Kepler's astounding haul of multiple-planet systems

Why are all the multi-planet systems found by Kepler flat? Because Kepler can only find flat systems. Duh! (Well, there is also the possibility that Earth is close to or on the line where the planes of two planets orbits intersect. But Kepler would see that as a flat system.) Is it possible that there are undiscovered planets in these systems which are not co-planar with the other planets? Sure. But unless they are massive, they will be undetectable for now.

The corollary is that stars with planets are as common as dirt,which increases the odds for extraterrestrial life.

I kinda wonder how many planets are in your average system...or even if systems with more planets than ours is common.

Can you imagine taking a trip through the delta IV system with 34 planets available to see?

actually, slightly more serious, have they done a model on how many planets a system can hold in stable config?

The corollary is that stars with planets are as common as dirt,which increases the odds for extraterrestrial life

Under what conditions would this statement hold? If you regard the occurrence of life as a spontaneous random variable then certainly the odds would increase.
Except that life as we know it has the distinct appearance of not being a randomly occurring event, but rather a specific, planned and highly organised affair. Hence finding more planets would not necessarily increase the chances of finding life out there.

Kevin, your statement is completely invalid. Unless the absolute chances of life on another planet are exactly 0%, then a higher incidence of planets necessarily means an increased chance of the incidence of life.

...And that said...nowhere in the bible does it say that there are only humans and angels. In fact it strongly implies that there are other creations/creatures on other planets. The ONLY thing that it implies (Though does not state directly) is that we are the only planet with the good/evil sin dichotomy/battle.

So which way would you like to be wrong, mathematically, philosophically, or biblically?

kevinrts - Intelligent design is not science. It simply begs the question of the origin of life, because if there was a creator, who created the creator?

And 'its turtles all the way down' isn't a valid answer.

Please stop making religious posts on a scientific forum.

I kinda wonder how many planets are in your average system...or even if systems with more planets than ours is common.

Can you imagine taking a trip through the delta IV system with 34 planets available to see?

actually, slightly more serious, have they done a model on how many planets a system can hold in stable config?

Its really unlikely, because unless planets are pretty small, the closer they get to one another the more chances they have of disturbing each others orbit. This either causes collisions or ejection from the suns gravity.

That many planets may be unlikely, but it seems that planets should be able to orbit significantly beyond where our 8 planets end. (There have been some large exoplanets found beyond the orbital distance of neptune), and if a system had smaller planets, it appears that they would be able to have closer orbits, for example, if we didn't have jupiter, we would likely have another rocky planet at the asteroid belt.

I think that it's still a valid question, what is the highest number of planets that we are likely to find in a stable configuration? kepler is showing us that there are oodles of multi-planet systems to find, even with our extremely limited methods and means.

The corollary is that stars with planets are as common as dirt,which increases the odds for extraterrestrial life

Under what conditions would this statement hold? If you regard the occurrence of life as a spontaneous random variable then certainly the odds would increase.
Except that life as we know it has the distinct appearance of not being a randomly occurring event, but rather a specific, planned and highly organised affair. Hence finding more planets would not necessarily increase the chances of finding life out there.

Yes,that is what I meant.The more planets there are,the greater the odds that some of them are amenable to the evolution of life.
As far as life here having the "distinct appearance",as you put it,of being planned,I don't want to get into religious arguments on a website for disseminating scientific ideas.Suffice to say that the recent work of Craig Venter et al has demonstrated that life can be created from inanimate chemicals.

That many planets may be unlikely, but it seems that planets should be able to orbit significantly beyond where our 8 planets end. (There have been some large exoplanets found beyond the orbital distance of neptune), and if a system had smaller planets, it appears that they would be able to have closer orbits, for example, if we didn't have jupiter, we would likely have another rocky planet at the asteroid belt.

I think that it's still a valid question, what is the highest number of planets that we are likely to find in a stable configuration? kepler is showing us that there are oodles of multi-planet systems to find, even with our extremely limited methods and means.

The number of satellites in a system is limited not only by the mass of the satellites, but also harmonics.

The ONLY thing that it implies (Though does not state directly) is that we are the only planet with the good/evil sin dichotomy/battle.

Would have to disagree.

Several passages in the Bible indicate that the angels in heaven are both good and evil. In fact, it is evident that Satan has never yet been forbidden access to heaven, as that doesn't actually happen until around the time of the millenial.

The point I'm getting at is that, at least as far as the Bible explains, every being that God has ever made has free will and consequently has the same moral dilemma.

The only defense I can offer for atheists is that they rebel out of ignorance, plus even God himself said humans can't help it because they are evil from their youth since the fall, but the fallen angels rebelled knowingly. So in that sense one could say that few humans could possibly be considered as evil or as guilty as some of these "persons," whoever and whatever they are.

Although you are partly correct.

There are at least 9 different types of angels described in the Bible, ranging in appears to identical to a man such that a human observer can't even tell the difference until they were told so, up to more exotic creatures.

Thus if you want to call them "alien," that is a fair statement, because they are not of this world, but in exactly what way they are "alien" is not entirely clear. They are presumably "Spirit" beings, but is also clear from the Bible that they have physical bodies, humanoid and/or demi-human form, and in a few cases even eat physical human food.

But as far as being something that inhabits some other "planet," there is no indication of that in the Bible, even though there IS indication in the Bible that in New Testament times, they KNEW there were other "worlds" in the universe besides Earth.

In the Bible, the angels are seen to inhabit a spiritual plane called "heaven."

Under what conditions would this statement hold? If you regard the occurrence of life as a spontaneous random variable then certainly the odds would increase.
Except that life as we know it has the distinct appearance of not being a randomly occurring event, but rather a specific, planned and highly organised affair. Hence finding more planets would not necessarily increase the chances of finding life out there.

Except the presence of life can be accounted for by simple chemistry and physics and is therefore by definition not random and highly organized. You keep acting as though you have evidence for something such as a god. The problem is that in order for your assertions to hold water eventually you have to insert some version of "magic space man sez abra cadabra and poof". That isn't an explanation for anything it's just stupid. Shouldn't you have been raptured btw?

QC - according to the bible, the 'evil' angels were cast out of heaven to the earth, in genesis. No where did it say god let them back in. and last I checked nobody said heaven was a planet either.

I suppose in your view, atheists rebel from religion out of ignorance, but from the atheist view, they believe that there is no evidence to convince them of a deity. But what about the hindus and buddhists and shintoists?

The bible does not describe non angel beings - and pardon me for not looking it up, but there are definitely places where the wording strongly implies that god created beings other than angels or those on earth - but it is not focussed on obviously, because it is tertiary to the point of the bible.

And for my purposes, any being that primarily resides on another planet would be 'alien' - granted our biblical discussion here doesn't really apply to the article at hand anymore.

I think if you read genesis, daniel, and revelations with the idea of aliens in mind, you would find it to be a fascinating thought experiment, although not one for physorg. The only reason I brought the biblical stuff in my first comment, is because I knew that Kevin's comments tend to be extremely religiously inclined, so i was trying to shut his comment down on his level as well as the scientific one.

go science boo bible its tale talls, What if Paul Bunyan and the blue ox were in the bible would people some how twist the thought they were planets, Yeah Science rules

I think that it's still a valid question, what is the highest number of planets that we are likely to find in a stable configuration?

Depends on what type of planets you have. As someone pointed out: Harmonics may disrupt a system. But that comes into play more if the planets in question are massive.

So the answer depends on:
- how massive the individual planets are (I would think that more small planets could coexist and fewer if you have a few larger ones in the bunch)
- How massive the sun is (a more massive sun could have a larger solar system since its gravitational effect could bind planets further out)
- Co-planar systems are possibly stable with more planets than those which are not co-planar

IIRC there's also an equation that sets the relationships of the radii of where individual planets should be if they are coplanar. By that formula there should be (or better: should have been) another planet where the asteroid belt is. But for some reason that never came together.

@antialias,

"IIRC there's also an equation that sets the relationships of the radii of where individual planets should be if they are coplanar. By that formula there should be (or better: should have been) another planet where the asteroid belt is. But for some reason that never came together."

Are you possibly referring to the Titius-Bode law: http://en.wikiped...%27s_law

Are you possibly referring to the Titius-Bode law:

Yes, though that seems to be disputed and fails at larger distances from the sun. It also doesn't account for possibly captured planets.

It would be very interesting to calculate/simulate the distribution of planets with stable orbits. Although very minor perturbations in the initial conditions would give radically different configurations, the final distribution across a large number of samples may be something recognizable, and if it fits a simple function it would be pretty cool.

OK - the Kepler systems are much flatter than ours, but they are not truly flat. They're shaped liked a Sherrin.

The video of the orrery is outstanding. I wish there was a Kepler app that would keep the animated orrery updated.

OK - the Kepler systems are much flatter than ours, but they are not truly flat. They're shaped liked a Sherrin.

I guess the australians have joined the debate. It's like a rounded football. I had to look it up to ensure that there were no cultural misunderstandings :)

"The video of the orrery is outstanding."

Mayday & others should check out a higher-res, 720p, version of this video here: http://www.youtub...30fkyiU4

It really IS sweet.

Quote: "There are at least 9 different types of angels described in the Bible, ranging in appears to identical to a man such that a human observer can't even tell the difference until they were told so, up to more exotic creatures."

And don't forget the 72 houris for each male moslem. That's a lot of houris and a really interesting mix. Ah, science, how dim and colorless you are by comparison!

Quote: "There are at least 9 different types of angels described in the Bible, ranging in appears to identical to a man such that a human observer can't even tell the difference until they were told so, up to more exotic creatures."

And don't forget the 72 houris for each male moslem. That's a lot of houris and a really interesting mix. Ah, science, how dim and colorless you are by comparison!

Nah,I subscribe to this quote: "Truth is stranger than fiction"..

What's strange is that there aren't many of these systems, in which, resemble our solar system. What this shows is a vast amount of diversity in planetary systems. I wish we could only see these planets for ourselves. They might be home to some really exotic life forms.

And don't forget the 72 houris for each male moslem.

But you're there for eternity.
Even having 72 women can get boring after the first million years or so....

And don't forget the 72 houris for each male moslem.

But you're there for eternity.
Even having 72 women can get boring after the first million years or so....

Not to mention a million years of nagging..

Kev,

Except that life as we know it has the distinct appearance of not being a randomly occurring event, but rather a specific, planned and highly organised affair

Stop it. Just stop. How many times does it have to be explained to you that evolution is not random. Mutations are random, but there's an environmental filter. Mutations that don't work won't reproduce. Duh. We're all the descendants of those who survived. Double-duh. For 2 or more mutations that "worked", the ones that worked BETTER during rough times (drought, famine, extreme heat, extreme cold, and your favorite... flood) collected the minimal resources to survive. We are the descendants of those that won. Triple-duh.

If the universe is only 6000 years old, why is it that we can see objects that are more than 6000 light years away? How many times have you ignored this question?

Kev,

Except that life as we know it has the distinct appearance of not being a randomly occurring event, but rather a specific, planned and highly organised affair

Stop it. Just stop. How many times does it have to be explained to you that evolution is not random. Mutations are random, but there's an environmental filter. Mutations that don't work won't reproduce. Duh. We're all the descendants of those who survived. Double-duh. For 2 or more mutations that "worked", the ones that worked BETTER during rough times (drought, famine, extreme heat, extreme cold, and your favorite... flood) collected the minimal resources to survive. We are the descendants of those that won. Triple-duh.

If the universe is only 6000 years old, why is it that we can see objects that are more than 6000 light years away? How many times have you ignored this question?

Don't bother segueing dude,they just drag you down to their level,and beat the shit out out you..

Mitch,don't bother arguing with these dudes.They just drag you down to their level,and beat the shit out of you..

Mitch,don't bother arguing with these dudes.They just drag you down to their level,and beat the shit out of you..

It's a bit of a game now and has a form of mild entertainment value. Also, we've discussed in the past whether it's better to ignore them or to respond and we, collectively, decided that we should respond for the benefit of those readers on the fence.

But yah, I get your point.

Mitch,don't bother arguing with these dudes.They just drag you down to their level,and beat the shit out of you..

It's a bit of a game now and has a form of mild entertainment value. Also, we've discussed in the past whether it's better to ignore them or to respond and we, collectively, decided that we should respond for the benefit of those readers on the fence.

But yah, I get your point.

This site needs an "ignore user" button.Another website I frequent has this feature.

This site needs an "ignore user" button.Another website I frequent has this feature.

You can try the filter function just above the comments section. Set it to 2 and you'll never see a creationists post again, unless you get there before anyonee's downvoted him, of course.

This site needs an "ignore user" button.Another website I frequent has this feature.

You can try the filter function just above the comments section. Set it to 2 and you'll never see a creationists post again, unless you get there before anyonee's downvoted him, of course.

Okay,I have her set to "2".Hope that helps some..