Spitzer Sees Light From Faraway Worlds
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 14:20 CST
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has captured for the first time enough light from planets outside our solar system, known as exoplanets, to identify signatures of molecules in their atmospheres. The landmark achievement is a significant step toward being able to detect possible life on rocky exoplanets and comes years before astronomers had anticipated.
"This is an amazing surprise," said Spitzer project scientist Dr. Michael Werner of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "We had no idea when we designed Spitzer that it would make such a dramatic step in characterizing exoplanets."
Spitzer, a space-based infrared telescope, obtained the detailed data, called spectra, for two different gas exoplanets. Called HD 209458b and HD 189733b, these so-called "hot Jupiters" are, like Jupiter, made of gas, but orbit much closer to their suns.
The data indicate the two planets are drier and cloudier than predicted. Theorists thought hot Jupiters would have lots of water in their atmospheres, but surprisingly none was found around HD 209458b and HD 189733b. According to astronomers, the water might be present but buried under a thick blanket of high, waterless clouds.
Those clouds might be filled with dust. One of the planets, HD 209458b, showed hints of tiny sand grains, called silicates, in its atmosphere. This could mean the planet's skies are filled with high, dusty clouds unlike anything seen around planets in our own solar system.
"The theorists' heads were spinning when they saw the data," said Dr. Jeremy Richardson of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
"It is virtually impossible for water, in the form of vapor, to be absent from the planet, so it must be hidden, probably by the dusty cloud layer we detected in our spectrum," he said. Richardson is lead author of a Nature paper appearing Feb. 22 that describes a spectrum for HD 209458b.
In addition to Richardson's team, two other groups of astronomers used Spitzer to capture spectra of exoplanets. A team led by Dr. Carl Grillmair of NASA's Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., observed HD 189733b, while a team led by Dr. Mark R. Swain of JPL focused on the same planet in the Richardson study, and came up with similar results. Grillmair's results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. Swain's findings have been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
A spectrum is created when an instrument called a spectrograph splits light from an object into its different wavelengths, just as a prism turns sunlight into a rainbow. The resulting pattern of light, the spectrum, reveals "fingerprints" of chemicals making up the object.
Until now, the only planets for which spectra were available belonged in our own solar system. The planets in the Spitzer studies orbit stars that are so far away, they are too faint to be seen with the naked eye. HD 189733b is 370 trillion miles away in the constellation Vulpecula, and HD 209458b is 904 trillion miles away in the constellation Pegasus. That means both planets are at least about a million times farther away from us than Jupiter. In the future, astronomers hope to have spectra for smaller, rocky planets beyond our solar system. This would allow them to look for the footprints of life -- molecules key to the existence of life, such as oxygen and possibly even chlorophyll.
"With these new observations, we are refining the tools that we will one day need to find life elsewhere if it exists," said Swain. "It's sort of like a dress rehearsal."
Spitzer was able to tease out spectra from the feeble light of the two planets through what is known as the "secondary eclipse" technique. In this method -- first used by Spitzer in 2005 to directly detect the light from an exoplanet for the first time ( http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2005-09/index.shtml ) -- a so-called transiting planet is monitored as it circles behind its star, temporarily disappearing from our Earthly point of view. By measuring the dip in infrared light that occurs when the planet disappears, Spitzer can learn how much light is coming solely from the planet. The technique will work only in infrared wavelengths, where the planet is brighter than in visible wavelengths and stands out better next to the overwhelming glare of its star.
In the new studies, Spitzer's spectrograph, which measures infrared light at a range of wavelengths, stared at the two transiting planets as they orbited their stars. This allowed the astronomers to subtract the spectra of the stars from the spectra of the planets plus their stars to obtain spectra of the planets alone.
"When we first set out to make these observations, they were considered high risk because not many people thought they would work," said Grillmair. "But Spitzer has turned out to be superbly designed and more than up to the task."
Previous observations of HD 209458b by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope revealed individual elements, such as sodium, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, that bounce around the very top of the planet, a region higher up than that probed in the Spitzer studies and a region where molecules like water would break apart. To do this, Hubble measured changes in the light from the star, not the planet, as the planet passed in front. The observations indicated less sodium than predicted, which again supports the idea that the planet is socked in with high clouds.
Astronomers hope to use Spitzer for additional studies of transiting exoplanets, which are those that cross in front of their stars from our point view. Of the approximately 200 known exoplanets, 14 are transiting. At least three of these in addition to HD 209458b and HD 189733b are candidates for obtaining spectra. Further spectral studies of HD 209458b and HD 189733b will also yield more information about the planets' atmospheres.
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology, also in Pasadena. Caltech manages JPL for NASA. Spitzer's infrared spectrograph was built by Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Its development was led by Dr. Jim Houck of Cornell.
---
On the Net:
For artist's concepts and more information, visit http://www.nasa.gov/spitzer and www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media .
Related Articles
- Spitzer Warming Up To New Career
- World Book Takes Students Out of This World With Special Feature on Mars: Exploring the Red Planet; Feature Taps NASA, Leading Experts in Space Exploration
- Spitzer Captures Cosmic Mountains of Creation
- Field Guide Created for Confirming New Earth-like Planets
- Red Planet Reconnaissance
- NASA: Mars' Surface Had Pool of Water
- NASA Mars rocks formed at shore of long-gone body of saltwater
- OUR OPINION Keep eye on Red Planet news Two NASA rovers will hunt for signs of life on Mars and provide stunning images along the way.
- Frozen Light: Cool NASA Research Holds Promise
- NASA Hopes to Capture Cosmic Nursery
Rating: 4.6 / 5 (83 votes)
 |
 |
Rate this article:
User Comments (159)
| 159. |
Posted by Corbin Rathbone on 10/10/2007, 07:16 Blah blah christians blah blah muslims blah blah mormons blah blah jews blah blah atheists - What a load of rubbish - Get a muslim and a christian and an atheist together and strip 'em naked - what do you have? Three naked humans who, for all intents and purposes exist as basic variants of the human form. They all have two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc... and all three are esentially brothers or sisters on this planet we call home. The texts by which they espouse their respective beliefs were written by men. Men who wanted to control the masses. Plain and simple. Accepting this and moving beyond it will free the human race to evolve together in peaceful coexistence. |
| 158. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/26/2007, 11:20 I’m not sure if the board is locked, so this is a re-post. My tortoise shell argument wasn't given to prove or disprove a creator. You weren't paying attention closely enough. I posited it to illustrate how your original argument- that one must acknowledge the existence of a creator deity in order to validate the prime mover argument- is comically flawed. Good dodge, though! "I logically explained why a created object like a tortoise shell or a unicorn can't be the Creator." Well, using the same powers used by man to ascribe creation powers to deities, let's say I ascribe my invisible unicorn (and let's not get “tripped up” on whether it's a unicorn, or a tortoise, or if it's invisible, or purple- in this case, the unicorn is an intentionally ethereal avatar whose intrinsic values, other than its creator properties we just ascribed, aren't meaningful). Now, and WITHOUT telling me that I need to buy into spirituality to understand your argument, tell me how my unicorn (which is non-created, by the way, so it’s a go for being a creator) can’t be a creator. CONT'D |
| 157. |
Posted by John on 02/26/2007, 01:57 Nothing comes of nothing, we can all agree on that. It's impossible, mathematically and logically. But the singularity is as far back as we can go. You can't just skip the question of how it got there by jumping on the Big Bang the next nanosecond and waving bye-bye, see ya again in billions and billions of years. Where did the singularity come from? Our understanding--perhaps even our imagination--and the laws of physics--everything-- stops there. But SOMETHING--beyond our understanding, and outside the laws of physics, since they don't exist yet--MUST be there. |
| 156. |
Posted by John on 02/26/2007, 01:46 A nanosecond before the Big Bang (assuming that theory is fact) you have the singularity, a black hole of sorts which contained all the material of the universe today. You can accuse a theist of circular reasoning all you want, but when acquiescing to a singularity--in the middle of a sea of absolutely NOTHING-- that explodes, expands, contracts, implodes, and then explodes again *ad infinitum,* so are you, while avoiding the extremely confounding problem of WHERE DID THE BLASTED SINGULARITY COME FROM? cont. |
| 155. |
Posted by John on 02/26/2007, 01:35 Not so fast, Mad. That was in the context of a unicorn being part of creation (the creative imagination of humans, at that), and the impossibility of it being, by definition, the prime moving Creator. You said: "Anyone can make a claim of anything exist anywhere in the universe, and it's not the responsibility of everyone else to prove them wrong. it is the person who makes the claim, to put forth evidence of the existence of such a claim." I didn't make the claim that God existed. I was responding to the claim that he didn't. The burden of of proof, then, in this case, is on the denier, since, likewise, "Anyone can also make a claim of anything NOT existing anywhere in the universe, and it's not the responsibility of everyone else to prove them wrong, it is the person who makes the claim, to put forth evidence of the non-existence of such a claim." I logically explained why a created object like a tortoise shell or a unicorn can't be the Creator. Now tell me--logically-- why the Creator can't be the Creator, either. Good Luck. |
| 154. |
Posted by Mad Scientist on 02/25/2007, 20:47 wow.....i like this line you used: 'Could a unicorn create itself? Impossible. To create itself it would already have to be created, and so nullifying creation.'---exactly!!!! now replace unicorn with any other fantasy image...like god. I believe the point was. one MUST prove something exist, the burden is not on trying to disprove something exist. Anyone can make a claim of anything exist anywhere in the universe, and it's not the responsibility of everyone else to prove them wrong. it is the person who makes the claim, to put forth evidence of the existence of such a claim. |
| 153. |
Posted by John on 02/25/2007, 02:53 P.S. Pardon. You said INVISIBLE unicorn, which makes a difference as it cannot be materially perceived in Time & Space. Nevertheless, being a brute, it still falls far short of being able to being equated with a Self-Aware Creator of phenomenon--real or imagined-- that includes a unicorn--visible or invisible-- itself. Could a unicorn create itself? Impossible. To create itself it would already have to be created, and so nullifying creation. |
| 152. |
Posted by John on 02/25/2007, 02:39 Cont. So to equate the spiritual, Self-Aware Deity Who's behind the creation of the material universe to a created, material, and dumb tortise shell just strikes me as an incongruous analogy. |
| 151. |
Posted by John on 02/25/2007, 02:06 cont. ...they have more in common with us--as material creations--than they do with a spiritual Creator. I\'ll let Locke have the last word on uniicorns: They are merely formed in the mind by the combining of two separate material--and organic-- subjects: A horn and a horse. Thus, the unicorn was arrived at empirically (as is the tortoise shell). By contrast, a spiritual Creator is not--can not--be derived empirically. The argument here is, for starters, whether one subscribes to a spiritual dimension or not, and I\'m not talkling about clairvoyant John Edwards stuff, either: I\'m talking about the very Reason you yourself champion. THAT--not the organic two arms and two legs, or tortoise shells and unicorns, for that matter--is what is meant by \"Man made in God\'s image.\" I believe there is a spiritual dimension at play right now, as we communicate, that breaks the natural laws of time and space. It's mind over matter. It's godlike, which makes us--by capacities like that--much closer to God than chimps, dolphins, tortoises, and unicorns are to us. |
| 150. |
Posted by John on 02/25/2007, 01:40 cont.: But tortoise shells, unicorns, bigfoot, and UFO's are--however fantastical-- materially substantial, that is, they're perceived--or imagined--as three-dimensional organic objects in Time and Space subject to Natural laws (a tortoise shell, however huge, came from a tortoise, an evolved, organic creature, Bigfoot likewise some sort of evolutionary missing link, and UFO's are supposedly the machines of organic creatures from another planet. That is... cont. |
| 149. |
Posted by John on 02/25/2007, 01:29 The Tortoise Shell argumentsl: Other skeptics have used similar arguments to equate a belief in God with any old oddity we find on earth or are figments of fancy (e.g. "Disprove the existence of unicorns--if not Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, no less UFO's", the latter of which I am very skeptical of on rational grounds, though not quite able to dismiss them as an impossibility). cont. |
| 148. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/24/2007, 12:19 Why don't you like the Tortoise Shell argument? |
| 147. |
Posted by John on 02/24/2007, 03:08 My bad, Another You were quoting someone else when typing "opertunity." Excuse me. Carry on... (btw, I don't like the tortoise shell argument.) |
| 146. |
Posted by John on 02/24/2007, 03:00 P.S. "Also: "Your smarter than aristotle (yeah right)." It's YOU'RE, with is a contraction for YOU ARE, not YOUR, which is a possessive pronoun indicating ownership. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine..." Mine too, another: It's "opportunity," not "opertunity." ;) |
| 145. |
Posted by John on 02/24/2007, 02:45 Anyway, the Deity I worship is a god of Life, Love, Forgiveness, and Resurrection, and I jumped in because theists were being bashed as being troglodytes. I beg your pardon. Walking on the moon was our finest moment as a species, and I believe that God--like a proud Father-- was saying: "Great! Now go further...Don't be afraid...Come closer... " and hence this biblical quotation: "For I reckon that the sufferings we now endure bear no comparison with the splendor, as yet unrevealed, which is in store for us. For the created universe waits with eager expectation for God's sons to be revealed." Romans 8:18-20 Fund NASA and fund it well (unfortunately, slashing the NASA budget was one of the first things the new "progressive" Congress did upon taking office). |
| 144. |
Posted by John on 02/24/2007, 02:25 ...and one of the differences, it seems, between an intelligent theist (or agnostic) and an intelligent atheist is the former's belief that there must--of necessity--be *something* on the other side of the limits versus the latter's conclusion that there can only be...nothing? Or anything but? |
| 143. |
Posted by John on 02/24/2007, 02:15 As to the either-or of \"satanic possession\"-- I was kidding. Another: Thank you for pointing out the error of using \"your\" instead of \"you\'re.\" I concede the slip (I certainly can\'t argue it or plead \"Typo!\") and kick myself accordingly (That\'s a pet peeve of mine as well, and we should all strive to keep the bar raised). As to God being--logically-- subjected to the same necessity of cause as everything else, the exemption is why he\'s God. I respect your faith in Reason (perhaps more than one\'s unreasoning Faith), but you--as anyone-- have to admit that there are limits to present knowledge/awareness of \"life, the universe, and everything\" (D. Adams--hilarious)...cont. |
| 142. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/23/2007, 14:28 Quote: "since some have expressed the view there is no god, why not take this opertunity to scientificly disprove him!! Please don't retort to by saying no, you prove he does exist because the belief in god is a matter of faith! ( no proof needed ) Good luck" The onus of proof is NEVER on the skeptic. A lack of proof of god's non-existence does nothing to prove it exists, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Try proving that invisible unicorns don't exist. Good Luck! |
| 141. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/23/2007, 14:22 EX nihilo nihil fit - from nothing comes nothing. Surely, this does just as much to invalidate the prime mover as it does to validate it. If nothing comes from nothing, then the prime mover couldn't have come from nothing, either! Although it was your best, non-circular argument, it ends up being a wash for you. Also (and don't take this the wrong way- I like to encourage good debate, and yours wasn't all that bad, although I wasn't in love with the satanic possession or Aristotle jabs, which cheapened your argument): "Your smarter than aristotle (yeah right)." It's YOU'RE, with is a contraction for YOU ARE, not YOUR, which is a possessive pronoun indicating ownership. Sorry, it's a pet peeve, and fixing this will go a long way toward getting people to take you seriosuly. |
| 140. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/23/2007, 14:15 That's like someone saying, "The universe rests on the back of an enormous turtle shell," to which you would respond, "That doesn't make much sense- can you prove it logically?" to which the asker would say "To understand it logically, you have to acknowledge the possiblilty of the existence of the turtle, first! (or you're a heathen)." So you can hopefully see why we can't accept that as any kind of defense of the prime mover. Next: "Do you have difficulty understanding the concept of the circular, eternal domain of God versus the linear perpetuity of temporal existence?" No, I understand it as a philosophical concept, but like your other argument, it doesn't do anything to validate the prime mover. The concept of this circular, eternal domain is an untestable religious construct, and can only be used effectively in an argument if both parties "buy into" the construct beforehand! (Cont'd) |
| 139. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/23/2007, 14:01 John- thanks for the debate, although I think you may have misunderstood my argument. The problem with the prime mover (cosmological argument) is that if one makes the logical assumption that the universe could not have been created WITHOUT a prime mover (since no effect can exist without a cause), it is self-contradictory to then assume that a prime mover can exist WITHOUT a prime mover to precede it, hence we encounter an infinite chain of prime movers with no end. Hope this helps. Moving on: "One is the spiritual Creator of material Nature, the other is created, material Nature. It's "bogus" only if you reject outright any possibilty of the existence of the former, which betrays not only your inability to think outside the box, but your satanic possession, as well" Talk about circular reasoning (although one should not be surprised to see circular reasoning crop up in a debate concerning religion- it's been the cornerstone of theological arguments since the time of Zeus)! So, in order to buy the prime mover argument, I have to acknowledge the existence of a prime mover? And if I don't, that makes me satanic? That's like saying… (Cont’d) |
| 138. |
Posted by scientist on 02/23/2007, 09:11 I don't know how the latest Spitzer data sparked a teological debate! WOW, however, since some have expressed the view there is no god, why not take this opertunity to scientificly disprove him!! Please don't retort to by saying no, you prove he does exist because the belief in god is a matter of faith! ( no proof needed ) Good luck |
| 137. |
Posted by rockets red glare on 02/23/2007, 07:57 in responce to post #121 ignorance is bliss-- your arogence is only surpassed by your own ignorance!!! many of the greatest people in the history of mankind were people of faith. for you to say that they are to stupid to grasp scientific concepts only prooves you own stupidity! you seem to think you are enlightened! In truth it shows how small and petty you are! If you want to parade your superior 'this and that' try again, you failed miserably!!! |
| 136. |
Posted by so few bullits on 02/23/2007, 06:43 'keep on trying" all you keep on trying is to show your own ignorance! it was those R. wing biggots that gave you freedom of speach to spew your L.wing hate speach. it was those R.wing biggotts that that understood that all men were created equi, while you left wingers were owning slaves! it was those r.wing biggots that understoodpeople are born with rights that cannot be taken away because they were given by god, the god you seem not to believe in but, use those rights to try to repress any other thought or debate! hate filled l wing biggots like you sir say you believe in tolerance. But when it's time to prove it the real you comes shining through- hate, misery! take a look around you! Where liberals riegn that is where you find the crime, drugs, lack of respect and lack of tolerance for thier fellows! If someone disagrees with your point of view you attack them like a rabit dog and isult them, "some great world you will create"! |
| 135. |
Posted by Mad Scientist on 02/23/2007, 03:12 TO: Justin, I fail to see were i was being hypocritical...and why should I be thankful that you aren\'t? my view is straight foward, religion has cause more death and violence on this planet than any other source...and just because, a religious person, does something good or creative, only means that person is good or creative..TO: Steve, who are these \"atheist fundamentalist extremists\" that you refer to? when has an atheist blown up an abortion clinic, or flew a plane into a building? it seems more like the religious ones are the extremist. TO: John, well..you seem rather intelligent or at least somewhat educated, then you top your arguement with this crap..\"It\'s \"bogus\" only if you reject outright any possibilty of the existence of the former, which betrays not only your inability to think outside the box, but your satanic possession\"...first of all you have to believe in that omni old dude who create YOUR satan, in order to believe in satan...secondly, in the same sentence, you manage to destroy your entire point by bringing in demonic possession...what next, we are all witches?...remember your saviors mom was found on a grilled cheese, sold on ebay |
| 134. |
Posted by John on 02/23/2007, 01:24 P.S. Sorry about the replications. |
| 133. |
Posted by John on 02/23/2007, 00:31 Cont. Q. "Who starts all these prime movers?" A. What do you mean, "Prime movers?" Why the plural? There can be only one *primus.* Q. "And if they don't need prime movers to get started, why does the universe?" A. Do you have difficulty understanding the concept of the circular, eternal domain of God versus the linear perpetuity of temporal existence? Or are you, like Spinoza, a pantheist who thinks that the explosive BANG, expansion, contraction, a Big CRUNCH, and then another BANG *ad infinitum* is "God?" Q. " While there are good philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity, there aren't many good logical ones. If anyone can supply some, I'd be glad to listen!" A. How about: *EX nihilo nihil fit." P.S. Granted, Aristotle's Doctrine of Final Causes was dismissed with the advent of Galileo, but... |
| 132. |
Posted by John on 02/22/2007, 23:39 I'm the John from #94 (the others are imposters). Another Thinker: You asked: "... The prime mover argument is, sadly, bogus. It assumes that a universe couldn't exist without a prime mover to start it, while simultaneously assuming that the same prime mover CAN exist without being started by another prime mover." Wow. Your smarter than Aristotle! (yeah, right) Anyway, why is that "bogus?" One is the spiritual Creator of material Nature, the other is created, material Nature. It's "bogus" only if you reject outright any possibilty of the existence of the former, which betrays not only your inability to think outside the box, but your satanic possession, as well. I'll pray for you. "At what point does the prime mover chain start?" How about the Big Bang? " Who starts all these prime movers?" "All these prime movers?" There can be only One *primus." The rest are falling dominoes. To be cont. |
| 131. |
Posted by Another Thinker on 02/22/2007, 16:22 To Thinker regarding the "I will believe there's no god what someone tells me where the first atom came from..." post: The prime mover argument is, sadly, bogus. It assumes that a universe couldn't exist without a prime mover to start it, while simultaneously assuming that the same prime mover CAN exist without being started by another prime mover. At what point does the prime mover chain start? Who starts all these prime movers? And if they don't need prime movers to get started, why does the universe? While there are good philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity, there aren't many good logical ones. If anyone can supply some, I'd be glad to listen! |
| 130. |
Posted by Steve on 02/22/2007, 12:17 I wish they'd get a science editor who understood the science without making all kinds of errors in the reporting. Yes, atheists seem to be foaming at the mouth with hatred for the Jews (and Christians) these days. That is a somewhat scary development, but is only relevant to the Spitzer findings in that the atheist fundamentalist extremists don't seem to have any sense of propriety when it comes to off-topic postings. |
| 129. |
Posted by nick on 02/22/2007, 12:17 Q - How do we fight overpo****tion A - With mass suicide |
| 128. |
Posted by Kevin from NYC on 02/22/2007, 11:51 "84. Posted by Bill in FL on 02/21/2007, 20:25 (For the record, I happen to be a creationist, but we can debate that some other time. I, for one, wish politics and science were not so intertwined.) " ha ha ha...you're kidding right? tell me did your god create that planet too? and did he create life on that planet as well? what about all the other ones? Or did he just create YOU. and barf, you wish that politics and science were not so intertwined? ha ha not in this administration. all science is driven by politics which is driven by the fundie base. i.e. creationist and evolution-deniers such as yourself. . |
| 127. |
Posted by Jeff on 02/22/2007, 11:36 I think this discussion is healthy. Some commentary and answers: #77- #1; #84 - It'll be probably forever minus one day (the moon was out of reach just 200 years ago); #89 - Thank you; #100 - Odd, my neighbor really hates that song too. Where do you live?; #109 - My cubemate says the same thing, except they're not inert; #116 - But this is fun! #119 - Darn, I got caught! #122 - The problem with living in harmony is one disharmonious person |
| 126. |
Posted by Jeff on 02/22/2007, 11:04 So, just to be clear, we are looking at stuff that happened 1774 BC and 7229 BC. I think if we look closely, we can see Moses parting the Red Sea! |
| 125. |
Posted by KevinM on 02/22/2007, 10:41 FINAL CORRECTION on distance away. One of these planets is 3780 Light Years away from us and the other is 9235 Light Years away from us. |
| 124. |
Posted by Wagnis on 02/22/2007, 10:39 I can\'t help but get excited reading articles like this, despite what religion you may be, this is cool stuff here. I also agree with David, it seems to be a recurring problem in Internet posts these days that we see it turn into a political or religious argument. It\'s just a cool article talking about some cool science, who cares what religion you are, and if you feel you need to defend Muhammad or Jesus, they need no defence because they are both dead in the physical sense. And that\'s coming from a Christian, but this article has nothing to do with religion. So I\'d say if you are just looking for a pointless argument then stay on topic....jeez... |
| 123. |
Posted by KevinM on 02/22/2007, 10:29 CORRECTON: These planets are 3780 light years away from us. I forgot to do one of the divides. |
| 122. |
Posted by David on 02/22/2007, 10:03 I love how every science article online is followed with a debate on religion, and often in polarizing, negative language. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER PEOPLE. Whatever 'club' you belong to, the planet gets more crowded every day, and we all need to decide that we can and will live together in harmony. This cynical egomania and negativity needs to stop. You're behaving like children. |
| 121. |
Posted by ignorance is bliss on 02/22/2007, 09:56 To all the ignorant people (80% of americans, if not more), this is a scientist's finding on research he has done. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or god. Science and what science can do is pretty amazing. All of you get up everyday, use electricity, watch tv, drive your cars, take medicine; to which you can than Science. These astronomists are trying to find out more about our home, our planet, or universe and galaxy. Why is this a bad thing and why most religion be brought into this conversation. Go to church if you feel the need to prey, and why are all you creationist bible beaters reading this sort of literature? Its much too advanced for your mind to grasp- hence the very ignorant comments. |
| 120. |
Posted by KevinM on 02/22/2007, 09:55 It would be 1,381,422 light years away. I wonder what these planets would be upto at the moment? |
| 119. |
Posted by Fugetaboutit on 02/22/2007, 09:54 Remember folks, when one argues wih a fool, there are two fools arguing. |
| 118. |
Posted by dasmb on 02/22/2007, 09:51 There are Muslim scientists, you know. I went to school with a Shi'ia who was a brilliant organic chemist. it's unfair to make generalizations about a complex relgion practiced by several hundred million people simply based on the actions of a slim, fanatical minority. One might even say that only an idiot would do that, but again that's an unfair generalization. And one that has nothing to do with the wonderful engineering presented here. |
| 117. |
Posted by Ken on 02/22/2007, 09:20 Isn't the light the scientists are seeing 62 and 154 years old respectively? One planet is 62 light years away. The other is 154 light years away. They are not seeing the planet as it exists today. |
| 116. |
Posted by Steve on 02/22/2007, 09:10 Moderators: Please turn off this comment section. It is detracting from an otherwise very interesting article. |
| 115. |
Posted by Tony in Indy on 02/22/2007, 09:05 Regarding the Galileo controversy, Galileo was condemned by Catholic officials, but he was never condemned officially by the Church itself, IOW, no ex-cathedra statement was issued. Galileo burned bridges with the Pope (Urban VIII ) who was one of his biggest, most powerful supporters. Also, know that Gregor Mendel, Father of Modern Genetics, was an Augustinian Monk, a Catholic Priest, a teacher of Physics (degree from Univ. Vienna) and was the Abbott of the St. Thomas Abbey in Brno, CZ. Keepers of the True Faith are not anti-science. |
| 114. |
Posted by HL on 02/22/2007, 08:26 Here is just a brief thought: Why doesn't the anomymous writer start by identifying the "parent" stars and their locations at the beginning of the story? It seems to me that stars so faint and distant (it would also be helpful to use light-years, not miles, as the standard of distance) raises questions about the ability of NASA's detecting device to separate the effect of the star from its relatively closeby orbiting planet. I'm sure there is a technically sound answer for this, but it is not obvious to the casual reader. |
| 113. |
Posted by Jonathan on 02/22/2007, 08:19 Contrast what the Christians are doing vs what the Muslims are doing. Christians are discovering new sciences to improve our lives and increase our understanding of the universe while Muslims are walking around blowing up innocent people every single day with their car bombs, and chlorine bombs. Only an idiot would become a Muslim. |
| 112. |
Posted by Jonathan on 02/22/2007, 08:19 Contrast what the Christians are doing vs what the Muslims are doing. Christians are discovering new sciences to improve our lives and increase our understanding of the universe while Muslims are walking around blowing up innocent people every single day with their car bombs, and chlorine bombs. Only an idiot would become a Muslim. |
| 111. |
Posted by Keith Kalish on 02/22/2007, 08:11 Nice article, with a nice artisit's rendering. Keep up th egood work NASa. I'm also glad to see the pschotherapists are not lacking for patients from som eof the comments I've been reading. A simple intereting article about another science first andwe get political and releigious commentary. What happened to the days when adults knew the difference between each. Is this is what our nation has become, a bunch lunatics tying anything and everything into a political or religious issue? We can't even endure a devastating hurricane without it somehow being turned into the President's fault. |
| 110. |
Posted by Thinker on 02/22/2007, 07:56 I wiil believe in no god when you can convince me where the first atom came from and where the laws of physics came from to allow the atom to form. |
RSS Feeds