Kepler Reveals Solar Systems In The Sky

The Kepler telescope has finally revealed to humanity that the stars we see in the night sky are very often Solar Systems.

I think Galileo would have been very interested in this news.

a reply to: A51Watcher
Haha is this a joke? I kind of knew that all my life. I think I read it somewhere in a educational book about "the universe".

Now get this, some galaxies even show up as a single star to our eyes. Only if we zoom in with a telescope, we can see the single stars.

What do I misunderstand here?

a reply to: Oleandra88

What do I misunderstand here?

That a solar system is not a galaxy.

But then, there is only one Solar system. Because only our Sun is named Sol. So, call them star systems. Or planetary systems. There are a hell of a lot of them. We knew that before the Kepler was launched.

a reply to: Oleandra88

If we zoom in with a telescope we can not see the single planets, we can only detect them when they cause their Sun to momentarily dim out when they pass in front of them.

a reply to: Phage
I know that the solar system is not a galaxy. You shot too fast here.

We knew that before the Kepler was launched.

I rephrase my question:

Why is this now news, when I knew that for like 25 years? That galaxies appear as single dots. Just like a single light in the distance and then you put out the binoculars and you see it is a parking lot with many cars and suddenly you can make out the headlights, too.

Same for stars/galaxies.

a reply to: Oleandra88

Why is this now news, when I knew that for like 25 years?

It isn't, particularly.

That galaxies appear as single dots.

Andromeda doesn't. It's more of a blob. And there aren't many other galaxies we can see with the naked eye at all.
But with a reasonable pair of binoculars you can discern the disk. It's bigger than a full Moon, but a lot dimmer.

a reply to: Oleandra88

It was theorized years ago but not known, Kepler has given us proof and data and quantifiable data.

My comment about Galileo was meant to show that relatively this is news to humanity.

Kepler shows us detailed data on how many and how big and we don't have to guess or imagine anymore.

a reply to: A51Watcher
Thank you for the constructive answer.

a reply to: A51Watcher

That is true. They also can detect a wobble effect that helps them determine if the star has planets orbiting it.

There goes that quote...

"My God, it's full of stars! planets"

I am still honestly baffled. Because it was just normal for me to think that some of those stars have to have planets. Not all of them but "many" at least. You know, where circumstances allow it.

That is why I was almost sure it is some kind of joke or satire. It could be I read this back then and it was like a theory in that time. It was from the "what is what" series.

So, apologies if I trampled on some feet here and denounced the work of a whole team of scientists.

It should be pointed out that the method Kepler uses to find planets (the transit method) can only detect about 10% of potential stars with planets. That's because the transit method requires the alignment of the extrasolar system to be "just right" to allow a planet to pass between (or transit) its star and the Kepler telescope.

In addition, Kepler works best in detecting (and confirming) planets that are close to its star. That's because it uses multiple transits to confirm a planet and it's orbital time. Transits for planets father from its star might only occur once in the years Kepler was watching, and thus the planet might not be able to be confirmed and its orbital characteristics might be unknown. There might be planets that have such wide orbits that Kepler never sees it transit, and this doesn't know it exists.

So there could be at least 10X more planets among the stars Kepler looked at than what Kepler can find. Kepler is great, but it only scratches the surface when it comes to planet hunting.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
I am still honestly baffled. Because it was just normal for me to think that some of those stars have to have planets. Not all of them but "many" at least. You know, where circumstances allow it.
That is why I was almost sure it is some kind of joke or satire. It could be I read this back then and it was like a theory in that time. It was from the "what is what" series..

Prior to 1995, we assumed that there were likely other planets, but none were actually confirmed until 1995. Since then, instruments such as Kepler has allowed us not to just find more, but also learn details about those planets -- e.g., their orbital times and distances from their star, orbital eccentricities, the planet's size, it's mass, and it's density (density could tell us whether it's likely rocky or gaseous). Once Kepler finds them, other instruments can be used to even discern some details about the atmospheres of some planets.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That is about right, I started to learn reading around that time. I can not remember any details currently, I had so many of them. There I got that knowledge/impression. I have these books somewhere I think. One book had a CD I could not use, I think it was about Mars and that rover.

a reply to: A51Watcher

But they are not stars systems like our solar system. At this point that is how it seems anyway.

So if you just look at the raw data — you plot all the planetary systems we know about — it's just mind blowing. We didn't know any of this in the 1990s or earlier. For example, as late as the 1960s and 1970s, the reigning hypothesis for our own solar system forming was that another star had come close to colliding with our star —and it was like a freak accident, and [this] is why we have planets [and] nobody else has planets.

It's true that if you if you plot the planets that we know of against ours, we do look pretty freaky. Most of the [exo]planets [we've observed] orbit [their stars closer than] Mercury does to our star. Which is kind of bizarre to think about — you know, planets two or three times the mass of Jupiter orbiting their star every five days.

That's a pretty typical planet, apparently. And that's nothing like we observe in our solar system, where we see this little dribble of planets fairly far from our star — fortunately that's where liquid water is found — and then Jupiter out there at five times the distance of the earth, and then Saturn is ten times the distance of the earth, and these ice giants farther out still — and that's still anomalous.

But then, you have to remember, we probably wouldn't have discovered those planets yet around around those stars [with our telescopes like Kepler]. Jupiter orbits every 10 years Saturn or every 30 years. Neptune, Uranus you know a hundred years or so — so that's kind of how long it's going to take to have the luck to happen to see one of those kinds of planets passing in front of their stars.

Do we owe our existence to the Moon?

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: A51Watcher

But they are not stars systems like our solar system. At this point that is how it seems anyway.

... We didn't know any of this in the 1990s or earlier. For example, as late as the 1960s and 1970s, the reigning hypothesis for our own solar system forming was that another star had come close to colliding with our star —and it was like a freak accident, and [this] is why we have planets [and] nobody else has planets....

Do we owe our existence to the Moon?

I'm not sure if Dr. Asphaug is being slightly misquoted here or if he is talking about old hypotheses that might have explained IF (big if) planetary systems were rare. Because it was NOT the reigning hypothesis that planetary systems actually WERE rare.

The going assumption among astronomers before the first exoplanet was discovered 1990s was that there were other planetary systems out there, and that there was no reason to assume that our solar system is in some way special and no reason to assume that we were one of the few stars that had planets.

For example, the Drake Equation (and the values that went with it) from the 1960s made that assumption that there were plenty of other planetary systems besides our solar system.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: A51Watcher

Now get this, some galaxies even show up as a single star to our eyes.?

M31 The Andromeda Galaxy is the only one visible to the human eye on a very clear moonless night. It's about 2.4 million light years away and all your eye see's is the central hub of the Galaxy have a look here.

Look at my first post on the thread I did below.

How Our Sky Would Look If Andromeda was Brighter

If you are in the Southern Hemisphere you can see the The Magellanic Clouds two irregular dwarf galaxies BETWEEN 160-200,000 light years away.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
I am still honestly baffled. Because it was just normal for me to think that some of those stars have to have planets. Not all of them but "many" at least. You know, where circumstances allow it.

That is why I was almost sure it is some kind of joke or satire. It could be I read this back then and it was like a theory in that time. It was from the "what is what" series.

So, apologies if I trampled on some feet here and denounced the work of a whole team of scientists.

Thanks for that explanation, it makes sense now why you posted what you did.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
It should be pointed out that the method Kepler uses to find planets (the transit method) can only detect about 10% of potential stars with planets. That's because the transit method requires the alignment of the extrasolar system to be "just right" to allow a planet to pass between (or transit) its star and the Kepler telescope.

In addition, Kepler works best in detecting (and confirming) planets that are close to its star. That's because it uses multiple transits to confirm a planet and it's orbital time. Transits for planets father from its star might only occur once in the years Kepler was watching, and thus the planet might not be able to be confirmed and its orbital characteristics might be unknown. There might be planets that have such wide orbits that Kepler never sees it transit, and this doesn't know it exists.

So there could be at least 10X more planets among the stars Kepler looked at than what Kepler can find. Kepler is great, but it only scratches the surface when it comes to planet hunting.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
I am still honestly baffled. Because it was just normal for me to think that some of those stars have to have planets. Not all of them but "many" at least. You know, where circumstances allow it.
That is why I was almost sure it is some kind of joke or satire. It could be I read this back then and it was like a theory in that time. It was from the "what is what" series..

Prior to 1995, we assumed that there were likely other planets, but none were actually confirmed until 1995. Since then, instruments such as Kepler has allowed us not to just find more, but also learn details about those planets -- e.g., their orbital times and distances from their star, orbital eccentricities, the planet's size, it's mass, and it's density (density could tell us whether it's likely rocky or gaseous). Once Kepler finds them, other instruments can be used to even discern some details about the atmospheres of some planets.

Great explanation and further details.

Thanks for the post.