This is a direct copy of a SciPop or news article preserved here because things on the internet have a bad habit of disappearing when you try to find them again. Full credit is given to the original authors and the source.
Researchers at ETH Zurich have demonstrated in the lab how well a mineral common at the boundary between the Earth’s core and mantle conducts heat. This leads them to suspect that the Earth’s heat may dissipate sooner than previously thought.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(2 Timothy 3:7) KJV
We’re making the claim that stars aren’t distant suns and galaxies. That’s Galileo’s bluff. The stars are fragments, and swirls of fragments, of reflective rock in the Kuiper and asteroid belts.
Bowen’s Reaction Series and Stratification of the Firmament
I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.
(Isaiah 50:3) KJV
The core accretion model (Hypothesis 1) may be expanded to include the formation of a second series of strata which became the firmament, a sphere of rigid crystal on the edge of space.
“The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond it is engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars,
(Jeremiah 17:1) NKJV
There are times when reporting on new scientific observations gets ahead of the peer review propaganda machine and the truth gets reported, almost by accident.
This is a direct copy of a SciPop or news article preserved here because things on the internet have a bad habit of disappearing when you try to find them again. Full credit is given to the original authors and the source.
When choosing a Valentine’s Day gift for a wife or girlfriend, you can’t go wrong with diamonds. If you really want to impress your favorite lady this Valentine’s Day, get her the galaxy’s largest diamond. But you’d better carry a deep wallet, because this 10 billion trillion trillion carat monster has a cost that’s literally astronomical!
Finding exoplanets starts with choosing to believe that they exist. Inductive reasoning, where you use your premise to supply evidence for your conclusion, does the rest.
A handful of ingenious methods have been used to detect the planets too far away for us to see.
A generation ago, the idea of a planet orbiting a distant star was still in the realm of science fiction. But since the discovery of the first exoplanet in 1988, we’ve found hundreds of them, with the discoveries coming at a faster rate over time.
But the vast majority of all these distant planets have one thing in common—with a few exceptions, they’re too far away for us to see, even with our most powerful telescopes. If that’s the case, how do astronomers know they’re there?
Over the past few decades, researchers have developed a variety of techniques to spot the many planets outside our solar system, often used in combination to confirm the initial discovery and learn more about the planet’s characteristics. Here’s an explanation of the main methods used so far.
Transit
Imagine looking at a small planet orbiting a star far, far away. Occasionally, the planet might pass in between you and its star, briefly blocking some of the starlight. If this dimming happened with enough frequency, you might be able to infer the presence of the planet, even if you can’t see it.
This, is essence, is the transit method of
detecting exoplanets, responsible for the majority of our exoplanet
discoveries so far. Of course, for distant stars, there’s no way the
naked human eye would be able to reliably detect a dimming in the amount
of light we see, so scientists rely on telescopes (notably, the Kepler
space telescope) and other instruments to collect and analyze this data.
Thus, for an astronomer, “seeing” a distant exoplanet via the transit method generally ends up looking something like this:
The amount of light from a distant star, graphed, dips as a planet transits in between it and us. (Image via Wikimedia Commons/Сам посчитал)
In some cases, the amount of dimming caused by the planet passing in between its star and us can also tell astronomers a rough estimate of the planet’s size. If we know the size of a star and the planet’s distance from it (the latter determined by another detection method, radial velocity, lower down on this list), and we observe that the planet blocks a certain percentage of the star’s light, we can calculate the planet’s radius based solely on these values.
There are, however, disadvantages to the
transit method. A planet has to be lined up correctly to pass in between
us and its star, and the farther out it orbits, the lower the chance of
this alignment. Calculations indicate that for an Earth-sized planet
oribiting its star at the same distance we orbit ours (about 93 million
miles), there’s just a 0.47 percent chance that it’d be aligned properly to cause any dimming.
The method can also lead to a high number of false positives—episodes of dimming that we identify as transiting planets but are ultimately caused by something else entirely. One study found that as much as 35 percent of the large, closely orbiting planets identified in Kepler data could in fact be nonexistent, and the dimming attributed to dust or other substances situated between us and the star. In most cases, astronomers attempt to confirm planets found via this method with other methods on this list.
Orbital Brightness
In some cases, a planet orbiting its star
causes the amount of light reaching Earth to rise, rather than dip.
Generally, these are cases in which the planet orbits very closely in,
so that it’s heated to the degree that it emits detectable amounts of
thermal radiation.
Although we’re not able to distinguish this radiation from that of the star itself, a planet that’s orbiting in the right alignment will be exposed to us in a regular sequence of stages (similar to the phases of the moon), so regular, periodic rises in the amount of light that space telescopes receive from these stars can be used to infer the presence of a planet.
Similar to the transit method, it’s easier
to detect large planets orbiting close to their stars with this
technique. Although only a handful of planets have been discovered using
solely this method so far, it may end up being the most productive
method long-term, because it doesn’t require an exoplanet to pass
directly in between us and the star for us to detect it, opening up a
much wider range of possible discoveries.
Radial Velocity
In elementary school, we’re taught that a solar system is a stationary star surrounded by slowly orbiting planets, asteroids and other debris. The truth, though, is slightly more complicated: Due to the gravitational pull of the planets, the star wobbles away from the system’s center of gravity ever so slightly as well:
The phenomenon goes something like this: a
large planet, if it has enough mass, might be able to pull the star
toward it, causing the star to move from being the exact center of the
far-away solar system. So periodic, predictable yet still minute shifts
in the star’s position can be used to infer the presence of a large
planet near that star.
Astronomers have taken advantage of this phenomenon to detect hundreds of exoplanets. Until recently, when it was surpassed by transit, this method (called radial velocity) was responsible for the majority of exoplanets discovered.
It might seem difficult to measure slight
movements in stars hundreds of light years away, but it turns out that
astronomers can detect when a star accelerates towards (or away from)
Earth at velocities as low as one meter per second because of the Doppler effect.
The effect is the phenomenon of waves (whether sound, visible light
or other forms of electromagnetic energy) appearing to be slightly
higher in frequency when the object emitting them is moving towards an
observer, and slightly lower when it’s moving away. You’ve experienced
firsthand if you’ve ever heard the high whine of an
approaching ambulance’s siren replaced with a slightly lower tone as it
drives away.
Replace the ambulance with a distant star and the sound of a siren
with the light it emits, and you’ve pretty much got the idea. Using spectrometers,
which measure the particular frequencies of light emitted by a star,
astronomers can search for apparent shifts, indicating that the star is
moving slightly closer to us or drifting slightly away.
The degree of movement can even reflect the mass of the planet.
When combined with the planet’s radius (calculated via the transit
method), this can allow scientists to determine the planet’s density,
and thus its composition (if it’s a gas giant or a rocky planet, for
instance).
This method is also subject to limitations: it’s much easier to find a bigger planet orbiting a smaller star, because such a planet has a higher impact on the star’s movement. Relatively small, Earth-sized planets would likely be hard to detect, especially at far distances.
Direct Imaging
In a few rare cases, astronomers have been able to find exoplanets in the simplest way possible: by seeing them.
Three massive planets—likely larger than Jupiter—were directly imaged orbiting the star HR8799 in 2010. (The star itself is blocked with a coronagraph. (Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech/Palomar Observatory)
These cases are so rare
for a few reasons. To be able to distinguish a planet from its star, it
needs to be relatively far away from it (it’s easy to imagine that
Mercury, for instance, would be indistinguishable from the Sun from far
away). But if a planet is too far from its star, it won’t reflect enough
of the star’s light to be visible at all.
Exoplanets that can most reliably be seen by telescopes are large
(like Jupiter) and very hot, so that they give off their own infrared
radiation, which can be detected by telescopes and used to distinguish
them from their stars. Planets that orbit brown dwarfs
(objects that aren’t technically classified as stars, because they’re
not hot or massive enough to generate fusion reactions, and thus give
off little light) can also be detected more easily.
Direct imaging has also been used to detect a few particularly massive rogue planets—those that float freely through space, instead of orbiting a star.
Gravitational lensing
All the previous methods on this list make some sense to a non-scientist at some intuitive level. Gravitational lensing, used to discover a handful of exoplanets, requires some more abstract thought.
Imagine one star very far away, and another star about half way between it and Earth. In rare moments, the two stars might nearly line up, almostoverlapping one another in the night sky. When this happens, the force of the closer star’s gravity acts like a lens, magnifying the incoming light from the distant star as it passes near it to reach us.
A simulation of gravitational lensing, showing the light coming from a distant galaxy briefly being magnified by a black hole in the middle ground. (Image via Urbane Legend)
If a star that has a planet in near orbit serves as the gravitational lens, that planet’s gravitational field can add a slight but detectable contribution to the magnification event. Thus, in some rare cases, astronomers have been able to infer the presence of distant planets by the way that they magnify the light of even more distant stars.
A graph of exoplanet discoveries by year, with detection method represented by color. Green = transit, blue = radial velocity, red = direct imaging, orange = gravitational lensing. (Image via Wikimedia Commons/Aldaron)
The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
(Proverbs 3:19) KJV
The worldwide network of telescopes used by mainstream science (SciPop) to image M87* have constructed a picture of a piece of Obsidian glass approximately 11 feet wide at a distance of 17,364 light years.