Comments on: Um… That “Goldilocks” Exoplanet May Not Exist

By: abercrombie Milano

abercrombie Milano — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:57:10 +0000

I am excited about learning way more than what I have already taught myself. Thank you!

By: Hollister UK

Hollister UK — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:55:44 +0000

groot artikel, bedankt voor de goede informatie, zal ik zeker delen in dit artikel aan mijn facebook pagina. keep up the good work.

By: David S

David S — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:33:27 +0000

never mind, what I wrote was wrong.

By: Kim S.

Kim S. — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:30:07 +0000

Poster “B”, you’re wrong. Indirect measurement techniques may not in always be completely effective or accurate, but they do provide valuable data.

By: Messier Tidy Upper

Messier Tidy Upper — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:38:37 +0000

@7. amphiox :

Who knows, maybe it will turn out the Swiss data is in error and the original claim is correct?

Yeah I sure hope so! Thanks for that. :-)

@9. Jennifer Welsh : Or could it be that the spaceship is travelling really fast (ie. a significent percentage of lightspeed) and thus appear more massive due to relativity? Not that that’s likely I know, but theoretically .. ;-)

By: Jennifer Welsh

Jennifer Welsh — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:46:18 +0000

@itcy head, that would be one HUGE spaceship. Much MUCH bigger than the Death Star.

Also both sets of readings were taken over the time span of years, some overlapping years even.

Jen

By: itcy head

itcy head — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:13:04 +0000

What if the said new planet was there but it actually was a space ship so it’s not where they thought it should be any more??? Is that not possible at all?

By: amphiox

amphiox — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:28:08 +0000

“but still disappointing in that we find the planet doesn’t exist after all.”

This doesn’t actually say that, only that the planet claimed by the other group was not confirmed (and this is not even published yet). Presumably something has to account for the discrepancy in results but which interpretation of the data is the more likely to be correct? When the Swiss team’s data is published I would expect that there will be some response from the American team. Who knows, maybe it will turn out the Swiss data is in error and the original claim is correct? Or maybe not.

Time for more science!

By: Messier Tidy Upper

Messier Tidy Upper — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:58:58 +0000

Durnnit! :-(

PS. @ Colm Ryan : I guess you’re right – but still disappointing in that we find the planet doesn’t exist after all.

On the bright side at least we hadn’t yet launched a spaceprobe to it .. with people aboard.

Plus the Gliese 581 system still remains one of the most fascinating and promising we’ve found so far even without that “goldilocks planet.”

By: Jennifer Welsh

Jennifer Welsh — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:25:01 +0000

Hey all,

Thanks for reading and leaving your comments. I completely agree with @Colm Ryan!

Jen

By: Daviticus

Daviticus — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:31:46 +0000

At least not this time!

By: Colm Ryan

Colm Ryan — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:54:39 +0000

While apparently disappointing, this is a tremendous example of science in action and a great example of the power of the scientific method. One group announces a result, the other group probe the data and find insufficient evidence. There are no holy grails or claims that are “above criticism”.

By: B

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:45:40 +0000

The speculation was good while it lasted.
But searching for goldilocks exoplanets through alice-in-wonderland techniques has never been a reliable prospect. These techniques include apparatus which rely on line-of-sight assumptions. It was a hopeless attempt from the beginning. Only reliable data based on direct optical observation is acceptable. Current optical telescope technology is capable of imaging binary stellar objects such as those detected by ESO. The Hubble Space Telescope should be capable of imaging Earth analog terrestrial exoplanets within 100 LY.
New generation ground based telescopes such as the Thirty Meter Telescope and E-ELT will be needed to image relatively near stellar systems for Earth-like exoplanets. It may be asserted that most stellar systems have a company of terrestrial and gas giant planets.
Formation of an Earth-like exoplanet appears to be a self propagating process dependent on factors such as metal content of stellar nebula and rotational velocity of star.

By: Michael Wilson

Michael Wilson — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:58:31 +0000

There’s a Star Trek TNG Episode which explains this perfectly:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Clues_(episode)