Extra Solar Planet Detection

[waitaminute]

The media is filled with news of the discoveries of extra solar planets and especially the rocky planets in habitable zones. The mass of these planets are quoted at multiple masses of the earth. My question is wouldn't moons orbiting these planets be included in the mass quote? I mean the wobble dection method would only view the planets and its moons as a single mass, right?

 

Frank

[Chrispen Evan]

you would imagine so. i don't think you'd get two large masses orbiting each other and orbiting the star as well. i think that set-up may be unstable.

[Ophiolite]

Given that the Earth's moon is unusually large and yet only masses 1/81 of the Earth it is, given present levels of precision, quite irrelevant as to whether the mass is included or not. Plus, you are assuming the planets are detected by wobble rather than, for example, dimming.

[fertilizerspike]

The media is filled with news of the discoveries of extra solar planets and especially the rocky planets in habitable zones. The mass of these planets are quoted at multiple masses of the earth. My question is wouldn't moons orbiting these planets be included in the mass quote? I mean the wobble dection method would only view the planets and its moons as a single mass, right?

 

Frank

 

The typical methods used to "discover" planets around distant stars are spurious. That being said, there's no reason all stars couldn't have planets around them, even "in habitable zones", and that these planets could have moons. Until such time as a reliable method for identifying them emerges, however, we can't conclude more than that.

[Ophiolite]

fertilizer spike, welcome to the forum.

 

You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the techniques used to identify exoplanets are faulty. It is normal practice on this forum - and is required b y the forum rules - that such an assertion needs to be backed up by facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognised text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

[fertilizerspike]

fertilizer spike, welcome to the forum.

 

You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the techniques used to identify exoplanets are faulty. It is normal practice on this forum - and is required b y the forum rules - that such an assertion needs to be backed up by facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognised text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

 

You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the assertion I've made is rather bizarre. Perhaps you could follow "normal practice on this forum" and back up what you say with facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognized text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

[swansont]

You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the assertion I've made is rather bizarre. Perhaps you could follow "normal practice on this forum" and back up what you say with facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognized text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Before this gets off track, because parroting a response like this does not bode well: Ophiolite is quite correct that such an assertion should be backed up, and this is not open to negotiation (i.e. do not respond to the modnote in this thread.)

 

 

IOW, what, precisely, is "spurious" about extrasolar planet detection?

[Ophiolite]

You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the assertion I've made is rather bizarre. Perhaps you could follow "normal practice on this forum" and back up what you say with facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognized text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

There is nothing bizarre about reflecting the consensus view of science upon any issue: that is what I have done. However, I am perfectly happy to back up my claim with facts.

 

You will find this link very helpful: http://exoplanet.eu/bibliography/

 

There you will find, currently, 497 pages of references to papers on exoplanets, detailing methedologies of detection, specific discoveries, discussions on orbital characteristics, reviews of potential habitability, etc. That is quite a substantial body of work for you to refute. So, over to you. Please comply this time.

[Airbrush]

The media is filled with news of the discoveries of extra solar planets and especially the rocky planets in habitable zones. The mass of these planets are quoted at multiple masses of the earth. My question is wouldn't moons orbiting these planets be included in the mass quote? I mean the wobble dection method would only view the planets and its moons as a single mass, right?

 

Frank

 

Yes, but the difference in mass from all the moons of the planet will probably be negligible.

[fertilizerspike]

There is nothing bizarre about reflecting the consensus view of science upon any issue: that is what I have done. However, I am perfectly happy to back up my claim with facts.

 

You will find this link very helpful: http://exoplanet.eu/bibliography/

 

There you will find, currently, 497 pages of references to papers on exoplanets, detailing methedologies of detection, specific discoveries, discussions on orbital characteristics, reviews of potential habitability, etc. That is quite a substantial body of work for you to refute. So, over to you. Please comply this time.

 

So in other words you have no evidence supporting your claim that my assertions are "bizarre". Why am I not surprised. I'm well familiar with the various claims about methods of exoplanet discovery. I don't find many of them convincing. To put it another way, I don't share your blind faith in their methods. I also don't have your superstitions regarding consensus views. Consensus is not part of science and is therefore irrelevant. Further I don't think stating that a given method is logically or factually flawed is bizarre, I find it rather mundane, scientists do it routinely. If you're not a scientist I can understand your confusion.

!

Moderator Note

 

Before this gets off track, because parroting a response like this does not bode well: Ophiolite is quite correct that such an assertion should be backed up, and this is not open to negotiation (i.e. do not respond to the modnote in this thread.)

 

 

IOW, what, precisely, is "spurious" about extrasolar planet detection?

 

 

The typical methods used to identify stars with planets are spurious because they are generally based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

Edited April 2, 2013 by fertilizerspike

[swansont]

The typical methods used to identify stars with planets are spurious because they are generally based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

 

I'm afraid that falls short of the bar of explaining anything.

[fertilizerspike]

I'm afraid that falls short of the bar of explaining anything.

 

Fewer than 5% of the "discovered" exoplanets have been imaged directly, leaving a 95% margin of error. That pitiable in any sense of the word. Pending further verification of these "methods" used to "detect" planets around stars it's not a safe bet.

 

I guess I should go ahead and explain at least one method that has as yet unverified assumptions at its core, since you're going to keep complaining until I do. Astronogers often claim they can detect planets by changes in a star's "radial velocity". This assumption is flawed because there are of course other phenomena that could be perturbing a star's motion that have nothing to do with any planets. No attempt is made in any of these "radial velocity" methods to exclude other causes, so the observations are not diagnostic of anything.

Edited April 2, 2013 by fertilizerspike

[swansont]

Fewer than 5% of the "discovered" exoplanets have been imaged directly, leaving a 95% margin of error.

 

That's a load of codswallop. Direct imaging is not the only method for detecting a planet, and that does not translate into a margin of error.

 

 

That pitiable in any sense of the word. Pending further verification of these "methods" used to "detect" planets around stars it's not a safe bet.

 

I guess I should go ahead and explain at least one method that has as yet unverified assumptions at its core, since you're going to keep complaining until I do. Astronogers often claim they can detect planets by changes in a star's "radial velocity". This assumption is flawed because there are of course other phenomena that could be perturbing a star's motion that have nothing to do with any planets. No attempt is made in any of these "radial velocity" methods to exclude other causes, so the observations are not diagnostic of anything.

 

Periodic changes in velocity? What would these other phenomena be?

[CaptainPanic]

fertilizerspike,

 

We are happy if you challenge the popular scientific results - it means we get a lively discussion. (It would be so boring it we all just agree). However, to make this discussion proceed a little smoother, could you please explain us the following?

 

You say that a large part of the exoplanets are not observed directly. Instead, the astronomers say that an exoplanet is the best explanation for the observations: stars periodically wobble and/or periodically dim. If you disagree with this, it would be helpful if you either explain us what is wrong with that. Are the measurements themselves faulty? Or just the explanation?

 

I agree that the explanation that this wobble or dimming is caused by planets is based on some assumptions... but it just seems the most logical explanation. Any other explanation (aliens have huge screens and mirrors to deflect and dim the light) would be based on even more outrageous assumptions.

 

This is science: we observe and measure stuff and then we come up with an explanation that seems the most likely. You're fine to disagree, but please offer a new explanation, so we can shoot at that too.

[fertilizerspike]

That's a load of codswallop. Direct imaging is not the only method for detecting a planet, and that does not translate into a margin of error.

 

 

 

Periodic changes in velocity? What would these other phenomena be?

 

The load of codswallop is coming out of your mouth. I never claimed direct imaging is the only method of detecting planets. That came from your feverish imagination. Perhaps you should try reading my comments if you intend to critique them. As for other causes of periodic changes in spectra of stars (attributed quite erroneously to velocity), until you can demonstrate you even understand my comments I don't see the point of elaborating. And really I was being generous calling it "margin of error", because actually with only 5% verification, that's a 95% falsification so far.

 

 

fertilizerspike,

 

We are happy if you challenge the popular scientific results - it means we get a lively discussion. (It would be so boring it we all just agree). However, to make this discussion proceed a little smoother, could you please explain us the following?

 

You say that a large part of the exoplanets are not observed directly. Instead, the astronomers say that an exoplanet is the best explanation for the observations: stars periodically wobble and/or periodically dim. If you disagree with this, it would be helpful if you either explain us what is wrong with that. Are the measurements themselves faulty? Or just the explanation?

 

I agree that the explanation that this wobble or dimming is caused by planets is based on some assumptions... but it just seems the most logical explanation. Any other explanation (aliens have huge screens and mirrors to deflect and dim the light) would be based on even more outrageous assumptions.

 

This is science: we observe and measure stuff and then we come up with an explanation that seems the most likely. You're fine to disagree, but please offer a new explanation, so we can shoot at that too.

 

I'm not the least bit concerned about your happiness. This isn't a happiness forum. I'm interested in science. The problem here, I think, is that what you consider to be science is nothing but a collection of fables based on wishful thinking, in which you have 100% unwavering faith. Even when it is exposed to you that your beliefs are not science I feel you will persist in them, growing more and more angry as you find you are unable to defend those beliefs, then you will seek the same remedy that people in your position always seek, to have the offending information obliterated without investigation. You've also left a crucial part from your description of science: experiment

Edited April 2, 2013 by fertilizerspike

[CaptainPanic]

I actually think nothing of the current science... but I would be interested in what you would think is a better explanation.

[fertilizerspike]

I actually think nothing of the current science... but I would be interested in what you would think is a better explanation.

 

Here's a really big problem: I have no idea what you mean when you say "the current science". As far as I'm concerned "the current science" is the better explanation.

[CaptainPanic]

Huh?

 

Current science: we see wobbles and dimming, so we assume that there may be planets there.

You: disagree with all kinds of strong words.

 

So, I want to know what is your explanation for the observed wobbles and dimming?

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Moderator edit:

Because fertilizerspike created at least 2 posts full of swear words, we have had to (temporarily?) suspend him to keep our forum clean. Please don't bother to address him personally for a while.

 

Edited April 2, 2013 by CaptainPanic
I asked a question to fertilizerspike, but he won't answer soon.

[Airbrush]

Fertilizerspike has said much and yet nothing solid to refute current mainstream scientific ideas about detecting exoplanets. He cannot be specific, just vague criticism about scientists.

[Ophiolite]

So in other words you have no evidence supporting your claim that my assertions are "bizarre". .

An assertion made 'in the name of science' that contradicts or denies received consensus views and does so without providing evidence to support those alternate views is well characterised as bizarre. This should be self evident.

 

Once you return I trust you will address the questions asked implicitly and explicitly by several other members: what fault do you find with the current methodologies; what assumptions do you believe to be invalid.

 

And a separate question. How did you come to believe that consnsus was not an integral part of science?

[Enthalpy]

Some moons are really heavy with respect to the planet, more so than our Moon. Have a look at Pluto with its moons Charon and at least two more.

 

Wobbling is observed on the star's light spectrum and would result from the combined mass of the planet and its moons. It's the resulting centre of mass of both objects that orbits simply the star, so any effect of the mass being split between the planet and a moon would be of second order, or far smaller than our detection possiblity.

 

Presently, only planets rather heavy, around stars bright enough to us hence near, are candidates for detection through wobbling.

[Ophiolite]

Some moons are really heavy with respect to the planet, more so than our Moon. Have a look at Pluto with its moons Charon and at least two more.

Pluto is not a planet.

[Arch2008]

Pluto is a dwarf planet. This is a term that in its definition extends to small bodies around the Sun and no where else in the entire universe, i.e., no dwarf exoplanets will ever exist. However, objects like Pluto will exist around other stars, which still makes them exoplanets. Until we develop satellite telescopes linked together for interferometry to actually image some exoplanets, we will not know how many if any have large moons.

[ccwebb]

The media is filled with news of the discoveries of extra solar planets and especially the rocky planets in habitable zones. The mass of these planets are quoted at multiple masses of the earth. My question is wouldn't moons orbiting these planets be included in the mass quote? I mean the wobble dection method would only view the planets and its moons as a single mass, right?

 

Frank

Back to the original question... Based on the methods, we know now to use, I would agree with you. The earth must look like the earth+(1/81) if you were to view it from light years away.