First potentially habitable Earth-sized planet confirmed: It may have liquid water

Apr 17, 2014
The artist's concept depicts Kepler-186f, the first validated Earth-size planet orbiting a distant star in the habitable zone—a range of distances from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that Earth-size planets exist in the habitable zone of other stars and signals a significant step closer to finding a world similar to Earth. The artistic concept of Kepler-186f is the result of scientists and artists collaborating to help imagine the appearance of these distant worlds. Credit: Danielle Futselaar

The first Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting within the habitable zone of another star has been confirmed by observations with both the W. M. Keck Observatory and the Gemini Observatory. The initial discovery, made by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, is one of a handful of smaller planets found by Kepler and verified using large ground-based telescopes. It also confirms that Earth-sized planets do exist in the habitable zone of other stars.

"What makes this finding particularly compelling is that this Earth-sized planet, one of five orbiting this star, which is cooler than the Sun, resides in a temperate region where water could exist in liquid form," says Elisa Quintana of the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center who led the paper published in the current issue of the journal Science. The region in which this planet orbits its star is called the habitable zone, as it is thought that life would most likely form on with liquid water.

Steve Howell, Kepler's Project Scientist and a co-author on the paper, adds that neither Kepler (nor any telescope) is currently able to directly spot an exoplanet of this size and proximity to its . "However, what we can do is eliminate essentially all other possibilities so that the validity of these planets is really the only viable option."

With such a small host star, the team employed a technique that eliminated the possibility that either a background star or a stellar companion could be mimicking what Kepler detected. To do this, the team obtained extremely high spatial resolution observations from the eight-meter Gemini North telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawai`i using a technique called speckle imaging, as well as adaptive optics (AO) observations from the ten-meter Keck II telescope, Gemini's neighbor on Mauna Kea. Together, these data allowed the team to rule out sources close enough to the star's line-of-sight to confound the Kepler evidence, and conclude that Kepler's detected signal has to be from a small planet transiting its host star.

The diagram compares the planets of the inner solar system to Kepler-186, a five-planet system about 500 light-years from Earth in the constellation Cygnus. The five planets of Kepler-186 orbit a star classified as a M1 dwarf, measuring half the size and mass of the sun. The Kepler-186 system is home to Kepler-186f, the first validated Earth-size planet orbiting a distant star in the habitable zone—a range of distances from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that Earth-size planets exist in the habitable zone of other stars and signals a significant step closer to finding a world similar to Earth. Kepler-186f is less than ten percent larger than Earth in size, but its mass and composition are not known. Kepler-186f orbits its star once every 130-days and receives one-third the heat energy that Earth does from the sun, placing it near the outer edge of the habitable zone. The inner four companion planets all measure less than fifty percent the size of Earth. Kepler-186b, Kepler-186c, Kepler-186d, and Kepler-186e, orbit every three, seven, 13, and 22 days, respectively, making them very hot and inhospitable for life as we know it. The Kepler space telescope, which simultaneously and continuously measured the brightness of more than 150,000 stars, is NASA's first mission capable of detecting Earth-size planets around stars like our sun. Kepler does not directly image the planets it detects. The space telescope infers their existence by the amount of starlight blocked when the orbiting planet passes in front of a distant star from the vantage point of the observer. The artistic concept of Kepler-186f is the result of scientists and artists collaborating to help imagine the appearance of these distant Credit: Credit: NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-CalTech.

"The Keck and Gemini data are two key pieces of this puzzle," says Quintana. "Without these complementary observations we wouldn't have been able to confirm this Earth-sized planet."

The Gemini "speckle" data directly imaged the system to within about 400 million miles (about 4 AU, approximately equal to the orbit of Jupiter in our solar system) of the host star and confirmed that there were no other stellar size objects orbiting within this radius from the star. Augmenting this, the Keck AO observations probed a larger region around the star but to fainter limits. According to Quintana,

The artistic concept of Kepler-186f is the result of scientists and artists collaborating to help imagine the appearance of these distant worlds. Credit: Credit: NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-CalTech.

"These Earth-sized planets are extremely hard to detect and confirm, and now that we've found one, we want to search for more. Gemini and Keck will no doubt play a large role in these endeavors."

The host star, Kepler-186, is an M1-type dwarf star relatively close to our solar system, at about 500 light years and is in the constellation of Cygnus. The star is very dim, being over half a million times fainter than the faintest stars we can see with the naked eye. Five small planets have been found orbiting this star, four of which are in very short-period orbits and are very hot. The planet designated Kepler-186f, however, is earth-sized and orbits within the star's . The Kepler evidence for this planetary system comes from the detection of planetary transits. These transits can be thought of as tiny eclipses of the host star by a planet (or planets) as seen from the Earth. When such planets block part of the star's light, its total brightness diminishes. Kepler detects that as a variation in the star's total light output and evidence for planets. So far more than 3,800 possible planets have been detected by this technique with Kepler.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This animation depicts Kepler-186f, the first validated Earth-size planet orbiting a distant star in the habitable zone -- a range of distances from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that Earth-size planets exist in the habitable zone of other stars and signals a significant step closer to finding a world similar to Earth. Kepler-186f is less than ten percent larger than Earth in size, but its mass and composition are not known. Credit: Sean Raymond.

The Gemini data utilized the Differential Speckle Survey Instrument (DSSI) on the Gemini North telescope. DSSI is a visiting instrument developed by a team led by Howell who adds, "DSSI on Gemini Rocks! With this combination, we can probe down into this star system to a distance of about 4 times that between the Earth and the Sun. It's simply remarkable that we can look inside other solar systems." DSSI works on a principle that utilizes multiple short exposures of an object to capture and remove the noise introduced by atmospheric turbulence producing images with extreme detail.

Observations with the W.M. Keck Observatory used the Natural Guide Star Adaptive Optics system with the NIRC2 camera on the Keck II telescope. NIRC2 (the Near-Infrared Camera, second generation) works in combination with the Keck II system to obtain very sharp images at near-infrared wavelengths, achieving spatial resolutions comparable to or better than those achieved by the Hubble Space

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Hangout: Jill Tarter (Bernard Oliver Chair for SETI Research) sat down with Elisa Quintana (Research scientist at SETI Institute), Tom Barclay (Research scientist at Bay Area Environmental Research Institute at Ames), and Jason Rowe (Research scientist at SETI Institute) to talk about the recent discovery of an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of another star. Could life possibly exist on this newly discovered planet? Are we using the Allen Telescope Array to look for radio signals from this planet? Watch the video and find out.

Telescope at optical wavelengths. NIRC2 is probably best known for helping to provide definitive proof of a central massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Astronomers also use NIRC2 to map surface features of solar system bodies, detect planets orbiting other , and study detailed morphology of distant galaxies.

"The observations from Keck and Gemini, combined with other data and numerical calculations, allowed us to be 99.98% confident that Kepler-186f is real," says Thomas Barclay, a Kepler scientist and also a co-author on the paper. "Kepler started this story, and Gemini and Keck helped close it," adds Barclay.

Explore further: Kepler marks five years in space

More information: "An Earth-Sized Planet in the Habitable Zone of a Cool Star," by E.V. Quintana et al. Science, 2014.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Kepler marks five years in space

Mar 07, 2014

(Phys.org) —Five years ago today, on March 6, 2009, NASA's Kepler Space Telescope rocketed into the night skies above Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida to find planets around other stars, called ...

NASA cries planetary 'bonanza' with 715 new worlds

Feb 26, 2014

NASA on Wednesday announced a torrent of new planet discoveries, hailing a "bonanza" of 715 worlds now known outside the solar system thanks to the Kepler space telescope's planet-hunting mission.

Bright star reveals new exoplanet

Jan 22, 2014

An international team of astronomers at Stellar Astrophysics Centre in Aarhus, Denmark, have discovered a new exoplanet, christened "Kepler-410A b." The planet is about the size of Neptune and orbits the ...

Astronomers see misaligned planets in distant system

Oct 17, 2013

Using data from NASA's Kepler space telescope, an international team of astronomers has discovered a distant planetary system featuring multiple planets orbiting at a severe tilt to their host star.

Kepler team validates 41 new exoplanets with Keck I

Jan 10, 2014

(Phys.org) —The Kepler team today reports on four years of observations from the W. M. Keck Observatory targeting Kepler's exoplanet systems, announcing results this week at the American Astronomical Society ...

Recommended for you

Image: Hubble captures the Egg Nebula

8 minutes ago

This colourful image shows a cosmic lighthouse known as the Egg Nebula, which lies around 3000 light-years from Earth. The image, taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, has captured a brief but dramatic ...

'Blockbuster' science images

Nov 21, 2014

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some ...

Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Nov 20, 2014

Scientists developed a new method which allows to estimate the magnetic field of a distant exoplanet, i.e., a planet, which is located outside the Solar system and orbits a different star. Moreover, they ...

It's filamentary: How galaxies evolve in the cosmic web

Nov 20, 2014

How do galaxies like our Milky Way form, and just how do they evolve? Are galaxies affected by their surrounding environment? An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the University of ...

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Gyrene251
2.7 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2014
Perhaps aiming radar dishes toward this planet may detect radio signals...if any life there is advanced far enough to transmit them.
AlexDT
3 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2014
@Gyrene251 'were' advanced enough xD
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2014
...if any life there is advanced far enough to transmit them.
Was, was advanced far enough, 500 years ago. Their ETA is Tuesday, 'To Serve Mankind.'
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2014
It would take thousands of years before we could build a suitably speedy probe and send it there and relay the information back simply to confirm the high probability that there's 'nothing to see here folks'. Meanwhile back at the ranch...
coreymillia710
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2014
I bet some of you are wondering. Have those godless aliens found Jesus? If so. Fuck off.
Stavanger
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
I bet they are in dire need of some good old democracy. Let's give them some.
Sinister1812
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2014
*Might* have liquid water... Might. Who can really confirm it?
Requiem
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
Spectra will make it very obvious whether or not this planet has oceans, and also whether it has a mature biosphere that works anything like ours. I'm sure this will be one of the first targets when we have the capability, which will probably be in the next decade or two. No need for radio communications or probes that run for thousands of years to find out whether this planet has water or life as we know it.

The good news is that this one is only 500 LY away, meaning that obtaining spectra will be relatively simple compared to many others. And it will help along the effort to obtain better images and spectra of Earth-sized exoplanets.
vlaaing peerd
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2014
given the estimated amounts of water in the universe, I'd say given some gravity and the right temperature it'd appear almost anywhere.

-> I'm not a scientist, I have a right to be a little speculative!
JerryPG
1.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
One would have to wonder if the UFOs are flying there also. If we had teleportation we could go there, actually anywhere, and investigate instead of just looking and wondering!! Maybe in thousands of years, like quoted below; how about in this decade? Spend a few pennies on R&D on teleporting objects and humans versus billions of dollars on rocketing to Mars or entangling particles. Of course one would have to 'think outside the box' to teleport large objects and humans.
alfie_null
4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
One would have to wonder if the UFOs are flying there also. If we had teleportation we could go there, actually anywhere, and investigate instead of just looking and wondering!! Maybe in thousands of years, like quoted below; how about in this decade? Spend a few pennies on R&D on teleporting objects and humans versus billions of dollars on rocketing to Mars or entangling particles. Of course one would have to 'think outside the box' to teleport large objects and humans.

You can't believe in both teleportation and UFOs. If teleportation worked, there would be no UFOs. Occam's razor is, of course, that neither exist. To avoid making someone else's mistakes over again, you should take time to understand the considerable amount of background as to why that is so.

Pragmatically, the best way we can spend money now is developing better telescopes.
ThomasQuinn
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2014
You can't believe in both teleportation and UFOs. If teleportation worked, there would be no UFOs. Occam's razor is, of course, that neither exist. To avoid making someone else's mistakes over again, you should take time to understand the considerable amount of background as to why that is so.

Pragmatically, the best way we can spend money now is developing better telescopes.


Linguistic fallacy - UFOs exist, because there are flying objects that have not been identified (be they experimental airplanes, odd meteorites, or whatnot). Spaceships, flying saucers, ET's recreational aircraft - THAT's a different story.
Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
I bet some of you are wondering. Have those godless aliens found Jesus? If so. Fuck off.


Some of us godless Earthlings are often stupefied at the ignorance, immaturity, and generally counterproductive behavior of our godless fellows.
JerryPG
1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
First, you are assuming neither exist today to make Occam's razor, which is definitely wrong. Simple research will prove teleporting existed in China, time travel phenomena happens in the triangles, and in my world UFOs are real. 56 yrs ago while in the U.S. Air Force on a radar site we tracked one while two F-89 jets in pursuit - a joke, like a turtle trying to catch a roadrunner. I also have 20 years of research behind my project to prove both levitation of large objects and teleportation of larger objects, including humans are both a reality and can be performed today with a modified science (believed from Nikola Tesla) and modified technology. I say Tesla, but no one really knows for certain, since all his papers and notes were confiscated after his death. Only word of mouth from assistants existed afterwards. Current scientific thinking prohibits large objects levitation and teleporting and definitely teleporting humans, however, both happening in front of our eyes today.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2014
You can't believe in both teleportation and UFOs. If teleportation worked, there would be no UFOs. Occam's razor is, of course, that neither exist.
Hold on - in the last Star Trek movie khan was able to transport interstellar distances, so who needs starships? But that was after all a very bad movie.

If such a thing as teleportation were possible then it might be that more conventional transport would still be necessary for bulk materials or non-transportable things. Planes vs trains.
First, you are assuming neither exist today to make Occam's razor, which is definitely wrong. Simple research will prove teleporting existed in China, time travel phenomena happens in the triangle
Well during this very weekend exactly 2000 years ago Jesus transported himself to heaven so yes we know it is possible. But not from china because they are godless over there.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2014
OK maybe I missed something...they just detected another planet orbiting an M class dwarf so close it's tidally locked and the water on the surface is most likley boiled off the sunward side and frozen solid on the night side.

I was hoping for some new spectrographic "magic" that confirmed H20 in the atmosphere or something. What a disappointment.
Requiem
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
Oh god not another one

Edit - To Modernmystic, the idea that tidally locked planets are likely to be as you describe has been thoroughly debunked in recent years, google for some interesting reading.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2014
they just detected another planet orbiting an M class dwarf so close it's tidally locked and the water on the surface is most likley boiled off the sunward side and frozen solid on the night side
Lots of ways for liquid water to exist under these conditions. We have unconfirmed evidence of it on mars. Glaciers are full of water. Etc.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2014
Oh god not another one

Edit - To Modernmystic, the idea that tidally locked planets are likely to be as you describe has been thoroughly debunked in recent years, google for some interesting reading.


The only interesting reading you have to do is basic orbital mechanics and relativity. NOTHING has changed in those in recent years. That planet is tidally locked....guaranteed. This is stuff we know and do every day. Go fish.

Lots of ways for liquid water to exist under these conditions. We have unconfirmed evidence of it on mars. Glaciers are full of water. Etc.


Glaciers are made of ice....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2014
Well during this very weekend exactly 2000 years ago Jesus transported himself to heaven so yes we know it is possible. But not from china because they are godless over there
Although I guess they could teleport some nuns and missionaries and rosaries in to begin the conversion process although this would probably violate the Prime Directive. But not GODS Prime Directive, oh no.

Did the enterprise have a chapel? (not the nurse)
Glaciers are made of ice....
??? You think I made that up? Glaciers and ice caps are full of running water. Ever hear of lake Vostok?

You don't need large bodies of water open to the atmosphere to support life.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2014
??? You think I made that up? Glaciers and ice caps are full of running water. Ever hear of lake Vostok?

You don't need large bodies of water open to the atmosphere to support life.


The coldest it gets in Antarctica is about a hundred degrees warmer than on the night side of a tidally locked planet. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I said NOTHING about whether or not I think simple life might exist hither or tither. I implied that I seriously doubt there is any significant amount of liquid water on that planet.
cjn
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2014
You can't believe in both teleportation and UFOs. If teleportation worked, there would be no UFOs.


This is something I've wrestled with too. It seems like there may be too many variables to support long range, accurate teleportation of the kind that would be needed for human travel to Keplar 186f. I suspect that it might be a limiting factor for XT species as well.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2014
Teleportation as in Star Trek will NEVER be possible.For those who don't know,the transporter was a plot gimmick whose only purpose was to save money on sets,which would otherwise have to be expensively constructed to show the Enterprise landing on every alien world visited,as opposed to showing people fading into and out of view using simple,cheap special effects.
Real teleportation would require INSTANTLY reading the position of trillions of molecules in a living body,and some totally unknown mechanism at the receiving end to re-assemble everything in the proper order,again,INSTANTLY. This is far beyond anything even theoretically possible.
Requiem
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2014
The only interesting reading you have to do is basic orbital mechanics and relativity. NOTHING has changed in those in recent years. That planet is tidally locked....guaranteed. This is stuff we know and do every day. Go fish.


...Reading comprehension also helps. I said this: "the idea that tidally locked planets are likely to be as you describe".

So you and I both took for granted that it's tidally locked(although I didn't actually check, and the article doesn't say). Which reduces the scope of "likely to be as you describe" to... how you described the tidally locked planet. And if you actually manage to read and understand the english which I typed, then go and do some research, you will indeed find that nobody thinks that your description of a tidally locked planet in a habitable zone is mandatory or even likely anymore.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2014
The coldest it gets in Antarctica is about a hundred degrees warmer than on the night side of a tidally locked planet. You're comparing apples and oranges
Youre making up statistics. And tidally-locked planets, if they can indeed exist, would have a broad band of twilight which could possibly support open bodies of liquid water.

"There are, however, several effects that increase the likelihood of life on red dwarf planets. Intense cloud formation on the star-facing side of a tidally locked planet may reduce overall thermal flux and drastically reduce equilibrium temperature differences between the two sides of the planet."

-The thing about supplying excerpts to back up what you say is that it compels you to read the latest info on the subject, which may supercede the outdated info your opinions could very well be based on.
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2014
orbits its star once every 130-days and receives one-third the heat energy that Earth does from the sun, placing it near the outer edge of the habitable zone.


This would need a sizeable amount of atmosphere, or a very large amount of geothermal energy, in order to maintain liquid water at the temperature corresponding to that amount of flux.

I don't see how the temperature they describe could correspond to liquid water under normal earth-like conditions, because the planet's average temperature with only 1/3rd the solar flux would be like 95kelvin, which is as far below the antarctic winter record low as that low is below the freezing point of water...and that's the planet's average, if it has an Earth-like age and atmosphere...

It takes far more than water to make a habitable planet, though I think being slightly too cold is better and safer for humans than being slightly too hot...You have to consider the availability of elemental components consistent with life.
JerryPG
not rated yet Apr 19, 2014
Requiem, you are both right and wrong about your assessment on teleporting objects. Right on track using the current scientific theories. Wrong, if the information is already available in another dimension, and all that is needed is to transferred it (better terminology - recreate it) to a different destination. Granted, one needs to 'think outside the box' to make teleportation work. But it is real today, read Eric Davis Report to the USAF about the Chinese kids teleporting small objects through containers and even walls in the 80's and 90's. You or nobody else, could ever do that with current scientific theories. I am working on a project to both levitate large objects and teleport objects and humans, which I believe is happening in front of our eyes today (besides UFOs).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2014
I don't see how the temperature they describe could correspond to liquid water under normal earth-like conditions
Of course you don't. You're only considering what you know, or what you think you know, which is a great deal less than the experts who made the determination.

THEY know what they are talking about. You only THINK you do. See the difference?

No?

Why not?

Why not Lrrkrr?
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2014
Hey dumbass, you can calculate the temperature of a planet based on the solar flux and certain basic assumptions about it's atmosphere.

If it had an earth-like composition it would be way to cold to have liquid water on it.

It gets less sunlight that Mars, you damn moron.

I'm sick of you stupid crap harassing me too. I will report every post you make in response to me ever again, just because I'm sick of you doing this to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
Hey dumbass, you can calculate the temperature of a planet based on the solar flux and certain basic assumptions about it's atmosphere.
Well can you think of anything else that might influence the formation of water? Ice? Cloud cover? Composition? Pressure? Eccentricity? Volcanism? Tidal forces? Dust? Pressure?

I'm not as bright as you and yet these things pop into my mind.
I'm sick of you stupid crap harassing me too. I will report every post you make in response to me ever again, just because I'm sick of you doing this to me.
And I'm sick of your egomania and thinking you can spend 2 minutes on a subject and outthink teams of scientists who spend months on it. It's extremely disrespectful and also ludicrous.

But oh well. I'm not the one who gets banned every few months am I? I will continue to shine the light of reality onto the darkness of your postings.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2014
Here's one thing which I posted earlier which illuminates your lack of perspective. I'll post it again; maybe you'll read it this time.

"There are, however, several effects that increase the likelihood of life on red dwarf planets. Intense cloud formation on the star-facing side of a tidally locked planet may reduce overall thermal flux and drastically reduce equilibrium temperature differences between the two sides of the planet."

-Google it and read the whole article.
RealScience
4.8 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2014
the planet's average temperature with only 1/3rd the solar flux would be like 95kelvin, which is as far below the antarctic winter record low as that low is below the freezing point of water...and that's the planet's average, if it has an Earth-like age and atmosphere...


No, the thermal radiation of the planet goes with the 4th power of the temperature, rather than linearly. So looking just at the solar flux being different, the planet's temperature would be ~ 0.76 (the fourth root of 1/3) times the earth's temperature rather than 1/3 the earth's temperature. The earth's average temperature is ~288K (~15C), so that would be 219K = -54C. That's still pretty cold, but a lot warmer than 95K.

As for the comparison to the sunlight at Mars, Mars is often considered to be within our solar system's habitable zone. If Mars had a thick atmosphere with even a moderate fraction of CO2 it would hold enough heat to have liquid water on its surface.
Shabs42
not rated yet Apr 20, 2014
You can't believe in both teleportation and UFOs. If teleportation worked, there would be no UFOs.


There could be multiple advanced alien civilizations. Maybe one has mastered FTL travel and provides us UFOs; while another is even more advanced and just teleports in to probe us.
Gophers to Mars
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2014
You can't believe in both teleportation and UFOs. If teleportation worked, there would be no UFOs. Occam's razor is, of course, that neither exist.
Hold on - in the last Star Trek movie khan was able to transport interstellar distances, so who needs starships? But that was after all a very bad movie.

If such a thing as teleportation were possible then it might be that more conventional transport would still be necessary for bulk materials or non-transportable things. Planes vs trains.
First, you are assuming neither exist today to make Occam's razor, which is definitely wrong. Simple research will prove teleporting existed in China, time travel phenomena happens in the triangle
Well during this very weekend exactly 2000 years ago Jesus transported himself to heaven so yes we know it is possible. But not from china because they are godless over there.


Google MSNW, LLC--they're working on the development of a Fusion Spacecraft. China is Buddhist btw.
Gophers to Mars
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2014
The coldest it gets in Antarctica is about a hundred degrees warmer than on the night side of a tidally locked planet. You're comparing apples and oranges
Youre making up statistics. And tidally-locked planets, if they can indeed exist, would have a broad band of twilight which could possibly support open bodies of liquid water.

Any chance of Gliese 710 merging with Neptune and forming a mini solar system in 1.5 million years? And, "Astronomers have mapped a rare type of molecule in cosmic clouds that could reveal secrets about how stars form." "....a rare molecular species H2D+ and D2H+, built from the hydrogen atom (H) and its heavier variety deuterium (D)."

http://www.livesc...ies.html
georgi_gladyshev
Apr 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2014
No, the thermal radiation of the planet goes with the 4th power of the temperature, rather than linearly. So looking just at the solar flux being different, the planet's temperature would be ~ 0.76 (the fourth root of 1/3) times the earth's temperature rather than 1/3 the earth's temperature. The earth's average temperature is ~288K (~15C), so that would be 219K = -54C. That's still pretty cold, but a lot warmer than 95K.

As for the comparison to the sunlight at Mars, Mars is often considered to be within our solar system's habitable zone. If Mars had a thick atmosphere with even a moderate fraction of CO2 it would hold enough heat to have liquid water on its surface.


The real mean temperature of Mars is 11% colder than that formula predicts, in absolute temperature scale...

http://en.wikiped...adiation

Under the temperature of planets, this shows the variation by distance is the square root, which is what I did...cont.
Returners
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2014
When comparing results, none of the methods work for Mars.

The number I did by hand is too cold by far.

Your citation of the (also wrong) formula ends up being about 11% warmer than the actual mean of Mars. The formula just above the "temperature of Earth" section is too warm by about 15%, after adjusting for albedo differences.

Since that formula seems to also over-estimate the real temperature of a real planet in about the same relative position, I don't think it can be trusted either.

At any rate, an actual earth-like planet at that location would be frozen solid from pole to pole, regardless of which formula you use, and that's not even counting how high the albedo would become from miles-deep ice everywhere.

For the purpose of finding life, it wouldn't make a difference.
Wayne1561
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2014
To argue whether or not there is… or is not… a God or a higher power is senseless…

It's one thing to say I just don't know or to be an agnostic…

It's one thing to say I believe there is...

But to out and out say there is not a higher power is denial was absolutely no evidence…

For me…I am an out and out science geek… I can't get by the very fact that I wake up every day and I am here and I am self aware… That is quite the miracle in and of itself which is in front of my very nose every waking moment…

I got here because of random chance? Out of nothing?

I think the grandeur and amazing awe of the ever growing understanding and complexities of the universe around us speaks volumes…

But I can't prove any of it is true…

As time is infinite… so too is knowledge... and a million years from now if we happen to survive ourselves we will still know nothing compared to everything…

So at best… at least in my mind… to say you simply don't believe without any way of possibly knowing…

Is a form Ignorant Denial with no absolutely Evidence!

Although I could be wrong…
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923
@Returners

just curious: can either of you access the study?

http://www.scienc...277.full

it appears that the study as well as the supplemental materials have answers to your questions you two are arguing, including references to studies conducted that conclude the possibility of liquid water on tidally locked planets, such as
The 5.6 M⊕ planet GJ 581d (35) probably rotates pseudosynchronously with its star and in addition receives a similar insolation (27%) as Kepler-186f. Detailed climate models have shown GJ 581d to be capable of having liquid water on its surface (36, 37). Taken together, these considerations suggest that the newly discovered planet Kepler-186f is likely to have the properties required to maintain reservoirs of liquid water

savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
I have a working Anti Gravity / and Time Machine. So Teleportation and UFO's can both exist
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2014
Under the temperature of planets, this shows the variation by distance is the square root, which is what I did...cont.
...
Your citation of the (also wrong) formula ...


For a given star, the temperature of the radiative surface of a planet does drop approximately with the square root of the distance. But the light from the star drops with the square of the distance, so this is the same as the temperature dropping with the 4th root of the light intensity. Which is what I said for 'just looking at the solar flux'.

Since that formula seems to also over-estimate the real temperature of a real planet in about the same relative position, I don't think it can be trusted either.


The 4th root of the flux is only one factor. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, so using Earth's temperature overestimates the temperature of Mars, even after adjusting for albedo. Kepler 186f is estimated at 10% heavier than earth, so its atmosphere is likely to be more earth-like than Mars-like.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2014
And if you actually manage to read and understand the english which I typed, then go and do some research, you will indeed find that nobody thinks that your description of a tidally locked planet in a habitable zone is mandatory or even likely anymore.


I don't need to research or argue this point any more than I need to argue or research about whether or not the Earth is flat. The formulas, observations, and science that are associated with the phenomena of tidal locking are as settled as that. Again we've known this stuff for a long time and it's fully fleshed out....unless your suggesting that somehow the laws of physics are different in different solar systems...

Basically for any planet around Earth's mass orbiting close enough to an M type star to be in it's "habitable zone" for any significant amount of time, it's going to be tidally locked.

Then there's the high variability that goes with M stars, low light levels, and ten other things inimical to life as we know it
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
At any rate, an actual earth-like planet at that location would be frozen solid from pole to pole, regardless of which formula you use, and that's not even counting how high the albedo would become from miles-deep ice everywhere
So... how do you reconcile your calculations with

"What makes this finding particularly compelling is that this Earth-sized planet, one of five orbiting this star, which is cooler than the Sun, resides in a temperate region where water could exist in liquid form," says Elisa Quintana of the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center who led the paper published in the current issue of the journal Science."

-And which do you think is the more probable; that this team of scientists would have neglected to do your infantile calcs during the course of their work, or that you perhaps MISSED a few things?

What do you think Lrrkrr? Arent you even curious to find out where you obviously fucked up? AGAIN?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2014
For anyone who wants to do some "research" on M type stars and specifically habitability and tidal locking...

http://en.wikiped..._effects

Now K type stars might be even MORE hospitible to life than G type (our sun) stars. If you NEED to find a habitable body in the universe to complete your identity or prop up your worldview I suggest looking there....just my two cents.

Here's a link about them...note what it says about M type stars in the first paragraph...

http://en.wikiped..._systems
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
it appears that the study as well as the supplemental materials have answers to your questions you two are arguing, including references to studies conducted that conclude the possibility of liquid water on tidally locked planets
Well I dont have to read your ref to know that Lrrkrr cannot do science from the info in a fucking press release and then declare that the scientists who spent months actually working on the study, are wrong.

And Lrrkrr certainly wont read it because hes a fucking lunatic megalomaniac.

But thanks for your input.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2014
Ah I see weve got 2 wetbrain maniacs in the thread.
I don't need to research or argue this point any more than I need to argue or research about whether or not the Earth is flat. The formulas, observations, and science that are associated with the phenomena of tidal locking are as settled as that.
Science will progress whether you want it to or not.

"Intense cloud formation on the star-facing side of a tidally locked planet may reduce overall thermal flux and drastically reduce equilibrium temperature differences between the two sides of the planet."

-So you had better be prepared to keep abreast.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
"Intense cloud formation on the star-facing side of a tidally locked planet may reduce overall thermal flux and drastically reduce equilibrium temperature differences between the two sides of the planet."


First of all that doesn't even address my point. The planet is STILL tidally locked....period.

Secondly what you're talking about is a HUGE maybe. The tidal locking is a certainty. You're grasping at straws. It's OK though, you can still look at K type stars if you have some kind of intrinsic need for there to be complex life out there...

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2014
"In contrast to the previously bleak picture for life, 1997 studies by Robert Haberle and Manoj Joshi of NASA's Ames Research Center in California have shown that a planet's atmosphere (assuming it included greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O) need only be 100 millibar, or 10% of Earth's atmosphere, for the star's heat to be effectively carried to the night side, a figure well within the bounds of photosynthesis. Research two years later by Martin Heath of Greenwich Community College has shown that seawater, too, could effectively circulate without freezing solid if the ocean basins were deep enough to allow free flow beneath the night side's ice cap. Additionally, a 2010 study concluded that Earth-like water worlds tidally locked to their stars would still have temperatures above 240 K (−33 °C) on the night side. Climate models constructed in 2013 indicate that cloud formation on tidally locked planets would minimize the temperature difference between the day and the night side..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
Secondly what you're talking about is a HUGE maybe.
I AM not talking anything. THE SCIENTISTS whom I referenced draw these conclusions after careful study. And anybody who makes such an ignorant statement as
Again we've known this stuff for a long time and it's fully fleshed out
without actually taking the time to do a little research, of course wouldnt be aware of that.

So it seems that from my previous post you havent learned anything since 1997.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
. THE SCIENTISTS whom I referenced draw these conclusions after careful study. And anybody who makes such an ignorant statement as


And they said it was a maybe too. Re-read the quote. I'm just re-iterating, not posting an opinion. I'm pointing out that you MISSED their entire point in your desire for there to be life of some kind out there. Well, Otto, the universe doesn't care about your psychological needs...

So it seems that from my previous post you havent learned anything since 1997.


What did it have to say new about the mechanics of tidal locking? NOTHING. It has a hell of a lot of speculation about exo-climatology, nothing else.

God, it's like talking to a child and trying to get them to stick to the point...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
I'm just re-iterating, not posting an opinion
-and now youre lying.
they just detected another planet orbiting an M class dwarf so close it's tidally locked and the water on the surface is most likley boiled off the sunward side and frozen solid on the night side
-which is your opinion, and its an opinion as to whether there could be liquid water and life on the planet. And so you are only reiterating your own opinion, which does not agree with the authors, because their opinion is that

"The intensity and spectrum of the star's radiation place Kepler-186f in the stellar habitable zone, implying that if Kepler-186f has an Earth-like atmosphere and water at its surface, then some of this water is likely to be in liquid form."

These scientists are AWARE of tidal locking. They are AWARE of all the factors which go into determining the habitable zone of such a star. And knowing these things, they say that liquid water may well exist there.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
The formulas, observations, and science that are associated with the phenomena of tidal locking are as settled as that
@MM
but there are further studies, linked in this study ( http://www.scienc...277.full )as for
The planet is STILL tidally locked....period
see the study which says it is uncertain
Kepler-186f, however, is at a large enough distance from the star that uncertainties in the tidal dissipation function preclude any determination of its rotation rate (34). Regardless, tidal locking (or pseudosynchronous rotation) does not preclude a planet from being habitable.


@everyone
is no one else able to actually read the study? I am curious... the supplemental materials and the study actually answer some of the questions being posed...
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
-and now youre lying.


No, sorry. The initial quote was:
Intense cloud formation on the star-facing side of a tidally locked planet MAY reduce overall thermal flux and drastically reduce equilibrium temperature differences between the two sides of the planet


Emphasis mine. They said maybe Otto, I didn't lie you just didn't comprehend. So instead of accusing people to obfuscate your behavior just deal with it...

-which is your opinion, and its an opinion as to whether there could be liquid water and life on the planet. And so you are only reiterating your own opinion, which does not agree with the authors, because their opinion is that...


Yeah, what a catastrophe that I should disagree with the authors. You can now go into a tirade about "well they're SCIENTISTS" and therefore somehow Gods and shouldn't be questioned careening into a blatant display of Argumentum ab auctoritate if you wish, but it won't have the slightest impact on my opinion.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
Captain I can't read that study, only the abstract...which says nothing about tidal locking.

and all this says:

Kepler-186f, however, is at a large enough distance from the star that uncertainties in the tidal dissipation function preclude any determination of its rotation rate (34). Regardless, tidal locking (or pseudosynchronous rotation) does not preclude a planet from being habitable.


Is that they don't know if it's tidally locked YET. Moreover the last sentence is the same thing as saying that getting hit in the head with a large rock resulting in a severe skull fracture doesn't preclude brain damage....but what they leave out is that it's damned likely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2014
They said maybe Otto
Well of course they did. Theyre scientists. You on the other hand, will say things like
I don't need to research or argue this point any more than I need to argue or research about whether or not the Earth is flat. The formulas, observations, and science that are associated with the phenomena of tidal locking are as settled as that. Again we've known this stuff for a long time and it's fully fleshed out...
-because youre not a scientist.

There are many reasons why planets might escape tidal locking. Impacts are one. But tidal locking is not the issue here. You were using tidal locking to preclude liquid water and life. And you were totally unaware of recent studies which allowed for water and life despite tidal locking.

And when given refs you didnt bother to read them, because in your mind 'the science is settled'.
but it won't have the slightest impact on my opinion
Thats the trouble with you and Lrrkrr - you have no respect for science.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2014
I can't read that study, only the abstract
@MM
ok, makes more sense now. I would e-mail it but the IM function is down.
they don't know if it's tidally locked YET
true. but I also feel the key words were
is at a large enough distance from the star that uncertainties in the tidal dissipation function preclude any determination of its rotation rate
IOW - they cannot say for certain it isn't locked, nor can you say for certain that it is. more info for yall from the study
The four inner planets are too hot to ever enter the HZ. Kepler-186f receives Formula% of the intensity of stellar radiation (insolation) received by Earth from the Sun. Despite receiving less energy than Earth, Kepler-186f is within the HZ throughout its orbit (Fig. 2). It is difficult for an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of an M star to accrete and retain H2O (24, 25), but being in the outer portion of its star's HZ reduces these difficulties
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
Captain,

Thank you for the quote from the study. I have no doubt that a larger body on the outside of the habitable zone could possibly escape tidal lock or perhaps enter a resonance that at least allowed for some minimal "rotation". The problem is then, that it becomes less likely that there may be liquid water, not impossible (for those who shove words in my mouth), but less likely to be sure.

However, whether or not it has liquid water I'd find it very surprising if there were complex life there, especially if the system is say less than 10 Gya old. We don't know anything about exobiology but we can infer things. The paucity of UV radiation hitting the surface of such a planet doesn't bode well for evolution or selection by random mutation...at least not at the rate or intensity here on Earth.

Then there's variability, metalicity, and a lot of other things which make M stars poor places to look for complex life.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
Well of course they did. Theyre scientists.


Then I didn't lie, you did when you called me a liar.

-because youre not a scientist.


Do you need to be a scientist to believe Abraham Lincoln existed Otto? No? Why not?

There are many reasons why planets might escape tidal locking.


Name ten...I'd say that's "many".

Impacts are one.


No they're not. All bodies that are tidally locked started out rotating Otto. Just because you spin one up again doesn't mean it won't succumb to tidal forces again. In fact unless the orbital distance changed it certainly would get locked again.

But tidal locking is not the issue here.


You're shadow boxing again, because it is the issue here.

You were using tidal locking to preclude liquid water and life.


No I don't, I don't preclude the possibility that if I fell 50 feet I wouldn't get a broken bone either...
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
Thats the trouble with you and Lrrkrr - you have no respect for science.


Translation:

"My problem with you and Lrrkrr is that I feel you don't respect science either because you don't agree with me or have the same opinion about what science says or how it says it."

You see Otto, it's actually you I don't respect, or more accurately it's your opinion I don't respect.

In fact I have so much respect for science I'm not willing to let someone put up false statements about elementary orbital mechanics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
mm said
I said NOTHING about whether or not I think simple life might exist hither or tither. I implied that I seriously doubt there is any significant amount of liquid water on that planet
... even after I posted

"The intensity and spectrum of the star's radiation place Kepler-186f in the stellar habitable zone, implying that if Kepler-186f has an Earth-like atmosphere and water at its surface, then some of this water is likely to be in liquid form."

-so no, you respect your own opinions more than the results of scientific studies.

mm said
I have no doubt that a larger body on the outside of the habitable zone could possibly escape tidal lock
-to which I say 'how the fuck would you know without a doubt? Youre not a scientist. Youre pretending to know things you dont.

mm said
The paucity of UV radiation hitting the surface
"Paucity
the presence of something only in small or insufficient quantities or amounts; scarcity"

-Try to use words you know the meaning of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
Name ten...I'd say that's "many"
What makes you think there needs to be ten? Im not a scientist but I can think of a few. Eccentricity, the tidal effects of moons, perturbation by stellar companions, and of course impacts. Im sure there are more.
All bodies that are tidally locked started out rotating Otto. Just because you spin one up again doesn't mean it won't succumb to tidal forces again. In fact unless the orbital distance changed it certainly would get locked again
Most of these bodies are hit innumerable times in their lives. Their rotation can slow down and speed up as a result. The tendency toward locking does not mean that we wont find one that isnt locked at the moment.

Why even you said so yourself
I have no doubt that a larger body on the outside of the habitable zone could possibly escape tidal lock
-even though you have no idea why or how.

BTW the term you used 'habitable zone' indicates the possibility of life, and along with it liquid water.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
-so no, you respect your own opinions more than the results of scientific studies.


No. I got my opinions FROM scientific inquiry and study. I saw nothing to change my opinion in this article. In short Otto, I don't just swallow what some scientist says in a study, I already have opinions based on hard science about M class solar system habitability and you're going to have to give me a REASON to change them. Simple declarations don't do it for me.

]-to which I say 'how the fuck would you know without a doubt?


I DO know without a doubt that it could POSSIBLY happen Otto. Kindly READ what I WROTE.

-Try to use words you know the meanin


UV radiation IS emitted in small amounts from M class stars, my usage is spot on. Try to speak about things you actually have some knowledge of..then you won't look like an ignorant fool...
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
Eccentricity,


Can't wait for this...how exactly?

the tidal effects of moons,


Again HOW.

perturbation by stellar companions,


How?

and of course impacts.


Nope. Go fish.

Most of these bodies are hit innumerable times in their lives. Their rotation can slow down and speed up as a result. The tendency toward locking does not mean that we wont find one that isnt locked at the moment.


If they were hit that often by things big enough to change their spin rates they'd be STERILE as the moon. Tidal locking would be a moot point...

-even though you have no idea why or how.


Don't I? You've never even asked.

BTW the term you used 'habitable zone' indicates the possibility of life, and along with it liquid water


No it doesn't. It means that it's POSSIBLE for liquid water to exist given how much energy the sun is emitting.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
No it doesn't. It means that it's POSSIBLE for liquid water to exist given how much energy the sun is emitting
"habitable zone, the orbital region around a star in which an Earth-like planet can possess liquid water on its surface and possibly support life."

-But according to you
tidally locked and the water on the surface is most likley boiled off the sunward side and frozen solid on the night side
But according to scientists who know all about tidal locking

"The intensity and spectrum of the star's radiation place Kepler-186f in the stellar habitable zone, implying that if Kepler-186f has an Earth-like atmosphere and water at its surface, then some of this water is likely to be in liquid form."

-But mm continues to assert
I got my opinions FROM scientific inquiry and study. I saw nothing to change my opinion
... because, well, he prefers ignorant and outdated opinions I suppose. Because he considers multiple studies since 1997
Simple declarations
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Don't I? You've never even asked.
Uh no you don't. I don't have to ask. You choose to disagree with scientists who obviously DO, solely on the basis of the info you can gleen from a news article. And when presented with updated scientific studies you dismiss it as
simple declarations
and so I feel justified in repeating my earlier observation:
Ah I see weve got 2 wetbrain maniacs in the thread.
-because everything you've posted since only reinforces it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
If they were hit that often by things big enough to change their spin rates they'd be STERILE as the moon
Again, you're GUESSING. Making shit up because you think you know things that you DONT.

The earth was hospitable enough only a few hundred million years after the collision which created the moon, to support life.
http://m.space.com/23514-moon-crash-earth-magma-ocean.html
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Otto, I find nothing substantive to respond to in your first post...you're just trying to fight there AFAICS. If you actually wish me to address a specific point in that morass please state it clearly.

Uh no you don't. I don't have to ask.


Then how can you know that I don't know. Well, quite simply you can't. I know that the distance from the star, the mass of the star, the size of the body, and the initial rotation are all factors (though the initial rotation only tells us how long it takes a body to lock up...not IF it will lock up). I know that Mercury in our own solar system is in resonance and not tidal lock, so in principle it's possible that a body at or greater than an Earth mass on the outside of where it might be possible for liquid water to exist in an M type star system to be in resonance too and possibly escape tidal lock. Any scientist who says it isn't in tidal lock is just guessing too. We're talking about what is likely at what is unlikely.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
I have no doubt that a larger body on the outside of the habitable zone could possibly escape tidal lock or perhaps enter a resonance that at least allowed for some minimal "rotation"
@MM
this is the assumption being made here
For Kepler-186, the conservative estimate of the HZ (i.e., likely narrower than the actual annulus of habitable distances) extends from 0.22 to 0.40 AU. The four inner planets are too hot to ever enter the HZ. Kepler-186f receives 32(+6, -4)% of the intensity of stellar radiation (insolation) received by Earth from the Sun. Despite receiving less energy than Earth, Kepler-186f is within the HZ throughout its orbit
I am not addressing the life issue, as we can only infer at this point based upon what we know, which is too limited at this time.
I will say that ruling it out right now is not a good idea, just like ruling it in is just as precarious a position.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
Again, you're GUESSING. Making shit up because you think you know things that you DONT.


No, I'm not. It takes a hell of an impact to impart any significant rotational energy to the entire body. We're not talking about something on the scale that wiped out the dinosaurs. We're talking about something so big it's going to make the entire planet molten again.

The earth was hospitable enough only a few hundred million years after the collision which created the moon, to support life.


No, Otto you don't know what you're talking about it was nearly a BILLION years after the formation of the Earth (4.54 billion years ago) to the first life forms (between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago).

http://en.wikiped...he_Earth

Second and third paragraphs.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
I am not addressing the life issue, as we can only infer at this point based upon what we know, which is too limited at this time.
I will say that ruling it out right now is not a good idea, just like ruling it in is just as precarious a position.


I'm not ruling it out, I'm saying it's highly unlikely it exists in any appreciable quantity. Let's forget tidal lock entirely for the sake of argument (though I think it's a HUGE factor here). Let's look at how close this planet is. It's .4 AU away from it's star. With a varialble star like all red dwarfs are any planet closer than .8 AU is probably not going to have an atmosphere because of solar activity...

http://en.wikiped...iability

Third paragraph under variability.

Now in order to have liquid water you need heat AND pressure. Water boils away on Mars rapidly because of the sparse atmosphere. You simply have to look at ALL the variables and they don't look good for water.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2014
varialble star
@MM
ok. here is more
Although a thin H/He envelope around Kepler-186f cannot be entirely ruled out, the planet was probably vulnerable to photoevaporation early in the star's life, when extreme ultraviolet flux from the star was significantly higher. Hence, any H/He envelope that was accreted would probably have been stripped by hydrodynamic mass loss (23). Although Kepler-186f probably does not have a thick H2-rich atmosphere, a degeneracy remains between the relative amounts of iron, silicate rock, and water, because the planet could hold on to all of these cosmically abundant constituents. Mass estimates for Kepler-186f can therefore range from 0.32 M⊕ if composed of pure water/ice to 3.77 M⊕ if the planet is pure iron, and an Earth-like composition (about 1/3 iron and 2/3 silicate rock) would give an intermediate mass of 1.44 M⊕
to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2014
You simply have to look at ALL the variables and they don't look good for water.
@MM
this has been addressed. also
It is difficult for an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of an M star to accrete and retain H2O (24, 25), but being in the outer portion of its star's HZ reduces these difficulties

ok.. about his
Now in order to have liquid water
now... I am not saying it DOES have water, and neither is the study. it is only saying that it might be possible.
which is about what you said above.

it really does have a lot of info in it. I would suggest downloading it or getting an AAAS membership (or sciencemag)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Captain,

I really do appreciate you quoting the guts of the study to me. It goes MUCH further than the article to addressing my points. I simply CAN'T assume people have looked at the myriad of variables that have a significant impact on whether or not there is liquid water on any body with a mass close to Earth's. This, of course is a problem for people with a lot of knowledge of the subject, and less so for people who know little to nothing of the subject.

All that being said, and looking over the quotes you provided from the study, I must candidly say that I'm still not convinced that liquid water is likely to be present on an astronomical body of Earth's mass anywhere within the zone where it's possible for the star to give it enough energy to allow for liquid water without variability, tidal lock, or other factors to come into play. M type stars, without a SIGNIFICANT or RADICAL change in our general knowledge are simply not a good place to look for water or life.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
(cont)

To be clear, I personally am not ruling out the possibility of water or VERY simple life on such a body. I do rule out complex life on such a body for another set of difficult variables associated with M type stars which I'd be happy to go into here but see no need to at present.

I think our only disagreement is in how likley liquid water or life might be present on the body in question. I'd put it at less than a percent. My guess is that you'd put it much higher. I simply can't ignore all the data and research I've seen up to this point to go much further than that. Our universe is blatantly HOSTILE to life. It requires a very narrow range of variables to even be possible. M type stars simply don't allow for this. The ONLY thing they have going for them is their long life span (which is moot at this point since the universe is only 13.7 billion years old) and their abundance. Abundance is less convincing for obvious reasons which I will expand on if asked.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2014
I think our only disagreement is in how likley liquid water or life...
@MM
nope. all I was trying to do was give information from the study that might help
My guess is that you'd put it much higher
not sure where I would put it, really. I don't have enough information, so I choose to not hazard a guess. again, we only have one good example of life in the universe.
I can speculate all day, but I can't give a valid assessment that would be accurate without more info. (which is also not present in this study)

I was just trying to help by giving you info from the study that seemed to pertinent (such as the tidal locked planet or the water on it etc) and share what WAS in it. I thought it would help.

I really would recommend getting AAAS though as well as reading the whole study. there is a great deal of info that I can't post (some graphs etc and a supplemental PDF document)

there is a LOT of info here.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, Modernmystic,

Sometimes papers appearing in Science, after an arbitrary length of time, will be posted to arXiv. I'll keep an eye out for this paper and post a link if it becomes available.

You may however be interested in this recent paper, submitted to Astrophysical Journal, that explores the Kepler-186 system and specifically discusses the habitability of Kepler-186f (Sec 5):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4368
mynameismud1971
not rated yet Apr 22, 2014
when could this planet ever be analyzed beyond the theoretical? stop playing me like that.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
when could this planet ever be analyzed beyond the theoretical? stop playing me like that.


Which I guess was my entire problem with the article. It really shouldn't read "It may have water"...it might as well read "It may have Twinkies".

Until we get some spectrographic analysis of an exoplanet we really won't know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
I really do appreciate you quoting the guts of the study to me. It goes MUCH further than the article to addressing my points
What do you care?
I simply CAN'T assume people have looked at the myriad of variables that have a significant impact on whether or not there is liquid water on any body with a mass close to Earth's
The scientists who did the study have much more knowledge on the subject. Guaranteed. And so you only look like an idiot when you disagree with them.
This, of course is a problem for people with a lot of knowledge of the subject, and less so for people who know little to nothing of the subject.
You drew your conclusions without even looking at the study. And you still insist youre right even though youve only read stumpys few quotes.
Abundance is less convincing for obvious reasons which I will expand on if asked
Thats ok. There are plenty of real scientists around who publish their work. Who cares what a wetbrain maniac has to say?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Eccentricity,


Can't wait for this...how exactly?


"Finally, in some cases where the orbit is eccentric and the tidal effect is relatively weak, the smaller body may end up in an orbital resonance, rather than tidally locked."

-You can look up the rest yourself. You need the practice.
https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Eccentricity,


Can't wait for this...how exactly?


"Finally, in some cases where the orbit is eccentric and the tidal effect is relatively weak, the smaller body may end up in an orbital resonance, rather than tidally locked."

-You can look up the rest yourself. You need the practice.
https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8


You need practice linking. Just takes you to Google. Moreover it said if the tidal effect is relatively weak...way to point out the obvious. in this case it wouldn't be.

As to the rest of your...I don't know....insecurity or defensiveness I'll just ignore it. It has everything to do with your psychology and nothing to do with science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
You need practice linking. Just takes you to Google.
I was making fun of you you fucking idiot.
Moreover it said if the tidal effect is relatively weak...way to point out the obvious. in this case it wouldn't be
Look at you. Caught in an obvious act of bullshit and you try to argue your way out of it. When pressed, you exhibit the same level of egomania as Lrrkrr. I wonder if youre the same person?
everything to do with your psychology and nothing to do with science.
Youre the guy who thinks that multiple studies from real scientists are only
simple declarations
No no otto... almost a billion.. "We know life was present on Earth about 3.9 billion years ago... a cataclysmic impact by a planet-size object that smashed into the infant Earth 4.5 billion years ago" [from my source]
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, Modernmystic,

Sometimes papers appearing in Science, after an arbitrary length of time, will be posted to arXiv. I'll keep an eye out for this paper and post a link if it becomes available.
@yyz
cool. thanks. I will forget. I have a bad memory.
You may however be interested in this recent paper, submitted to Astrophysical Journal, that explores the Kepler-186 system and specifically discusses the habitability of Kepler-186f (Sec 5):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4368
VERY COOL! thank you!

going to be reading it as soon as I get done with this!
THANKS AGAIN

yyz
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
@Captain Stumpy,MM

Here's a link to the preprint of "An Earth-sized Planet in the Habitable Zone of a Cool Star" by Quintana et al: http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5667

Enjoy!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy,MM

Here's a link to the preprint of "An Earth-sized Planet in the Habitable Zone of a Cool Star" by Quintana et al: http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5667
@yyz
WOW that was faster than I thought it would be.
Main text and supplemental material combined. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science on 18 April 2014, Vol. 344, #6181

does it usually go to arxiv that fast?
I've never paid attention to it before
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

"does it usually go to arxiv that fast?"

Depends. I've seen published papers appear on arXiv 1-3 days after initial publication and at other times the delay may be 1-2 weeks. So I usually periodically check arXiv for several weeks after initial publication. YMMV

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.