Having talked to an astronomer at Caltech, the methodology to detect these
planets is to exmine the minute variation in the stars rotation. The
perterbations are caused by a large object orbiting the star, since all
objects attract each other. Therefore we have no direct evidence of these
planets existing (i.e not directly observed). So there is still some
discussion about the accuracy of these reports. Given that all of these
planetary detections are based on inferences
and that they are all of non-terran planets. Who's ready to go on a one
way mission to these systems on the off chance that there are terran planets
waiting there? Phil P.
> Phillip E. Pournelle writes:
@:) Having talked to an astronomer at Caltech, the methodology @:) to detect
these planets is to exmine the minute variation in the @:) stars rotation....
Therefore we have no direct evidence of these @:) planets existing (i.e not
directly observed). So there is still @:) some discussion about the accuracy
of these reports.
In fact Scientific American's latest issue has a short sub-article
about one researcher's suggestion that the star 51 Pegasi may not in fact have
a planet orbiting it at all. Apparently the guy is taking all kinds of flak
because everybody wants a planet to be there, but no one's been able to
actually contest his evidence yet. We'll have to wait and see.
As for the floating fantom frogs, the phenomenon is apparently
well-known, though as yet unused on frogs, and the experiment with
photos is described at http://www-hfml.sci.kun.nl/hfml/levitate.html.
(did somebody post this already? I'm trying to combine all my spam into one
message at least). I understand from the furious and pointless argument on
sci.space that diamagnetic repulsion is the weakest kind of magnetic
interaction, after paramagnetic repulsion and ferromagnetic repulsion. Which
means, alas, that if you want to build a frog railgun, you'd be better off
stuffing your frogs with buckshot before firing them.
On the other hand, it might be interesting to fire a devestating
hail of rail-shell at your opponent, followed by a much slower moving
cloud of frogs. The implication of biblical righteousness this would afford
your side might well break the spirits of the enemy.
In message <199704251927.PAA28403@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> Joachim Heck
> - SunSoft writes:
> On the other hand, it might be interesting to fire a devestating
"Cry Havoc, and let slip the frogs of war."
> Having talked to an astronomer at Caltech, the methodology to
The
> perterbations are caused by a large object orbiting the star, since all
If you want actual photographs of said planets you're going to be waiting
around for a while. Unless it's huge, a planet is too small and too faint to
be optically picked up and resolved. Even the vaunted Hubble, as dim as it can
peer, has a difficult time with even faint companions around other
stars (you'll note I did not use the word 'planet' ;-). For those
web-capable
readers among us I would point you to:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/95/48.html
and
http://scivax.stsci.edu/~kochte/low-mass.html
(shameless plug for my page ;-)
Now just because a proposed planet cannot be directly observed doesn't mean it
isn't there. Doesn't mean that what is being seen isn't a planet. By analogy
look at black holes. We have never once looked *directly* at a black hole.
With the Hubble or anything else. Nor will we. But we know they are there. We
can see their influence on their environment. We know they're there (unless
someone can come up with another explanation as to the effects we're seeing),
even though we haven't directly observed one.
All this extra-solar planets/companions stuff starts to beg the question
of what do you call a planet, and what do you call a [brown] dwarf star. One
man's super-Jupiter is another man's brown dwarf companion. While I may
not necessarily believe all the discovered planets are really planets, I do
believe that most are probably some sort of companion (eg, brown dwarf
companion).
> Given that all of these planetary detections are based on
Oh, hell, if it'll get me off this rock, I'll go! (do I get to take one of
my Mass 1 A-batteries along? ;-)
Mk
> At 22:42 25/04/97 GMT, Dave Brewer wrote:
SDL