from the that'd-take-18,000-years-at-Helios'-top-speed dept.
Astronomers have reportedly discovered an Earth-like exoplanet in the habitable zone of Proxima Centauri, one of the closest stars to our Sun. However, the claim is based on an anonymous source who is said to have leaked the news ahead of an announcement by the European Southern Observatory:
[In] what may prove to be the most exciting find to date, the German weekly Der Spiegel [translation] announced recently that astronomers have discovered an Earth-like planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, just 4.25 light-years away. Yes, in what is an apparent trifecta, this newly-discovered exoplanet is Earth-like, orbits within it's sun's habitable zone, and is within our reach. But is this too good to be true? [...] Citing anonymous sources, the magazine stated:
The still nameless planet is believed to be Earth-like and orbits at a distance to Proxima Centauri that could allow it to have liquid water on its surface — an important requirement for the emergence of life. Never before have scientists discovered a second Earth that is so close by.
In addition, they claim that the discovery was made by the European Southern Observatory (ESO) using the La Silla Observatory's reflecting telescope. Coincidentally, it was this same observatory that announced the discovery of Alpha Centauri Bb back in 2012, which was also declared to be "the closest exoplanet to Earth". Unfortunately, subsequent analysis cast doubt on its existence, claiming it was a spurious artifact of the data analysis.
However, according to Der Spiegel's unnamed source – whom they claim was involved with the La Silla team that made the find – this latest discovery is the real deal, and was the result of intensive work. "Finding small celestial bodies is a lot of hard work," the source was quoted as saying. "We were moving at the technically feasible limit of measurement." The article goes on to state that the European Southern Observatory (ESO) will be announcing the finding at the end of August. But according to numerous sources, in response to a request for comment by AFP, ESO spokesman Richard Hook refused to confirm or deny the discovery of an exoplanet around Proxima Centauri.
[Continues...]
Here's an article we ran about the possible discovery of Alpha Centauri Bb.
There is some debate about the habitability of red dwarf systems in general. Nevertheless, one of the minds behind Breakthrough Initiatives/Project Starshot is enthused about the possible discovery. It seems likely that at the very least, almost all stars have planets or dwarf planets orbiting them.
Proxima Centauri will move closer to the Earth over the next 26,700 years at a rate of 22.4 km/s, until its closest approach of 3.11 light years.
Related Stories
Over at Centauri Dreams is a piece by Andrew LePage on the questions over exoplanets around Centauri B, on the second anniversary of a (possible) detection.
Alpha Centauri (or α Centauri, if you prefer) is a binary star system, 4.37 light years from the Sun, and the closest star system to the Solar System. "Alpha Centauri A" is the primary star, "Alpha Centauri B" is the (slightly smaller) companion, and a planet, known as Alpha Centauri Bb was detected in October 2012 using data from the HARPS spectrograph.
However there is still some scepticism about about the the data and techniques used to establish the existence of Alpha Centauri Bb, and the Centauri Dreams article goes into detail about the background of the search, the findings to date and the current efforts.
While this planet, designated α Centauri Bb, was hardly the Earth-like planet for which interstellar travel enthusiasts had been waiting so long, its presence demonstrated that the closest star system to us harbored at least one planet and held the promise of more to be discovered. But two years after this momentous announcement, many questions still remain and this important discovery has yet to be independently confirmed.
The BBC and the Guardian both carry stories about an unmanned interstellar spacecraft designed to reach the Alpha Centauri system "within a generation" (30 or so years).
The spacecraft would be miniaturised to the size of an average silicon chip, and be propelled by a solar sail which would receive a boost from a powerful laser on the Earth.
Milner's Breakthrough Foundation is running a project, backed by Hawking, to research the technologies needed for such a mission, which they think will soon be feasible.
takyon: The campaign is called Breakthrough Starshot. Breakthrough Initiatives also announced the release of initial observational datasets from the Breakthrough Listen 10-year SETI effort.
The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) has reported the detection of a dust belt around 1-4 astronomical units (AU) from Proxima Centauri, as well as a possible outer belt 30 AU away and an "unknown source" (possible exoplanet) about 1.6 AU away from the star. The data also show "a hint of warmer dust closer to the star".
Proxima b is 0.05 AU from Proxima Centauri, and is considered to be in the star's "habitable zone". The 1-4 AU belt on the other hand has a characteristic temperature of about 40 K, while the 30 AU outer belt would have a temperature of about 10 K. Neptune's moon Triton is roughly 30 AU from the Sun with a temperature of 38 K.
The 1-4 AU belt is estimated to contain 0.01 Earth masses of asteroids (primarily?) up to 50 km in diameter. By comparison, our main asteroid belt (including Ceres) is estimated to contain 4% of the Moon's mass, or about 0.000492 Earth masses (Ceres is about 0.00015 Earth masses, roughly a third of the main asteroid belt). A minimum estimate for the Kuiper belt's mass is 20x that of the main asteroid belt, or the equivalent of this newly detected dust belt around Proxima Centauri.
Astronomy Magazine has an interview with one of the co-authors, who noted another possible exoplanet at 0.5 AU:
The Breakthrough Starshot initiative, which is known for its long-term plan for sending chip-sized craft to Alpha Centauri using lasers, will fund an upgrade to the Very Large Telescope in order to search for exoplanets:
Today, the European Southern Observatory announced an agreement with Breakthrough Starshot, A group dedicated to sending hardware to return data from the nearest stars. The agreement would see Breakthrough Starshot fund the development of new hardware that would allow the ESO's Very Large Telescope to become an efficient planet hunter. The goal is presumably to confirm there's something in the Alpha Centauri system worth sending spacecraft to image.
[...] The new hardware will be a modification of existing equipment. The Very Large Telescope is actually four eight-meter telescopes capable of being operated as a single unit. One of these (Unit 3, named "Melipal") has hardware called VISIR, for VLT Imager and Spectrometer for mid-Infrared. VISIR can separate infrared light into its component wavelengths, which can tell us something about either the source of the light or any objects in between that absorb light of these wavelengths. Exoplanets turn out to be best to image in the infrared since they often glow with heat, either left over from their formation or due to absorbing light from their host star. But VISIR isn't specialized for planet hunting. For that, it will need a coronagraph, which will blot out the light from the star and make planets easier to spot. VISIR will also need adaptive optics, which can compensate for distortions created by the atmosphere. (The Very Large Telescope may be 2.5km above sea level in a desert, but the atmosphere still poses problems.) And it will likely need additional vibration dampening equipment.
Previously: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner's $100 Million Interstellar Spacecraft Plan
"Earth-Like" Exoplanet Found in Habitable Zone of Proxima Centauri
Researchers have calculated that Proxima b may have liquid water oceans on its surface, or even be an "ocean planet" based on larger estimates of its radius:
A rocky planet discovered in the "habitable" zone of the star nearest our Sun may be covered with oceans, researchers at France's CNRS research institute said Thursday. A team including CNRS astrophysicists have calculated the size and surface properties of the planet dubbed Proxima b, and concluded it may be an "ocean planet" similar to Earth.
[...] They calculated the radius was between 0.94 and 1.4 times that of Earth, which is 6,371 kilometres on average. Assuming a minimum radius of 5,990 km, the planet would be very dense, with a metallic core making up two-thirds of the entire planet's mass, surrounded by a rocky mantle. If there is surface water, it would not contribute more than 0.05 percent to the planet's total mass, the team said—similar to Earth, where it is about 0.02 percent.
In the larger planet scenario, with a radius of 8,920 km, Proxima b's mass would be split 50-50 between a rocky centre and surrounding water. "In this case, Proxima b would be covered by a single, liquid ocean 200 km deep," said the CNRS. "In both cases, a thin, gassy atmosphere could surround the planet, like on Earth, rendering Proxima b potentially habitable," it concluded.
The exoplanet has not been seen transiting Proxima Centauri, so further data about its size and composition will require the James Webb Space Telescope or other observatories to directly observe it.
Previously: "Earth-Like" Exoplanet Found in Habitable Zone of Proxima Centauri
ESO Confirms Reports of Proxima Centauri Exoplanet
Another study has cast doubt on the habitability of an Earth-like exoplanet in the "habitable zone" of a red dwarf, in this case Proxima Centauri specifically:
At only four light-years away, Proxima b is our closest known extra-solar neighbor. However, due to the fact that it hasn't been seen crossing in front of its host star, the exoplanet eludes the usual method for learning about its atmosphere. Instead, scientists must rely on models to understand whether the exoplanet is habitable.
One such computer model considered what would happen if Earth orbited Proxima Centauri, our nearest stellar neighbor and Proxima b's host star, at the same orbit as Proxima b. The NASA study, published on July 24, 2017, in The Astrophysical Journal Letters [DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7eca], suggests Earth's atmosphere wouldn't survive in close proximity to the violent red dwarf.
[...] In Proxima Centauri's habitable zone, Proxima b encounters bouts of extreme ultraviolet radiation hundreds of times greater than Earth does from the sun. That radiation generates enough energy to strip away not just the lightest molecules — hydrogen — but also, over time, heavier elements such as oxygen and nitrogen.
The model shows Proxima Centauri's powerful radiation drains the Earth-like atmosphere as much as 10,000 times faster than what happens at Earth.
Previously: "Earth-Like" Exoplanet Found in Habitable Zone of Proxima Centauri
Proxima b May Have Oceans
Researchers Suffocate Hopes of Life Support in Red Dwarf "Habitable Zones"
Proxima B Habitability Study Adds Climate Model
Related: MAVEN Results Find Solar Wind and Radiation Responsible for Stripping the Martian Atmosphere
Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun's closest star
Astronomers have discovered a third planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the star closest to the Sun. Dubbed Proxima Centauri d, the newly spotted world is probably a bit smaller than Earth, and well within the habitable zone of its host star — meaning that it could have oceans of liquid water that can potentially harbour life.
"It's showing that the nearest star probably has a very rich planetary system," says Guillem Anglada-Escudé, an astronomer at the Institute for Space Sciences in Barcelona, Spain, who led the team that in 2016 discovered the first planet to be seen orbiting Proxima Centauri.
Astronomer João Faria and his collaborators detected Proxima Centauri d by measuring tiny shifts in the spectrum of the star's light as the planet's gravity pulled it during orbit. The team used a state-of-the art spectrograph called ESPRESSO at the Very Large Telescope, a system of four 8.2-metre telescopes at the European Southern Observatory in Cerro Paranal, Chile. The results were published on 10 February in Astronomy & Astrophysics.
A candidate short-period sub-Earth orbiting Proxima Centauri
We detect a signal at 5.12 ± 0.04 days with a semi-amplitude of 39 ± 7 cm s−1. The analysis of subsets of the ESPRESSO data, the activity indicators, and chromatic RVs suggest that this signal is not caused by stellar variability but instead by a planetary companion with a minimum mass of 0.26 ± 0.05 M⊕ (about twice the mass of Mars) orbiting at 0.029 au from the star. The orbital eccentricity is well constrained and compatible with a circular orbit.
Previously: "Earth-Like" Exoplanet Found in Habitable Zone of Proxima Centauri
ESO Confirms Reports of Proxima Centauri Exoplanet
Dust Belts and Possible Additional Exoplanet Spotted Around Proxima Centauri
Icy second planet potentially spotted orbiting Proxima Centauri
Proxima Centauri b Confirmed Using VLT's ESPRESSO, Possible Third Exoplanet Found in System
Last week, news of the discovery of a potentially habitable "Earth-like" exoplanet orbiting the nearest star to our Sun (Proxima Centauri) leaked to Der Spiegel. Today, the European Southern Observatory confirmed the news about Proxima b:
Astronomers using ESO telescopes and other facilities have found clear evidence of a planet orbiting the closest star to Earth, Proxima Centauri. The long-sought world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool red parent star every 11 days and has a temperature suitable for liquid water to exist on its surface. This rocky world is a little more massive than the Earth and is the closest exoplanet to us — and it may also be the closest possible abode for life outside the Solar System. A paper describing this milestone finding will be published in the journal Nature on 25 August 2016.
[...] At times Proxima Centauri is approaching Earth at about 5 kilometres per hour — normal human walking pace — and at times receding at the same speed. This regular pattern of changing radial velocities repeats with a period of 11.2 days. Careful analysis of the resulting tiny Doppler shifts showed that they indicated the presence of a planet with a mass at least 1.3 times that of the Earth, orbiting about 7 million kilometres from Proxima Centauri — only 5% of the Earth-Sun distance.
A note on the press release discusses the potential habitability of Proxima b, given that it is orbiting close to a red dwarf star:
[Continues...]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:54AM
I, for one, welcome. Colonize us, Great Maker.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Thursday August 18 2016, @10:12AM
Vir! Fetch me some hot Jala!
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:28PM
Well, the alternative is failing to pay a visit to the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council and having a Vogon Constructor Fleet on our doorstep.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 18 2016, @10:52AM
Just as astronomers have a very different definition of "metal" than the rest of us (ie anything that isn't hydrogen), they also have a surprisingly broad definition of "Earthlike". In this context it probably means "Rocky, not gassy, and anywhere between Mercury and Neptune in size. Roughly."
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:46PM
The closer it is to Mercury's size, the harder it would be to detect. So there will be a bias towards things at least the size of Earth.
As for super-Earths, it's possible that they are more conducive to life than the smallest of planets:
http://www.universetoday.com/108964/super-earths-could-be-more-superhabitable-than-planets-like-ours/ [universetoday.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth#Habitability [wikipedia.org]
Things could get dicey as we move past 2-3 Earth masses to the realm of 5-10 Earth masses, but at least surface gravity shouldn't be increasing linearly with the increase in mass. For example, a ~7 Earth mass planet [centauri-dreams.org] might have a surface gravity of less than 2g.
Finally, having an exoplanet in the habitable zone gives you another chance at life: exomoons. Having an exomoon around your exoplanet could bypass some of the effects of having the exoplanet tidally locked with the star. I guess the problem here might be the small size typical of most moons. But bodies like Titan give us hope that even smaller-than-Earth satellites can have thick atmospheres. Titan itself may become habitable [wikipedia.org] in the future.
Our solar system's largest satellites [wikipedia.org] orbit the gas giants, with two exceptions being Earth's Moon and Pluto's Charon. In the future, we'll have a better understanding of the lower limits required for a satellite to have a thick atmosphere, and the upper limits of satellite size around smaller exoplanets. But if Proxima Centauri's possibly existing habitable exoplanet is closer in size to a mini-Neptune, that might mean it has more satellites, larger satellites, and a better chance to have satellites with thick atmospheres.
We might get another chance to find interesting satellites in our own solar system, if "Planet Nine" [wikipedia.org] can be found and it is a mini-Neptune. Heck, even P9 and its satellites could support microbes in a subsurface ocean. Hopefully we will be able to image it with the James Webb Space Telescope.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:21AM
I have been an astrophysicist (whatever that means anymore) by profession for the past 10 years. This post is no flamebait, and I am not trolling you.
However, all those so-called 'exoplanet' missions and projects have been trolling you: their objective is to paint a picture where there are so many other Earths out there, so that you infer that it is only a matter of time before an ion drive or a warp drive is built allowing for effortless commuting.
Please take note of the obvious deduction that "it is okay to crap up this here planet, as there is a host of others just like it. No biggie." --quite subliminal. And VERY sneaky.
Key to a successful con: make the victim think that it was their own idea.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:48AM
Of course, anyone who thinks we can wreck the Earth because Exoplanets and Warp Drives, probably doesn't have the smarts to work that out either. But that's what the B Arks are *really* for, right?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Friday August 19 2016, @05:44AM
"Moving to another one" = only move a population that is large enough to be sustainable. The remaining majority of humans will die off on old Earth, and the net result will be that the human race will have moved to a new planet. One could argue that if only a small population moved to the new Earth, it would consist entirely of politicians and rich tycoons, which would not make it a very sustainable population, after all. (Of course, having gotten rid of them, old Earth might actually have a chance of recovering, after all!)
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:52PM
Make your mind up; you were implying that the Earth is flat [soylentnews.org] two hours ago.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:32PM
Make your mind up; you were implying that the Earth is flat two hours ago.
Aye, I was. Kind of. It took me effort to write this below so give me the courtesy of giving it an honest read. You are implying that there is an inconsistency, so here is a train of thoughts:
If the Earth is 'flat', then it is not a globe- or, at least, as far as I can see and prove it is not a convex sphere ~13,000km in diameter (see it for yourself: a x200 telescope is not that hard to find, and more than able to measure such curvature). Ergo, it must not be a planet as you were (probably) taught in school, because making it a different shape or even size means the other celestial bodies no longer fit the equation. With this new data on curvature, the Sun can be shown to not be 1.5x10^8km away (if, say, a buddy of yours simultaneously measures the length of a stick's shadow in Johannesburg and communicates the information to you), which means that the Moon is not where it is 'supposed' to be either, which means "then what about gravity", which means "then what about satellites", etc etc.
You also seem to imply (or hope) that I have all the answers. I do not. Are there weird lights on the sky? You bet. Do the space agencies know what they are about? I hardly think so. All I am saying is grab a telescope, a gyroscope, and do your own experiments for crying out loud.
Now let's check the competition: the universe exploded, out of nothing, for no reason. No, there are no miracles, other than the freebie miracle of the 'Big Bang'. Nothing to see here, here is a picture of Earth from space, now go do something else, we settled this a long time ago.
Since WHEN science 'settles' things and does not look back, ever? This is what dogma does, not what science does. How is this different than a priest handing you an answer, and telling you to go about your business?
Don't shoot the messenger, dude.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:20PM
I don't know how you ever got your PhD in the first place if it was possible for you to get so confused.
If the Earth is 'flat'
Well, it's not, so you can stop there if that's really an "if".
(see it for yourself: a x200 telescope is not that hard to find, and more than able to measure such curvature)
How do I measure said curvature with a x200 telescope? Why can't I simply look with my eyes and see that I can't see the French alps? Or see the curvature of the Earth from a transatlantic flight? Did that myself.
With this new data on curvature, the Sun can be shown to not be 1.5x10^8km away
Then where does it go at night? Why can other parts of the Earth see when I can't? Why does it's angular measurement not change as it passes overhead?
Since WHEN science 'settles' things and does not look back, ever?
It doesn't. But it happily ignores the blithering idiots who clearly have on idea what they're talking about.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:18PM
But it happily ignores the blithering idiots who clearly have on idea what they're talking about.
Look, I am making an honest effort to answer what I can. I even propose an experiment that I believe is easy to set up. Act up if it comforts you, but as I said do not shoot the messenger.
If the Earth is 'flat'
Well, it's not,
Says who? "well established facts"? The passive voice? Wikipedia? "The fact that is clearly not flat"?
How do I measure said curvature with a x200 telescope?
Go at sea/lake level, or a canal. Set telescope 3 ft high. Train at target 5 miles away. Use trigonometry, derive what target height should be hidden (~5.5 ft), and see if it is actually hidden. Try with other numbers as well. Try during different visibility conditions, and different temperatures. The real question is, will you actually put your money where your mouth is and physically try it for yourself?
Why can't I simply look with my eyes and see that I can't see the French alps?
Because of atmospheric attenuation, I suppose.
Or see the curvature of the Earth from a transatlantic flight?
Because this is subjective, not objective, and prone to observing errors. The mind often sees what it expects to see. You say curve and I say something else, and there is the telescope experiment above being much closer to the scientific method and more able to settle this than the eyeballing method you suggest.
Then where does it go at night?
Anybody's guess: out of your perspective range? On the other side of the Earth? I don't know, I do not have all the information.
Why can other parts of the Earth see when I can't?
Again, I do not know. Magnetism has limited range, maybe light cannot travel arbitrarily far is a fair assumption, but I really do not know.
Why does it's angular measurement not change as it passes overhead?
Some say it does (an effect more pronounced the higher the altitude because of thinner air, hence less atmospheric diffraction), and some say it does not. I have not measured it for myself so I cannot really tell you, because I would only be quoting something I read or saw somewhere. When I measure it, I can report back without prejudice --or at least with as little prejudice as I can.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday August 18 2016, @10:48PM
Joining in the flamefest here.
Go at sea/lake level, or a canal. Set telescope 3 ft high. Train at target 5 miles away. Use trigonometry, derive what target height should be hidden (~5.5 ft), and see if it is actually hidden.
We did exactly this in the 5th form at school. Of course we used metres not feet and inches, because I'm not 200 years old and the civilised world uses the metric system.
The results we got confirmed that the planet is actually a sphere (more or less).
Seriously? Flat Earth? Too easily disproven to be credible.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:16PM
but as I said do not shoot the messenger.
You're not the messenger, you're the claimant. You made the claim, but now you seem to abdicating all responsibility for it.
Go at sea/lake level, or a canal. Set telescope 3 ft high. Train at target 5 miles away. Use trigonometry, derive what target height should be hidden (~5.5 ft), and see if it is actually hidden. Try with other numbers as well. Try during different visibility conditions, and different temperatures. The real question is, will you actually put your money where your mouth is and physically try it for yourself?
If you knew anything about the history of such tests, you'd know they are rife with difficulties. Refraction, for example - you can't simply "use trigonemtry" to determine what should or should not be hidden. But then you did mention temperature, so perhaps you already do know. In which case why did you suggest just using trigonometry?
Because of atmospheric attenuation, I suppose.
You suppose? Wow, that really sounds like the word of someone who knows what they're talking about, doesn't it?
Or see the curvature of the Earth from a transatlantic flight?
Because this is subjective, not objective, and prone to observing errors. The mind often sees what it expects to see.
I wasn't expecting to see the curvature of the Earth. I didn't take a photo, but there's plenty of video and photographic evidence of the curvature of the Earth. Not a problem for you, though; you can just dismiss it as part of the conspiracy, or some hitherto unknown artefact of photography that as gone undiscovered for centuries.
You say curve and I say something else
You have to say something else, because you've already closed your mind and chosen to disregard the bountiful evidence that supports the consensus. [i]Because[/i] it supports the consensus, probably.
and there is the telescope experiment above being much closer to the scientific method and more able to settle this than the eyeballing method you suggest.
I'm not suggesting a method; I'm telling you what I saw. Have you looked at the Earth from a height of 40,000 feet? I have. It was curved.
Anybody's guess: out of your perspective range? On the other side of the Earth? I don't know
Perhaps you should try watching a sunset. It would be instantly obvious that "out of your perspective range" makes no sense.
So you're not even going to [i]try[/i] to explain time zones? Is 75+% of the population of the planet in on the conspiracy?
If you have a PhD then you should understand the scientific method. You are making an extraordinary claim; if the best response you have to my hastily-thought-up question is "I don't know" then you're on incredibly shaky ground and should know better than to be making such claims.
Magnetism has limited range
Oh, so you're happy to accept that as a fact, but you suggest that science can't be trusted when it comes to the behaviour of light? Because the behaviour of light is pretty well established and understood by science. Suggesting it "cannot travel arbitrarily far" is not a fair assumption, because you're implying a massive and untenable conspiracy.
I have not measured it for myself so I cannot really tell you
Jesus Christ. Have you actually done anything to verify your ridiculous beliefs, or have you just latched on to it because it gives you a (false) certainty and security, by allowing you to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a fool or a member of a conspiracy?
Let me sum up your post:
do not shoot the messenger.
I suppose.
Anybody's guess:
I don't know, I do not have all the information.
Again, I do not know.
I really do not know.
I cannot really tell you
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 19 2016, @06:49AM
Are you trying to make troll foie-gras here? ;)
Why engage him on the science when we can "skip to the end"? There is something even more fundamental, and definitive, in nature that you're missing! The BEST experiment possible. Put one front in front of the other.... repeat. Keep repeating till finding an edge, peer over, and wave high to the Great Turtle we ride upon :)
The ultimate destination of Flat Earth is a wonderful conspiracy in which the elites of the world are not conspiring to keep us in crushing poverty and under their control. Oh no, nothing so banal in the annals of evil. It's all a ploy to fund NASA so they have the resources to guard the edge from the idiots that would fall off like rushing Lemmings.
That's the part that mystifies me. Couldn't they just as effectively harsh our mellows, while luxuriating in the corrupt crapulence with a flat world just as well? It seems like an awful lot of waste to prevent people from learning a truth that really changes nothing. The Earth... she is a flat. If it is so science can lie to us, that seems like putting the cart before the horse. We could have a flat Earth and science would be just as compromised by junk science as this one, and there would be conspiracy theorists talking about how the Earth is really triangular and the governments came together to falsely create the square, rhombus depending on group. Why? So the MIB can have some fucking office space god dammit. Nobody sees the Turtle. Nobody.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 18 2016, @06:33PM
Seriously? I think you need to do some of your *own* experiments - rigorous ones with the math vetted by actual engineers or mathematicians who know what they're doing. Eratosthenes managed to do them thousands of years ago and measured the circumference of the Earth with remarkable accuracy, and he as hardly the only one. Ditto measuring the distance to the sun, and other calculation that can be made with only basic geometry. And variations of those experiments have been performed time and again in the intervening centuries. Hell, if you don't care about numbers you can go stand by the ocean on a clear, calm day and clearly see the curvature of the Earth for yourself. Bonus points if you take a telescope and watch tall ships gradually appearing and disappearing over the horizon.
If you want to do calculations - well then you're going to need to do better than sticks in the ground, unless they're extremely well calibrated and you manage to install them perfectly vertically over a perfectly horizontal surface. Try flagpoles in level parking lots instead - it won't be perfect, but the dimensions are big enough that the errors won't amplify nearly so much. And of course you absolutely need to have an accomplice at the same longitude but several hundred miles further from the equator than you, with a same-height flagpole, to measure the shadow at the same high-noon (NOT clock-noon) moment as you are in order to have any chance of getting a remotely accurate measurement. And your reference flagpole should really be in the tropics at a location where the sun is directly overhead and has essentially no shadow at noon in order to minimize the errors in your angle calculations (those are where minor errors will have the largest impact). Any departure from that basic recipe is going to make it essentially impossible to get meaningful numbers. (Or at the very least, makes the math *radically* more complicated and error-sensitive)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:37PM
I'm afraid in your case 'PhD' stands for Douchebag of Philosophy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 18 2016, @05:00PM
"Piled Higher and Deeper."
Why are these cranks always 1) religious and 2) so enamored with tu quoque fallacies, especially false ones?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:45PM
fallacies, especially false ones?
a 'false' fallacy?
fallacy [n]: (logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not. A specious argument.
(Courtesy of The Department of Redundancy Department)
You need to be more convincing to do what you are trying to do. Improving your language may help. Improving your attitude will help for sure.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 18 2016, @11:19PM
Oh, good, a pedant, just what we need to help clear this up.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 19 2016, @03:28AM
Someone can commit tu quoque and have it be a "true fallacy" in those terms; for example, if someone's opponent actually is guilty of something the speaker is. "False fallacy" here would be when someone attempts tu quoque and, in addition to being fallacious, is actually wrong. Sorry you don't like the choice of words; you're right that they sound weird, but I think what was said is fairly easily understood. You've, ironically, committed a form of the fallacy fallacy :D
Also: your concern trolling is noted. I'm gonna need you to take your opinion inside the bathroom, and I'm gonna need you to put them waaaaaay up inside your butthole, Morty. Put 'em *waaaaaaaaaaaaay* up inside there, as far as they can go.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:33PM
Thank you, but some of us have been immunized.
We've read the black humor of Stark [wikipedia.org], by Ben Elton. That book didn't end well for the 1%.
As a more positive opposite of your comment, I'd like to say that I hope the Chinese will build a Moon Base in the coming decade(s).
Because it will show to all of us (especially school children) how insanely complicated and expensive it is to maintain human life without our nurturing ecosystem that we completely take for granted here down the gravity well (well, OK, maybe not in Beijing or Lagos if you can't see the colour of the traffic ligts anymore because of the smog)
I bet the Lunar Taikonauts will be looking forward to their rucola salads with fresh puréed earthworms, or whatever is going to be on their diet. I bet they'd dream of bananas. I hope the world takes heed (and NOT just to plant banana trees inside the luxury moon hotels, I mean).
Regenerative life support systems are the only way to go offworld. And then how do we convert Moon and Mars rocks into food? Which minerals need to be "detoxed" first by bioaccumulation? etc. etc.
Once humans can thrive in space, we can live practically everywhere, but *we may never get there* because we kill eachother off just before reaching humanity's Childhood's End. And that would be a tragedy, because I believe previous generations did their best so that we could live, and I believe it would be a sin (in the religious sense) if we don't reciprocate that, and bequeath sustainable living conditions to the generations after us, when we are dust again, recycled into the biosphere.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Osamabobama on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:52PM
If that's true, how do you explain this?
I mean, it says it right there, next to your subject line! Only a troll would deny being a troll...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:49PM
If that's true, how do you explain this?
Bias.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:52PM
If that's true, how do you explain this?
Bias.
And reflexes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:23PM
Dibs on Santiago.