7 NEW EARTHS--NOT!
Recently, "scientists" announced they have discovered seven planets around TRAPPIST-1, a red dwarf star about 40 light years away from our system. As the usual propaganda to ensure continual funding, it works. As science, it stinks.
In the AP report, and repeated on my local news, it was said, "Planets cast shadows on their star as they pass in front of it; that's how the scientists spotted them." That statement is garbage on its face. For a planet to throw a shadow on a star, a brighter star would have to be very close to that system to produce that shadow.
Truth: planets are found when the planet moves between the star and our observing telescope. The luminosity, that is the amount of light coming from the star, is diminished by an amount equal to the size of the planet. By monitoring the star over a long period, and logging the change in luminosity, it can be determined how many planets of what size are orbiting the star and the length of their "year". In the case of TRAPPIST-1, they have found 7 planets of near-Earth size that orbit in lengths of 2.5 hours to 20 days.
The "scientists" report that 3 are in the "Goldilocks Zone", where life as we know it might exist.
Truth: speculation. The distance of a planet's orbit depends on its mass and speed. The greater the mass, the closer to the star the orbit must be at any given speed to be stable. We know only the planets' speeds (their "year" or time to make one complete orbit). The speed is easily determined by the decrease and increase in luminosity which corresponds to its transit across the face of the star and the time that transit takes. But we have no way to determine the mass of the planet.
Since mass is not necessarily analogous to size, knowing the speed tells little. The planet that orbits in 2.5 hours could have less mass than the one that orbits in 20 days and be farther from the star. The position of the planets and their orbits are simply a guess.
So these planets might all be inside the "Goldilocks Zone" if relatively massive, or all outside it if not, or some in and some out depending on their individual, and unknowable, mass. The "scientists" assign them masses that fit their preconceptions.
All 7 appear to be solid with atmospheres they can study, it is reported.
Truth: solidity is not knowable. We cannot even see a black dot on the star's face, much less determine "solidity". A Jupiter-like gas giant is only seen as a planet of a certain size, not of any particular solidity.
As for judging atmospheres, in the past "scientists" have "found" water on these Earth-like planets. But atmospheric study is based on spectroscopic data. We get a spectroscopic signature of the star. If a planet with an atmosphere passes between our telescope and the star, the spectroscopic signature may vary as the light passes through that atmosphere. But spectroscopic information gives you elements, not compounds. You may have H and O and S, but not in what form. Is it H2O (water) and S (sulphur) or H (hydrogen) and SO (sulphur oxide)? We can't say. Speculation is not science.
The report also said that all 7 planets "appear to be tidally locked", keeping the same face toward the star as does our Moon to Earth.
Truth: again, there is no way to know. Planets are dark bodies that are too small to even see, found only by the luminosity drop. Even if we could see them as black dots, we couldn't judge rotation. Guesswork again.
Think logically. We can't say if there is water on Mars, but we can about a planet 40 light years away? We don't know what makes up the soil of Mars, but we can declare a planet orbiting a red dwarf Earth-like and life-giving based on luminosity changes?
One would think the truth about our discoveries would be enough. Is it not fantastic that we can even find orbiting bodies at such distances? There should be no need to exaggerate. But science is at a low point today, relying on excessive hype and artists' drawings to generate "news" and funding for astronomical projects.
Recently, "scientists" announced they have discovered seven planets around TRAPPIST-1, a red dwarf star about 40 light years away from our system. As the usual propaganda to ensure continual funding, it works. As science, it stinks.
In the AP report, and repeated on my local news, it was said, "Planets cast shadows on their star as they pass in front of it; that's how the scientists spotted them." That statement is garbage on its face. For a planet to throw a shadow on a star, a brighter star would have to be very close to that system to produce that shadow.
Truth: planets are found when the planet moves between the star and our observing telescope. The luminosity, that is the amount of light coming from the star, is diminished by an amount equal to the size of the planet. By monitoring the star over a long period, and logging the change in luminosity, it can be determined how many planets of what size are orbiting the star and the length of their "year". In the case of TRAPPIST-1, they have found 7 planets of near-Earth size that orbit in lengths of 2.5 hours to 20 days.
The "scientists" report that 3 are in the "Goldilocks Zone", where life as we know it might exist.
Truth: speculation. The distance of a planet's orbit depends on its mass and speed. The greater the mass, the closer to the star the orbit must be at any given speed to be stable. We know only the planets' speeds (their "year" or time to make one complete orbit). The speed is easily determined by the decrease and increase in luminosity which corresponds to its transit across the face of the star and the time that transit takes. But we have no way to determine the mass of the planet.
Since mass is not necessarily analogous to size, knowing the speed tells little. The planet that orbits in 2.5 hours could have less mass than the one that orbits in 20 days and be farther from the star. The position of the planets and their orbits are simply a guess.
So these planets might all be inside the "Goldilocks Zone" if relatively massive, or all outside it if not, or some in and some out depending on their individual, and unknowable, mass. The "scientists" assign them masses that fit their preconceptions.
All 7 appear to be solid with atmospheres they can study, it is reported.
Truth: solidity is not knowable. We cannot even see a black dot on the star's face, much less determine "solidity". A Jupiter-like gas giant is only seen as a planet of a certain size, not of any particular solidity.
As for judging atmospheres, in the past "scientists" have "found" water on these Earth-like planets. But atmospheric study is based on spectroscopic data. We get a spectroscopic signature of the star. If a planet with an atmosphere passes between our telescope and the star, the spectroscopic signature may vary as the light passes through that atmosphere. But spectroscopic information gives you elements, not compounds. You may have H and O and S, but not in what form. Is it H2O (water) and S (sulphur) or H (hydrogen) and SO (sulphur oxide)? We can't say. Speculation is not science.
The report also said that all 7 planets "appear to be tidally locked", keeping the same face toward the star as does our Moon to Earth.
Truth: again, there is no way to know. Planets are dark bodies that are too small to even see, found only by the luminosity drop. Even if we could see them as black dots, we couldn't judge rotation. Guesswork again.
Think logically. We can't say if there is water on Mars, but we can about a planet 40 light years away? We don't know what makes up the soil of Mars, but we can declare a planet orbiting a red dwarf Earth-like and life-giving based on luminosity changes?
One would think the truth about our discoveries would be enough. Is it not fantastic that we can even find orbiting bodies at such distances? There should be no need to exaggerate. But science is at a low point today, relying on excessive hype and artists' drawings to generate "news" and funding for astronomical projects.