First habitable Earth like planet outside Solar System discovered

Zeenews.com ^ | April 24, 2007

[NCC-1701]

Hey, let's get a lot of FReepers and establish ownership rights. I'll drive this:

[rbosque]

We can send the libs there to start fresh!

Good luck to them.

[doug from upland]

Just think how much Rosie would weigh?

[MeanWestTexan]

Especially at the relativistic speeds necessary to get there!

[I see my hands]

"the red dwarf star would hang in the sky at a size 20 times larger than our moon"

It would be like having an apartment across from a Kenny Rogers Roasters restaurant.

[NRA2BFree]

Hey, let's get a lot of FReepers and establish ownership rights. I'll drive this:

WoW! I like your idea and I like your 'ride.'.........

I'll volunteer to be the camp cook/Sheriff.......

If it moves, I can shoot it. If I shoot it, I can cook it. LOL!

[I Drive Too Fast]

ping

[3niner]

I don't think that's quite right. Your equation supposes that the mass is all at a singular point and that you are suspended/supported on a massless sphere 1.5 earth radii away. To figure it out precisely, you may need to include rotation speed as well (depending upon whether it is fast enough to be significant).

Actually, spunkets' formula is completely correct. It doesn't matter whether the planet has a 10 mile radius or a radius of 1.5 Earths (roughly 6,000 miles), if you are at a distance of 1.5 Earths from the center of mass, the gravitational pull is the same. As spunkets pointed out, the inverse square law applies.

It also doesn't matter that all planets are denser toward the center, than near the surface. Gravitational anomalies (masses at the same depth with different densities) have a slight effect, but they would not be noticable to you.

Rotation would also be insignificant, unless the planet has a very fast rotational velocity. On the Earth's Equator, you are travelling around the Earth at about 1,000 miles per hour, but you can stand at the Equator, or at one of the Poles, and not notice the difference in weight (you are slightly heavier at the Poles).

This is simple Newtonian Statics and Dynamics, which is normally covered in the first quarter of college physics. Those who take physics in high school are likely to learn this before they get to college.

[xjcsa]

I hope it’s water, because I’d weigh 300 pounds on that planet...........

You only weigh 60 pounds?

[The_Reader_David]

That’s okay, the colony ship will have a eugenics program to select for skeletal and muscle strength, and will gradually increase its axial rotation to raise the simulated gravity during the trip, which should take about 6400 years travelling 600 mi/sec (approx. escape velocity for the solar system).

(Kind of shows how irrelevant this ‘news’ is when you think about it.)

[ryan125]

Because the planet is bigger than Earth you are farther away than the center then on earth. So, someone who weighs 60 pounds on earth would actually weigh around 108 pounds on the other planet.

[lepton]

You’re right about the angular momentum. THe planet’s round though. So I’d expect the order of magnitude for that kind of a correction to be smaller by less than 2. Earth’s is ~0.3% at the equator.

I know that earth's effect is pretty small. As I recall though, there's a tendency for large-mass solid objects (especially close in ones) to spin like the Dickens at some stage in their development until they transfer their momentum and become tidally locked, which is part of what has happened to the earth because of the moon. I only mentioned it because in certain conditions it might be sufficient to nudge the figures a bit. OTOH, if this thing is close enough in to have a 13 day "year", on an object as long-lived as a red dwarf, it's probably tidal-locked or nearly so.

[Red Badger]

No, I weigh 190 approx. But since that planet is 1.5 times as big as earth, I’d weigh 1.5 times as much.......

[KevinDavis]

It is a matter of time that we find a true Earth like planet..

[newguy357]

if it's got liquid water it's got life.

That's quite a statement, given that we have exactly one data point.

[pax_et_bonum]

Cool!

Thanks for the ping!

[Centurion2000]

That's quite a statement, given that we have exactly one data point.

Hey if these scientists can engage in wild speculation ... why not me?

You're correct though. Of course we haven't checked Europa or any of the ice moons with probable liquid oceans.

[GodfearingTexan]

for the fy 09 budget Bush oughta offer free rides for liberals to this new planet. it would be worth the cost.

[Calvin Locke]

FWIW, Shostack is supposed to be on Coast during the first hour, talking about the new discovery.

Also see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html

[Windcatcher]

Quadruple NASA’S budget and direct it to develop propulsive technology...with the side effect that the money can’t go to national healthcare. That would make the Dems go absolutely ape.