(June 2, 2014 at 10:03 pm)Heywood Wrote:(June 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that there are a number of other detection methods which aren't - which is why I asked the question.
ETA: It's an entirely separate matter as to whether or not earth-size/mass planets are *as easy* to identify as larger/more massive ones. In other words, are we finding fewer of them because they are fundamentally harder to detect - which they are.
If Kepler found fewer than expected there are two possible reasons:
A) Kepler's design was flawed.
B) Our models of the dynamics of solar system formation are wrong.
Kepler's design is near the limits of our current technologies. So, not A.
Detection has nothing to do with the dynamics of solar system formation. So, not B.
Smaller planets are harder to detect.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
