Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Science Porn
May 13, 2016 at 7:59 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2016 at 8:03 am by vorlon13.)
(May 12, 2016 at 6:35 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Seriously, this is science porn to me:
![[Image: kepler_fig10.jpg?itok=xMV3Alpz]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.nasa.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Ffull_width%2Fpublic%2Fthumbnails%2Fimage%2Fkepler_fig10.jpg%3Fitok%3DxMV3Alpz)
A comment about the chart:
keep in mind, as you move from left to right across the chart, you're also seeing the probability of the Kepler satellites ability at detecting planets to DECREASE.
So statistically, we know there are 'more' planets there, and the farther right you look, there are more and more that the mission missed.
It would be great if I could remember what the factor is, LOL.
And also note, the orientation of these star systems is random, so we can infer a further correction by noting, for instance, let's say of all the star systems correctly oriented for us to detect their planets and we note (just for example, I don't know what the actual # is) 1/3 have planets, then we can infer of the star systems incorrectly oriented for us to detect planets, 1/3 of them have 'em too.
A real life example:
Let's say a local high school has 1000 students and each student has a locker. We don't care specifically which kids have over due library books in their lockers, we just want to know how many overdue library books are in all the lockers put together. So we randomly check 100 lockers and find 40 have no overdue books, 20 have one, 20 have 2, 10 have 3, and the last 10 have 4 or more.
Doing a little math, we realize we have at least 130 overdue library books in all the lockers.
This technique works on the stars too. Kepler only sees a percentage, so nevertheless, we get a pretty good idea how many stars have planets. We also know. of the stars that Kepler can detect planets around, it is far better at locating ones closer to each star than further out. So that can be allowed for up to a point. And that point is, can we expect the process(es) that create planets to be sensitive to distance from the star ??
And this is where it gets interesting when the astronomers start simulating, more realistically, (we hope) how planets form, and start to realize the damn things apparently can move towards and/or away from their stars while forming. And then we get to the point of the recent Sci Am article which covers simulations of our specific solar system and it seems probable Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune aren't in their original orbits any more, another large planet may have been ejected to interstellar space, and very early on, some more planets formed closer than Mercury is now, and spiraled into the sun.
Fun stuff!
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Science Porn
May 13, 2016 at 8:19 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2016 at 9:20 am by Anomalocaris.)
Yeah, the bigger the star, the less efficacious the transit technique would be in finding planets, because the weaker would be the signal of the shadow of the planet next to the output of the star. That's why few have been found around stars much bigger than the sun.
The farther the planet is from the star, the Worse it is for transit because the larger the orbit compare to disk of the star, so the smaller the chances for any transit at all, and longer the period between any transit for rechecking observations. So also the less efficacious the transit method.
So transit method is best for detecting large planets orbiting in small orbits around small stars with stable light outputs. Hence the biase in that drawing.
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Science Porn
May 13, 2016 at 9:04 am
Sagan (etal) have noted it might be the universe it set up (so to speak) such that spectral type A, B, and O stars don't produce planets during their formation.
They didn't have a specific mechanism in mind, they were just noting some trends in spectral type vs angular momentum and postulating once a forming star gets in the size range of A or larger, planet formation doesn't seem to occur.
I don't think any Kepler findings specifically relate to this prediction in regards ot A, B, and O stars. I suppose at some point somebody will 'data mine' the Kepler data and look for correlations between angular momentum and spectral type and maybe with the new understanding of the variety of ways planets can form, the angular momentum thing isn't as important or strongly correlated.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Science Porn
May 13, 2016 at 10:12 am
(May 13, 2016 at 4:53 am)Alex K Wrote: I like the sentiment, but the number is unfortunately wrong. The visible Universe is much larger than 13.8 billion lightyears.
Yeah, I caught that, but I was actually looking for a different version of the same concept, which I had posted before, which pointed an arrow to our location and said, "...made just for these guys." Couldn't find it, so I posted that one.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Science Porn
May 29, 2016 at 2:26 am
SpaceX Sea Platform Landing from onboard camera. It's so awesome that it looks fake.
https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Science Porn
May 29, 2016 at 6:56 am
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2016 at 6:59 am by Alex K.)
What does it say on the platform???
"of course I still love you"
If that's an answer by someone in SpaceX to their significant other, it's the most romantic thing ever 
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Science Porn
May 29, 2016 at 7:02 am
"Just Read the Instructions and Of Course I Still Love You are two of the sentient, planet-sized Culture starships which first appear in Banks’ The Player of Games. Just as the Minds inhabiting each Culture ship choose their names with care, you have to imagine that Musk did the same here."
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Science Porn
June 7, 2016 at 7:48 am
Science porn, taken literally
http://cockplot.blogspot.de/
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Science Porn
June 7, 2016 at 8:08 am
Lol had to wait till I got home to click that one. Wasn't clicking "cockplot" on my work comp...
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Science Porn
June 10, 2016 at 4:34 am
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
|
