fact that two, perhaps three of those systems have habitable planets that should be expected based on the fact that 22% (+/- 8%) of F, G
and K stars have habitable, Earthlike planets based on the Kepler survey. We do not yet know if other stars on the map have habitable zone planets but
if they rise above the 22% (+/- 8%) figure then that map may become a lot more significant.
3 of 14 stars is 21.4%
Which is right in line with the Kepler statistical figure. It's nothing to get excited about on its own.
Given the original report, Zeta 2 necessarily has such a planet, raising the initial "count" to 4 (too include Z2R) makes this 28% and change
(that's a fraction of a planet short of your max for chance).
But no such planet has been shown to exist yet. We can't go jumping the gun before data is in on either star of Zeta Ret.
Something that Terrestrial science is in the process of learning; planets are ubiquitous. If you see a star, it has planets. The next thing you will
learn is that "IF" life has even the remotest of a chance; it becomes.
That's the prevailing wisdom right now certainly. But still, it's best to be patient. Trust me, if they find a habitable planet on most of the stars
on that map it -WILL- get the serious attention it deserves Tanka. And at that point then you can hold it up and say, "See, I told you so!"
But we're not there yet. Be patient.
Yes, I push the envelope; it needs it!! I also use non-standard sensory methods to get some of my info. And, I cheat when it comes to data; I use the
original / raw data and conduct my own queries.
If we cut corners and rush to judgement we're in danger of fooling ourselves. Best not to cheat. Cheating is what separates psuedo-science from
And, I'm sorry; I didn't know you put upsilon Andromeda where it is; I sort of thought that was Nature.
You, by your admission, used data from the research I did which was posted in the Hill Starmap and Exoplanets thread.
You specifically used my interpretation that one of the stars on the map was misidentified and likely actually Upsilon Andromeda.
In science it's ok to do this AS LONG AS YOU REFERENCE the original researcher.
You didn't do that, but rather passed it off as if it was your own. That's plagiarism. A very bad thing to do.
Researchers who plagiarize lose credibility instantly in science. But I guess this sort of thing is commonly accepted in psuedoscience.
I don't accept it, it's wrong and you should probably apologize and add the reference to the video. A simple link back to the ATS post you lifted it
from would suffice.
Finally, You are using astronomy, I'm using probability.
Probability has to be based on -something-
In this case you're basing it on astronomical data. Thus you too are using astronomy, but you're rushing to judgement and basically saying "Because
this is probable then it's real." or "Because this -might- exist, it does exist."
That's where you depart from science and that is a line I will not cross. There's still too much we don't know about most of the systems on the
You get cautious over a high probability that doesn't "sound" right, I go with the raw probability. And, one of us needs to be cautious.
No, I wait until the data is in before I go to the world proclaiming that the HIll-Fish star map is real and proof that there are aliens living in
Zeta Reticuli who abducted a couple in 1966.
Think of some of what I say as "predictions".
Predictive modeling is fine but it is -never- a substitute for observational "ground truth".
Real data is worth waiting for. Just ask Percival Lowell.
edit on 22-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)