Earthlike Planet discovered 25,000 light years away...

[Space Tycoon]

Set course for the Hoth System!

Astronomers have found the smallest Earth-like planet yet outside our Solar System.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4647142.stm)

It's big.

It's cold.

It's totally lifeless.

I say we name it Greenland. By Erik the Red's logic, that will make everyone want to go there. :jump2:

[Intelligent_Design]

Set course for the Hoth System!

Astronomers have found the smallest Earth-like planet yet outside our Solar System.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4647142.stm)

It's big.

It's cold.

It's totally lifeless.

I say we name it Greenland. By Erik the Red's logic, that will make everyone want to go there. :jumpie2:


Who's up for a roadtrip?:)

[sickness]

If we can detect it, it's not earthlike in the least.

[DarkJedi]

That's what I wondering.

It's more like an asteroid or satelite moon, cancelling out the size of the body mass of course.

I remember listening to a conversation on the classified "planets" over at Phenomena after scientists discovered a planetary body mass much, much closer to us.

http://messageboard.cinescape.com/phenomenamagazine/forums/showthread.php?t=629


This discovery isn't even orbiting our Sun....but another star.

It's still cool, though to find new planetary masses nearby and I think it's only a matter of time before they find a mass with an atmosphere that matches up more like us.

[MPG]

If we can detect it, it's not earthlike in the least.
Huh? Why not? How do you define "earth-like" then?

Sure, it doesn't have oceans, rivers, trees and humans living on it, so it's not exactly earth-like, if that's how you'd define it. The reason why they call it earth-like is that it's not a gas giant and its mass is fairly close to Earth's mass.

[MPG]

That's what I wondering.

It's more like an asteroid or satelite moon, cancelling out the size of the body mass of course.A moon?? It doesn't orbit another planet, so it's not a moon. It also has five times the mass of Earth, so it most definitely isn't an asteroid either. It's a planet.

[DarkJedi]

Yes, MPG, but what makes it Earth Like??

I referred to the moon and asteroid not in the context of what you refer to. I'm talking about it's use or rather, the fact that it may not even have a atmosphere. I'm well aware of what a moon is in context to a object rotating around a larger mass or an asteroid having no set path through a orbital plane.

That seems a pretty loose interpretation too. There are probably "moons" out there which have atmospheres and can sustain life. To me, those are more Earth Like than a planetary mass that can do neither.

I saw your comment to sickness just now and there seems to be alot of holes there.

The most used definition in the whole Astronomy community in defining a planet is a body of mass which has it's own gravity axis and revolves around a star in patterned timeframe orbit. There is also debate into that kind of classification.

Just seems alittle loose here to call it Earth Like.

At least, for me.

[MPG]

Yes, MPG, but what makes it Earth Like??I assume you haven't been following the whole discussion about discovering planets which orbit other stars.

First, people have been saying that we can't say for sure that there is life on other planets, because we hadn't discovered any planets outside our solar system.
Then, the first planets orbiting other stars were discovered. Now, people were saying that these discoveries don't prove anything, because these planets were gas giants.
Now a planet was discovered that is - in the context of this discussion - earth-like. Yes, it's not earth-like in a Star Trek type of context, i.e. Commander Data wouldn't announce it as an M class planet, but in this ongoing discussion, it's quite earthish.

Of course, now people are going to say "It doesn't even have an atmosphere", but in the whole "Are there planets like Earth in other star systems" discussion, we have entered a totally new dimension. It has now been proven that there are planets in other star systems which are not huge gas giants. Now, the mental step from finding this planet to imagining that there can be similar planets with an atmosphere and an earth-like temperatur is a very small one.
I referred to the moon and asteroid not in the context of what you refer to. I'm talking about it's use or rather, the fact that it may not even have a atmosphere. I'm well aware of what a moon is in context to a object rotating around a larger mass or an asteroid having no set path through a orbital plane.Yea, then why call something a moon if it orbits a star instead of a planet? ;)That seems a pretty loose interpretation too. There are probably "moons" out there which have atmospheres and can sustain life. To me, those are more Earth Like than a planetary mass that can do neither.If your interpretation of "earth-like" is "can likely sustain life", then you're right, but in the context of all those recent planet discoveries, "earth-like" is synonymous with "not a huge gas giant". Compared to all other planets that were found, this planet is extremely earth-like. :DThe most used definition in the whole Astronomy community in defining a planet is a body of mass which has it's own gravity axis and revolves around a star in patterned timeframe orbit. There is also debate into that kind of classification.That may be, but you still haven't given a reason why this planet is not a planet but "more like an asteroid or satelite moon". It definitely does not match the definitions of "moon" or "asteroid", but it matches every definition of "planet" that I have seen so far.

[DarkJedi]

First, people have been saying that we can't say for sure that there is life on other planets, because we hadn't discovered any planets outside our solar system.

Heh, I know people could say that but I'd say it's probably a given if we define "life" all the way down to a single celled organism. :D

Seems a definite given with that definition.

Of course, now people are going to say "It doesn't even have an atmosphere", but in the whole "Are there planets like Earth in other star systems" discussion, we have entered a totally new dimension. It has now been proven that there are planets in other star systems which are not huge gas giants. Now, the mental step from finding this planet to imagining that there can be similar planets with an atmosphere and an earth-like temperatur is a very small one.


Hey, man, I think that's what has me not agreeing with the "Earth Like" wording of the article.

Especially the quote from Mr. Bode of Liverpool.

>>"This is very exciting and important," said Professor Michael Bode from Liverpool John Moores University, a principal investigator for the RoboNet project which collaborated on this research.

"This is the most Earth-like planet we have discovered to date, in terms of its mass and the distance from its parent star," he told BBC News.

"Most of the other planets that have been discovered are either much more massive, much hotter or both." <<


For me, the "Earth Like" terminology has to be alot more defined and probably next to impossible to find with the technology we currently have.

Earth is about 93 million miles away from the Sun at it's current orbital plane and by being at that spot, it's neither too "far" away or too "close".

It's just right at the spot to sustain the weather, the atmosphere and the evolution on what has happened on this planet.

It's the reason we can't find a planet so close and no where near as having a planetary mass with 70% made up of water.

This latest find takes 10 years to orbit it's parent star...much too far away to be Earth Like in the context to what I see it. At least, unlike Mr. Bode.

Maybe, I'm taking the wording Earth Like too literal here...

It's an awesome find and I hope they keep finding more planets but I'm really hoping to grab a glimpse of a find where said planetary body in question has a closer proximity to it's parent star and is comprised or more Earth like characteristics.


Oh bah to this .....Awesome article and awesome find.:D ;)

[MPG]

Heh, I know people could say that but I'd say it's probably a given if we define "life" all the way down to a single celled organism. :D

Seems a definite given with that definition.Actually, I am not too sure about this. Many people assume that it is near-certain that life exists on planets with a temperate climate and an abundance of water and oxygen - yet the currently known life on Earth seems to have originated from one single "incident" over a planetary lifetime of 4.5 billion years. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Earth were actually the only planet (or one of very very few planets) in the whole universe on which life has developed. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it's possible.

Richard Dawkins actually made some interesting points about that, I think in "The Blind Watchmaker", even though he eventually stuck to the assumption that life is very common throghout the universe (even though he didn't really deliver any convincing arguments for that). This is what led me to realize that a lot of statements about how likely it is for life to develop are more wishful thinking than mathematical fact.It's just right at the spot to sustain the weather, the atmosphere and the evolution on what has happened on this planet.Man, I thought I was a nitpicker. :D But ok, fair enough, if that's what you're looking for in an earth-like planet, then you're perfectly right. For me, the important step forward is that it has become a lot harder for people to deny that there are likely a lot of planets out there which are similar to Earth even by your definition - we just haven't been able to find them yet.

[DarkJedi]

Richard Dawkins actually made some interesting points about that, I think in "The Blind Watchmaker", even though he eventually stuck to the assumption that life is very common throghout the universe (even though he didn't really deliver any convincing arguments for that). This is what led me to realize that a lot of statements about how likely it is for life to develop are more wishful thinking than mathematical fact.

It would certainly take alot of factors to have life on planets outside of ours. "Alot" being not a good enough word to describe the likelyhood of it.

Of course, I believe they exist somewhere in the universe though....hell, probably somewhere in our galaxy as well since our Milky Way is comprised of millions of stars, most of which probably have some sort of planetary masses orbiting them.....much like this discovery indicates.


Man, I thought I was a nitpicker.

Hah! Right you are, Mr. NP. I think over these kind of subjects, of which I love quite alot---Astronomy, I take things way too literal. My bad. :D


For me, the important step forward is that it has become a lot harder for people to deny that there are likely a lot of planets out there which are similar to Earth even by your definition - we just haven't been able to find them yet.


Dammmmn right! In that sense, this goes further down the path we want...I hope they keep finding them too.

[neglet]

If your interpretation of "earth-like" is "can likely sustain life", then you're right, but in the context of all those recent planet discoveries, "earth-like" is synonymous with "not a huge gas giant". Compared to all other planets that were found, this planet is extremely earth-like.

If your standards of description are that broad, why not call it "Mars-like" or "Venus-like" or "Mercury-like"? That would be just as accurate, for all we know.

The use of "earthlike" implies an atmosphere capable of sustaining life. Let's ask WordNet:

S: (adj) earthlike (earth colored; of something having a color of soil or earth) "a range of earthlike colors"
S: (adj) earthlike (resembling or characteristic of earth) "earthlike atmosphere"

This is just media spin. You say "earthlike" and people get all excited. If they wanted to be more precise, they'd say "rocky planet" or "non-gas giant," but I guess they think the general public is too dumb to understand that.

Actually, the IAU is debating this very issue. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050921_planet_definition.html) Yay for science geeks!

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Hey, I don't know what the confusion is around here on the difference between earthlike planets, moons, and whatnot....





This is clearly a planet, rather earthlike:




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/webdev/earth.jpg





And this is clearly a moon:




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/webdev/meatass.gif



'nuff said.

[Space Tycoon]

If your standards of description are that broad, why not call it "Mars-like" or "Venus-like" or "Mercury-like"? That would be just as accurate, for all we know.

The use of "earthlike" implies an atmosphere capable of sustaining life.

I'm starting to think I should have posted, "Smallest 'Terrestrial' Planet discovered 25,000 LY away," since that's generally the name given for rocky or solid planets orbting close to their parent stars.

I just couldn't resist "Earthlike." :winks:

It's a question of orders of magnitude. We have here a solid planet five times earth's mass, as opposed to a gas giant hundreds or thousands of times.

I still say it would make a good place for the Hidden Rebel Base!

[MPG]

If your standards of description are that broad, why not call it "Mars-like" or "Venus-like" or "Mercury-like"? That would be just as accurate, for all we know.
Yes, it would be. But that's not what people were looking for. They were looking for a planet that was earth-like as opposed to being jupiter-like. They weren't looking for a planet that was earth-like as opposed to being venus-like or mars-like.

Sometimes, context is everything. S: (adj) earthlike (earth colored; of something having a color of soil or earth) "a range of earthlike colors"
S: (adj) earthlike (resembling or characteristic of earth) "earthlike atmosphere"Uhm... since I am sure you know how to read dictionary entries, you will realize that "earthlike atmosphere" is just an example for that second usage of the term "earthlike". The actual definition in the quote from Wordnet is "resembling or characteristic of earth", so this is perfectly in line with the definition in the article: The newly found planet "resembles" Earth in the way that it is made of rock as opposed to being made of gas like all the other planets found so far.

If you're really nitpicky about the term "earth-like", then you will never agree to that term being used for any planet, unless it has trees, oceans, humans and Internet message boards, because unless a planet has these things, it's not earth-like.

[neglet]

They were looking for a planet that was earth-like as opposed to being jupiter-like. They weren't looking for a planet that was earth-like as opposed to being venus-like or mars-like.

No, I think they were just looking for planets--any kind of planets. And so it would have been more appropriate to classify it as either "gas giant" or "solid/rocky/terrestrial," since those are the two broad definitions we have. "Earthlike" is a more specific term. To use it to describe planets as varied as Pluto, Venus, and Earth invites inaccuracy. After all, the astronomers weren't going around calling the other extrasolar planets "Jupiterlike," they called them by the general classification "gas giant." (Or for us dummies, "A gas giant, like Jupiter." In this instance, "A rocky planet, like Earth" would have been appropriate.)

If you're really nitpicky about the term "earth-like", then you will never agree to that term being used for any planet, unless it has trees, oceans, humans and Internet message boards, because unless a planet has these things, it's not earth-like.

It's not being overly picky to hope for a little more accuracy in description. If I see a beast running towards us and it has whiskers, triangle-shaped ears that point up, sharp claws, and a long tail, you'd probably want me to be more specific than to say "It's not a dog! It's a cat!" Unless you don't think it's useful to distinguish between a 10-lb. tabby cat and 500-lb. tiger when it's running towards you.:p

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

I still say it would make a good place for the Hidden Rebel Base!



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/webdev/RebelBaseSpace.jpg

[Space Tycoon]

You should make my breasts bigger. :p

[neglet]

Naw, you just need a good push-up bra.

[sickness]

Huh? Why not? How do you define "earth-like" then?

Sure, it doesn't have oceans, rivers, trees and humans living on it, so it's not exactly earth-like, if that's how you'd define it. The reason why they call it earth-like is that it's not a gas giant and its mass is fairly close to Earth's mass.

I would define earth-like as being on the same order of mass and size as Earth. Otherwise, if we just say "rocky and smaller than Jupiter" that includes Mercury and the Moon. I won't even go into the distinction of an atmosphere which should logically be included in any precise definition of earth-like.

[fastcar]

Set course for the Hoth System!

Astronomers have found the smallest Earth-like planet yet outside our Solar System.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4647142.stm)

It's big.

It's cold.

It's totally lifeless.

I say we name it Greenland.

Sounds more like an ex of mine. Let's name it Mary Beth, instead.

[Space Tycoon]

I think there's a company that will, for a price, let you name a star or planet. Better hurry, your time is running out.

:D

[omicron]

Interesting article (http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9199036)

For those of you who don't know, Gregg Easterbrook writes a column for nfl.com about football. However, he also writes on science, pop culture, and all other sorts of things.

This week's article has a VERY interesting section on Earth, other planets and life. Check out the section titled "Cosmic Thought Follows:" There was another article of his I had bookmarked called "Are we alone", but it's subscriber only at The Atlantic Online. :(

Omicron