[meteorite-list] Scientists find most Earth-like planet yet
From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:32:17 -0500 Message-ID: <085101c78778$d2504650$862e4842_at_ATARIENGINE> Hi, Paul, List, > What necromancy > produced that result? Some pieces of magic called the inverse square law, Mr. Kepler's laws, and the mass-luminosity rule for stars, a little data, and small human stepwise reasoning. We "know" the mass of the planet from the strength of the effect by which we detected the planet. We "know" the mass of the star from the mass-luminosity rule. We "know" the period of the planet's orbit from the periodicity of the observation. From the mass of star and period of orbit, Kepler shows us we can derive the distance from the star (semi-major axis). Now that we know the distance of the planet from the star, we can calculate how much of the star's energy falls on the planet. The remaining question is: how much of that energy is absorbed by the planet and how much is reflected away again. The answer, obviously, is somewhere between a reflectivity of 0% and 100%! We can assume that the planet is what physicists call a "black ball" whose "blackness" can vary from pure black (all energy absorbed) to pure white (all energy reflected away). The reason the discovers said that its "temperature" is between 0 C and 40 C is not that has a climate! No, if it's a perfect reflector, it's at 0 C. And if it's a perfect absorber, it's at 40 C. If we perform the same naive calculation for our dear little home world, pretending we don't know anything about it, we get a temperature range that is somewhat lower than Earthly reality. Why? Atmosphere! Our atmosphere traps infrared radiation trying to escape and heats the whole planet up some. There is always more infrared radiation trying to escape than entered in the first place, because other frequencies degrade to weaker infrared photons after bouncing around reflecting off the planetary surface. This is true no manner what the planet is like. All atmospheres of sufficient density are planet heaters. The Earth must have had its reasonably dense atmosphere throughout all of its history, because without it, the planet would have quickly evolved into an irreversible Iceball billions of years ago, a very frigid world with all the oceans covered by hundreds of meters of ice and all the land covered with snow and ice, and highly reflective enough (90%+) to stay that way forever (unless vulcanism could restore a warming atmosphere eventually). We've had brushes with that outcome (go Google "snowball earth"). Back to the data. Since Gliese 581c is five Earth masses, it has more than enough gravity to hold on to gasses and volatiles. Look at what a good job Venus does of retaining atmosphere! Too dam much of a good job -- if Venus had no atmosphere at all, it would be a lot cooler that it is. We don't really know what mix of materials existed in the dust/gas cloud the Gliese 581 system formed from. We assume -- it's called the Copernican Principle -- that it wasn't all that different from our system or any other star system in the neighborhood or the rest of the Galaxy. We assume that we're typical, not special. We assume that Gliese 581 is typical, not special. > composition of the atmosphere is critical > to knowing the temperature of the planet - > think Venus vs. Mars I know global warming is all the rage these days, but the real critical difference is how much energy from the Sun the planet receives! Venus gets 4.7 times more energy per square unit than Mars because of their respective distances from the Sun. That's most of the difference. Both have unique problems, too. Mars has enough gravity to hold onto a much thicker atmosphere than it presently has. The evidence of past liquid water erosion shows it has to have had a much thicker atmosphere in the past. All those volatiles and no atmosphere? Hence, we have a lot of theories about Mars' atmosphere being "eroded" away. Venus appears to have absolutely no volatiles on its surface, yet it has this killer atmosphere (and I do mean "killer"). How can a planet with no volatiles generally have a superabundance of one and only one volatile -- carbon dioxide? Venus has more CO2 in its atmosphere than could be produced by oxidizing the entire surface carbonate inventory of the Earth! Something really nasty happened to Venus... Certainly, we can't "know" what the planet Gliese 581c is really like. We CAN guess the most likely, most "average," most common planetary outcome for a body this size this distance from this star would be. Yes, Gliese 581c could be an oddball. But that would be... odd. Sterling K. Webb --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: <valparint at aol.com> To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Scientists find most Earth-like planet yet My BS detector is buzzing like crazy. "They have not directly seen the planet" but somehow know that it has "balmy temperatures." What necromancy produced that result? The composition of the atmosphere is critical to knowing the temperature of the planet - think Venus vs. Mars. If they didn't directly see the planet there is no way they can know anything about its atmosphere. Paul Swartz >European astronomers have spotted what they say is the >most Earth-like planet yet outside our solar system, with balmy >temperatures >that could support water and, potentially, life. > >They have not directly seen the planet, orbiting a red dwarf star called >Gliese >581. But measurements of the star suggest that a planet not much larger >than the >Earth is pulling on it, the researchers say in a letter to the editor of >the >journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Received on Wed 25 Apr 2007 04:32:17 PM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |