Talk:Exoplanet
|
This Astronomy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Honestly[edit]
Honestly, it blows my mind that we've been able to find these things within my lifetime. When I was a kid, the very idea was unheard of. --Kels 13:49, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
The things science can do... MiddleMan
- Frakkin' excellent :D I *love* stars n stuff like that (take a look at my User page for a model of the Spica stellar system) Spica 07:15, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
life[edit]
The stuff about rocky planets sustaining life versus gas giants always triggers my anthropomorphism bone. There's really no reason why life is more or less likely in these different kinds of environment. human
20:12, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Being very quick off the mark, I came across on this on Random, and have to agree. It seems a little 'certain' for my tastes. Worm (t | c) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, someone (me?) did "amend" the two claims in that direction with disclaiming footnotes, at least. ħuman 20:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, someone (me?) did "amend" the two claims in that direction with disclaiming footnotes, at least. ħuman
Yesterday's woo-woo. today's respectable science?[edit]
Considering that we had no evidence for the existence of exoplanets until the 1990's, did the belief in them before that time, propagandized by science fiction and certain cults like Mormonism & Scientology, meet skeptics' criteria for woo-woo?
If so, I find that ironic, considering that 20th Century science fiction writers and science popularizers held in high regard by skeptics, for example Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke & Carl Sagan, built careers around this formerly unsubstantiated belief while criticizing other people's beliefs which lacked evidence acceptable to skeptics. Carl Sagan might as well have titled his famous essay, "The Exoplanet in My Garage."— Unsigned, by: Advancedatheist / talk / contribs
- You miss the point somewhat. Those writers built careers based upon "what might it be like if there were exoplanets" and acknowledged that their work was/is fiction. Mormons and Scientologists claim with no evidence that their stuff is fact. SF was never woo, merely speculative fiction. It's that simple, that basic. Bad Faith (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Carl Sagan didn't consider exoplanets fictional, however. Nor did Frank Drake. They advocated spending money on SETI to try to communicate with imaginary beings on then unobservable exoplanets. — Unsigned, by: by somebody / talk / contribs
- At the risk of invoking No True Scotsman, I doubt that any serious science fiction author, astronomer, or cosmologist ever believed that our solar system was the only one in the universe with planets. And someone like Sagan or Hawking would only acknowledge that they didn't have a method for detecting and observing exoplanets. I get your point: how can one speculate about something that is currently unobservable? But that's what hypotheses and theories are--testable speculations. Just because they didn't have a way to do it, didn't mean it wasn't possible. If you look at it from the other perspective: What are the odds that no other solar system in the spiral arm of our galaxy, let alone our galaxy, let alone the thousands of galaxies that have been observed, has planets? Where was the evidence in support of THAT conclusion? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If there is no evidence for something you have no reason to believe in it. If evidence is later provided then you then have every reason to believe in it. Life is like that. I fail to see a problem.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The rules of physics were the evidence in this case. --193.199.15.151 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If sufficient evidence for the planets were presented then they would be accepted. If somebody provided sufficient evidence for a dragon in a garage it too would be accepted.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speculation and assertion are two different things - and indeed we have some evidence of other planets existing by the fact that we are, of course, sitting pretty on one right now, right? I suppose it also doesn't need stating that the discovery and confimation of exoplanets, which were previously hypothetical and discussed by science fiction authors, emphatically does NOT mean that current BS from Scientology or whatever will also be vindicated eventually. But, you know, it's best to put that out there just to hit it home an extra time.
narchist 01:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am afraid that after reading some of the explanations of how these things are detected my bullshit detector is twitching. It seems that the values for whats being dtected are so small that any tiny faults would make the readings incorrect. Maybe they have that sorted out, but as one paper aid, detecting the loss of brightness caused by a planet passing in front of a star which itself is merely a tiny spec and considering all the possible dust, gas clouds etc that may affect such a reading, how reliable are they in reality. Anyone have a very reliable source ? It seems very likely that planets exist elsewhere, or even almost everywhere but is the technology up to the task of detecting them ? The artist conceptions I think are a mistake, too many people confuse them with a real photo. Hamster (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the methods work accurately enough. The dimming from the transit method is pretty reliably significant and not just due to dust clouds. There's some estimating and extrapolation required to work out their size and orbit, but generally I trust it. postate 01:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- My understanding is that current methods are reliable. Just search New Scientist for lots of valid articles.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the methods work accurately enough. The dimming from the transit method is pretty reliably significant and not just due to dust clouds. There's some estimating and extrapolation required to work out their size and orbit, but generally I trust it.
- I am afraid that after reading some of the explanations of how these things are detected my bullshit detector is twitching. It seems that the values for whats being dtected are so small that any tiny faults would make the readings incorrect. Maybe they have that sorted out, but as one paper aid, detecting the loss of brightness caused by a planet passing in front of a star which itself is merely a tiny spec and considering all the possible dust, gas clouds etc that may affect such a reading, how reliable are they in reality. Anyone have a very reliable source ? It seems very likely that planets exist elsewhere, or even almost everywhere but is the technology up to the task of detecting them ? The artist conceptions I think are a mistake, too many people confuse them with a real photo. Hamster (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speculation and assertion are two different things - and indeed we have some evidence of other planets existing by the fact that we are, of course, sitting pretty on one right now, right? I suppose it also doesn't need stating that the discovery and confimation of exoplanets, which were previously hypothetical and discussed by science fiction authors, emphatically does NOT mean that current BS from Scientology or whatever will also be vindicated eventually. But, you know, it's best to put that out there just to hit it home an extra time.
- If sufficient evidence for the planets were presented then they would be accepted. If somebody provided sufficient evidence for a dragon in a garage it too would be accepted.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The rules of physics were the evidence in this case. --193.199.15.151 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If there is no evidence for something you have no reason to believe in it. If evidence is later provided then you then have every reason to believe in it. Life is like that. I fail to see a problem.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Life and the pseudo-syllogism[edit]
The universe is very large and has 'many, many stars.'
Life has originated once on one planet orbiting 'a fairly ordinary star in an obscure part of the galaxy.'
A range of planets have been 'discovered and deduced' in a range of orbits around a wide range of stars - and in most cases these are likely to be part of larger solar systems rather than singletons.
Therefore it is logical to assume that there will be life in a number of somewheres (but not as we know it Jim - vague nod at Wikipedia's Star Trek MP-fest). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)