Author Topic: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet  (Read 492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« on: December 05, 2011, 01:03:58 PM »
Dubbed Kepler-22b, it is the first planet to be confirmed as residing in the Goldilocks zone (although there are other candidate planets also awaiting confirmation).  It's also fairly close to the size of the Earth, relatively speaking.  (A scale image is provided.)

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepscicon-briefing.html

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2011, 01:50:51 PM »
Get the missionaries ready. ;)
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2011, 02:34:05 PM »
Get the missionaries ready. ;)

Venus and Mars are also in the Goldilocks zone.

Maybe we should send the missionaries there to toughen then up first? Then thru a process of evolution we get the right sort for a 600 light year journey :D

God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2011, 03:04:24 PM »
With a gravity that is 2.4 x earth's gravity it would be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms would evolve....
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2011, 03:16:16 PM »
With a gravity that is 2.4 x earth's gravity it would be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms would evolve....

True, but on the other hand, we also don't know what the planet's gravity is yet.  The planet's radius is 2.4 times that of Earth's, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about how strong its gravitational field is.  That depends not only on the size of the planet, but also its composition.  Titan, for example, is significantly larger than the planet Mercury, but its gravitational field is only slightly greater than Mercury's because Mercury is denser.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2011, 03:22:20 PM »
^^^^^^^^^

Yep. I was assuming a similar composition to earth...
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2011, 04:57:17 PM »
With a gravity that is 2.4 x earth's gravity it would be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms would evolve....
If gravity was the only difference between this planet and earth the lifeforms would be a bit smaller and slower than the average on Earth.
I suspect the mutation rate for their DNA would not be affected by gravity and would be be similar to that on Earth.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5375
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2011, 06:35:33 PM »
catch 22b

To two two B or not to two two B: that is the quest....
Whether 'tis nobler in the mimed to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms (.22bee bee) against a sea of tribbles...



The question really should be whether or not the space out there deserves this irrational monkey plague?

The Invasion of the Earthlings!!!      a documentary

....of course the geocentric religions will evolve to fill the niche    .........pesky little critters.


nice link Piano
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:37:25 PM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2011, 06:46:39 PM »
I suspect the mutation rate for their DNA would not be affected by gravity and would be be similar to that on Earth.

This assumes many things, such as the life-forms using DNA as their genetic material, what enzymatic systems they use to correct mutations, the amount of radiation on the planet, reproduction rates, etc.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12017
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2011, 11:33:41 AM »
With a gravity that is 2.4 x earth's gravity it would be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms would evolve....

if the density (composition) is the same, the gravity would be about 80 times greater.   The reason is gravity is calculated based on the square of the diameter and the mass is based on the cube of it (assuming the same density).  so, if a planet is x times larger in diameter, that makes the gravity x^5 times greater.  The math:

g=Gmr2

if earth's gravity is:

ge= Gmere2

and the new planet's gravity is:

gp= Gmprp2

and rp=2.4re
then...
gp= Gmp(2.48 * re)2
or
gp= 5.76 * Gmpre2

for mass...
Volume of new planet = 4/3 pi (2.4 * re)3
Vp = 13.82 * Ve
if the density is equal then the relationship between the mass of planets is direct:
mp= 13.82 * me

So,
gp= 5.76 * G(13.82 * me)re2
gp= 79.63* Gmere2

gp= 79.63 * ge

So, if you weigh 200 lbs on earth, on kepler - 22b you would weigh almost 16,000 lb.  That is 8 tons. Not very hospitable to human life.

I imagine if life evolved on this planet, it would be extremely small and live suspended in liquids.  Flight would be improbable as would any kind of land based organism that had a musculo-skeletal system.  Only oozing things - slimes, mildews, maybe lichens - would be able to function on land.


Something like this:





« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 02:59:04 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2011, 11:53:14 AM »
I suspect the mutation rate for their DNA would not be affected by gravity and would be be similar to that on Earth.

This assumes many things, such as the life-forms using DNA as their genetic material, what enzymatic systems they use to correct mutations, the amount of radiation on the planet, reproduction rates, etc.

Heck that even assumes a true atmosphere.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2011, 12:35:18 PM »
With a gravity that is 2.4 x earth's gravity it would be interesting to see what kind of lifeforms would evolve....

if the density (composition) is the same, the gravity would be about 80 times greater.   The reason is gravity is calculated based on the square of the diameter and the mass is based on the cube of it (assuming the same density).  so, if a planet is x times larger in diameter, that makes the gravity x^5 times greater.  The math:

g=Gmr2


I Thought the formula for the force of gravity on Earth was

F=Gm/r2

where m is the mass of the Earth.

This is because the force reduces the further you get away from the centre of the earth.

If a planet has a S times bigger radius than Earth the volume of the new planet is S3 times bigger than Earth  the surface is also S times further from the centre of gravity.

If M is the mass of the new planet which had the same density as Earth then

M = S3m

and F= GS3m/S2r2

The expression S3 / S2 can be reduced just S

so F =GSm/r2        where r is the radius of the Earth.

i.e just S times stronger force of gravity at the surface of the planet.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 12:43:10 PM by relativetruth »
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Poseidon

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
  • Darwins +24/-0
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2011, 12:49:00 PM »
Math and physics guys and girls are cool!

Offline Poseidon

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
  • Darwins +24/-0
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2011, 12:54:06 PM »
And the apparent attraction of objects obey the inverse square rule.  Sometimes incorrectly referred to as Coulombs law. 

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • Darwins +54/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2011, 01:54:23 PM »
Screwtape, is that a low-cut spacesuit I see in that picture. (Facepalm)

As soon as she's out of that suit, I'm gonna get me some 8 ton lovin'.  ;-)
Denis Loubet

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2011, 02:26:25 PM »
<snip>
Here's an informative look at it, and this little graphic helps too :)



Edit - removed the "glow" feature from "Here's" - it was disturbing the link apparently...

« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 03:19:49 PM by Tykster »
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2011, 02:48:09 PM »
this is a bit of an aside but I have a question about all of these planets that have been found.  A lot of them supposedly have crazy short orbits of their suns at tiny distances and the planets are quite large.  Has anyone seen anything about how these planets could withstand such forces?  I've not had any luck in finding much on this and my curiosity was jogged by a crazily spinning star: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-vlt-fastest-rotating-star.html 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12017
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2011, 02:59:29 PM »
I Thought the formula for the force of gravity on Earth was

F=Gm/r2

You are right.  oh my goodness, I screwed that up. Thanks for the correction.

I miscopied the formula and didn't think about what it meant

ed - fixed quotes
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 04:06:48 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kepler Discovers First "Goldilocks" Planet
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2011, 03:17:29 PM »
I Thought the formula for the force of gravity on Earth was

F=Gm/r2

You are right.  oh my goodness, I screwed that up. Thanks for the correction.

I miscopied the formula and didn't think about what it meant

Well, at least you got the picture right... ;)
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.