Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude. Sincerely, J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet. Dave -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude. Sincerely, J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side. On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:51 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side. On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
I would like to know what the scientists were smoking to think such a planet to be earth like... The only similarity I can see based on what has been written by the experts, is that it's round and it circles a star. Stop the presses! Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:51 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side.
On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
See my last post. It's not the scientists smoking anything, it's just a poor term to throw at the general public. On 5/23/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
I would like to know what the scientists were smoking to think such a planet to be earth like... The only similarity I can see based on what has been written by the experts, is that it's round and it circles a star. Stop the presses!
The "earth-like" planet orbiting red dwarf star Gliese 581 is indeed in a very short period orbit. However, since the star itself is only about 1% as luminous as our Sun, being that close is necessary to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" (not too hot, not too cold) where liquid water may exist. Estimates are that the surface temperature of the planet (designated Gliese 581c) lies somewhere in the range of liquid water. Does that mean that the planet actually _has_ liquid water? We can't say. The Gliese 581 system contains at least good-sized three planets, all quite close to the star, and gravitational interactions may have caused migrations of the orbits. Gleise 581c could have been originally formed much closer to the star, in which case its water (if any) would have been baked away long ago. Or, it could have formed much farther way and migrated inward, in which case its water content could be significantly higher. The planet completes one orbit of the star in less than two weeks. It's five times more massive than Earth, but it's also larger in diameter, resulting in a surface gravity that's about 50% greater than Earth's. That'd be useful for holding on to an atmosphere, if it has one. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:58 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet I would like to know what the scientists were smoking to think such a planet to be earth like... The only similarity I can see based on what has been written by the experts, is that it's round and it circles a star. Stop the presses! Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:51 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side.
On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Since the star is only 1 percent as luminous as the sun does that mean it's less massive? And if it is does that mean that planet would not necessarily be tidally locked to the star? Just wondering, Joe
The "earth-like" planet orbiting red dwarf star Gliese 581 is indeed in a very short period orbit. However, since the star itself is only about 1% as luminous as our Sun, being that close is necessary to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" (not too hot, not too cold) where liquid water may exist. Estimates are that the surface temperature of the planet (designated Gliese 581c) lies somewhere in the range of liquid water.
Does that mean that the planet actually _has_ liquid water? We can't say. The Gliese 581 system contains at least good-sized three planets, all quite close to the star, and gravitational interactions may have caused migrations of the orbits. Gleise 581c could have been originally formed much closer to the star, in which case its water (if any) would have been baked away long ago. Or, it could have formed much farther way and migrated inward, in which case its water content could be significantly higher.
The planet completes one orbit of the star in less than two weeks. It's five times more massive than Earth, but it's also larger in diameter, resulting in a surface gravity that's about 50% greater than Earth's. That'd be useful for holding on to an atmosphere, if it has one.
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:58 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I would like to know what the scientists were smoking to think such a planet to be earth like... The only similarity I can see based on what has been written by the experts, is that it's round and it circles a star. Stop the presses!
Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:51 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side.
On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit itssun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Yes, absolutely, the red dwarf star Gliese 581 is only about 30% the mass of our Sun. This little star fuses its hydrogen so slowly it will take a hundred billion years (or longer) to leave the main sequence. Being so close to the star (0.073 AU), if Gliese 581c has been in its orbit for a long time it would almost certainly be tidally locked, but no one can say at this point. It's no accident that smaller planets are being discovered around red dwarf stars. The wobbling in the star's spectra that makes the detection of planets possible is extremely small. In order to create enough of a wobble to be currently detected on Earth, you have to have a fairly strong influence from a planet on a star. Had Gliese 581c been orbiting a more massive (and therefore, brighter) star and been in its much more distant Goldilocks Zone, the gravitational influence of the world would likely be undetectable from Earth. Gliese 581c was detectable because it is itself a fairly massive body (5x Earth's mass), orbiting very close (thereby increasing its gravitational influence), to a fairly lightweight star (making the planet's tug more noticeable). Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:55 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet Since the star is only 1 percent as luminous as the sun does that mean it's less massive? And if it is does that mean that planet would not necessarily be tidally locked to the star? Just wondering, Joe
The "earth-like" planet orbiting red dwarf star Gliese 581 is indeed in a very short period orbit. However, since the star itself is only about 1% as luminous as our Sun, being that close is necessary to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" (not too hot, not too cold) where liquid water may exist. Estimates are that the surface temperature of the planet (designated Gliese 581c) lies somewhere in the range of liquid water.
Does that mean that the planet actually _has_ liquid water? We can't say. The Gliese 581 system contains at least good-sized three planets, all quite close to the star, and gravitational interactions may have caused migrations of the orbits. Gleise 581c could have been originally formed much closer to the star, in which case its water (if any) would have been baked away long ago. Or, it could have formed much farther way and migrated inward, in which case its water content could be significantly higher.
The planet completes one orbit of the star in less than two weeks. It's five times more massive than Earth, but it's also larger in diameter, resulting in a surface gravity that's about 50% greater than Earth's. That'd be useful for holding on to an atmosphere, if it has one.
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:58 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I would like to know what the scientists were smoking to think such a planet to be earth like... The only similarity I can see based on what has been written by the experts, is that it's round and it circles a star. Stop the presses!
Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:51 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side.
On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com
[mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio
n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit itssun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I found the info here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html
I think it's supposed to be mostly rock too. Up until now all the extra solar system planets have been gas giants. diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
I would like to know what the scientists were smoking to think such a planet to be earth like... The only similarity I can see based on what has been written by the experts, is that it's round and it circles a star. Stop the presses!
Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:51 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
That all depends on the atmosphere. If thick enough, and convective, it could actually be quite warm on the night side.
On 5/23/07, Dunn, David <david.dunn@albertsons.com> wrote:
If the planet has the same face towards its star, it would always be light on that half of the planet and dark on the other side. Its day (one revolution on its axis would be the same as its year (one orbit around its star), 14 earth days. I suspect that it would be cold on the dark side of the planet.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio
n.com] On Behalf Of baxman2@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:12 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet. It is suppose to orbit its sun once every 14 Earth days. It is also suppose to have the same face to its sun, as it orbits it. That would mean on average that its daytime would be 7 Earth days, and its nightime would be 7 Earth days. On the daytime side, temperatures are comparable to Earth-like springtime temperatures. But how cold would the planet get during its nightime period? I realize that temperatures could vary by latitude.
Sincerely,
J. David Baxter baxman2@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Remember that "earthlike" in this instance doesn't refer to a similar weather system, but mass and probably composition. Most planets this close to stars discovered so-far have been called "hot Jupiters" because they seem to be gas giants. Any planet with a 14-day orbit around a typical yellow or red dwarf star would definitely not have oceans of liquid water. "Venus-like" would be a better term; If there is a substantial atmosphere it would almost certainly have to resemble that of Venus, thus it would be highly convective. The entire planet would be brutally hot, regardless of which side is facing the sun. And the hotter the atmosphere, the more it expands away from the planet's surface. The further from the surface, the faster it is lost. Some kind of volcanic replenishment might need to be invoked to maintain it, given the close orbit. Or high surface gravity. An "earthlike" planet could still have 4, 5, 6-gee surface gravity or more- and thus be a terrible place for us to visit. If the atmosphere is Marslike, thin and tenuous, then I'd agree with you that the dark side would be cold. We're talking about a planet like Mercury in that case- only closer to the sun. Otherwise, I'll stick with a Venus. I think the earth pretty darn special. We are going to have to look long and hard before we find one with temperatures and other physical conditions similar to what we have here. You're such an optimist, Kim! (that's a good quality!) On 5/23/07, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Assuming an earth-like planet, with oceans and similar weather processes, I think even then the dark side would be very cold. With an atmosphere to moderate the weather, it likely wouldn't experience the extremes of the Moon or Mercury, but relative to our (human) needs for comfort, I still think the dark hemisphere would be cold. Consider how on earth a relatively small change in incoming radiation causes very large temperature swings. (Oh-oh, an oblique reference to global warming - unintended, I promise.) I know some science fiction writers have postulated that life on a planet that is tidally-locked with its parent star would likely inhabit a very narrow "ring" in the twilight zone between the fully-illuminated hemisphere (too hot) and the fully-dark hemisphere (too cold). Would be an interesting place to visit.
I didn't realize that there was an accepted definition of "earth-like." I used the term in a real "like Earth" sense: rocky planet, similar mass, liquid water, habitable zone(s) that could support life as we know it. That was simply how I used the term in my post, and I understand that it isn't what the scientists necessarily mean when they refer to "earth-like" planets. Thanks, Chuck. Most of my fiends and family would probable think of me as a pessimist or a cynic. Regarding the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, I am optimistic, though. I expect that one day we will find that our universe is teaming with life and that it will be recognizable to us, just as we've found that our own world can support life in the most unusual places and that it doesn't have to have some bizarre, unknown characteristics to survive and flourish. I'm even "optimistic" that we'll eventually find evidence for life elsewhere in our own Solar System. And, as a person of both scientific interest and religious faith, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:04 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet Remember that "earthlike" in this instance doesn't refer to a similar weather system, but mass and probably composition. Most planets this close to stars discovered so-far have been called "hot Jupiters" because they seem to be gas giants. Any planet with a 14-day orbit around a typical yellow or red dwarf star would definitely not have oceans of liquid water. "Venus-like" would be a better term; If there is a substantial atmosphere it would almost certainly have to resemble that of Venus, thus it would be highly convective. The entire planet would be brutally hot, regardless of which side is facing the sun. And the hotter the atmosphere, the more it expands away from the planet's surface. The further from the surface, the faster it is lost. Some kind of volcanic replenishment might need to be invoked to maintain it, given the close orbit. Or high surface gravity. An "earthlike" planet could still have 4, 5, 6-gee surface gravity or more- and thus be a terrible place for us to visit. If the atmosphere is Marslike, thin and tenuous, then I'd agree with you that the dark side would be cold. We're talking about a planet like Mercury in that case- only closer to the sun. Otherwise, I'll stick with a Venus. I think the earth pretty darn special. We are going to have to look long and hard before we find one with temperatures and other physical conditions similar to what we have here. You're such an optimist, Kim! (that's a good quality!)
Surely you've heard of the word "Kolob"... And I don't mean the canyon. Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
Why yes, I have. I believe it's supposed to be the place where God dwells, so it doesn't qualify as "earth-like" in any sense that I understand it. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:05 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet Surely you've heard of the word "Kolob"... And I don't mean the canyon.
Maybe you're joking, Guy, but today's news about exoplanets has generated talk of Kolob on the KSL web site. See it here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1280897&comments=true pw On 23 May 2007, at 12:04, diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Surely you've heard of the word "Kolob"... And I don't mean the canyon.
Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
Speaking about that, I just saw Patrick on KSL discussing exoplanets. Very good, professional presentation. Way to go, Patrick! -- Joe
I can't seem to find Kolob in any IAU records. Must be an oversight on somebody's part I guess. Some people will never be able to keep science and religion compartmentalized in their minds. We'll be debating the undebatable for as long as there are such people in the world, I suppose. More cutting-edge science from the KSL Website: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=333&sid=1282257 BTW, isn't Kolob Canyon a brand of California wine? "Kolob Canyon...canyon...canyon..." ;o) On 5/29/07, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote:
Maybe you're joking, Guy, but today's news about exoplanets has generated talk of Kolob on the KSL web site. See it here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1280897&comments=true
pw
On 23 May 2007, at 12:04, diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Surely you've heard of the word "Kolob"... And I don't mean the canyon.
When have you ever known me to be serious? ;) Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>:
Maybe you're joking, Guy, but today's news about exoplanets has generated talk of Kolob on the KSL web site. See it here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1280897&comments=true
pw
Try to ask a serious question and this is what you get... At the risk of offending my LDS friends (oh, and I'm LDS, too) I would add that when I read the scriptures I find much of what I read to be taken figuratively, especially when the Lord is trying to explain issues of science to ignorant peasants and shepherds. There may be a place called "Kolob" but the description of it in the LDS scriptures begs scientific scrutiny, and I don't think that it stands up. If, however, you're a shepherd with no knowledge of physics and cosmology, and you when you look up at the night sky you wonder about the points of light that you see, then I suppose it makes perfect sense. So, back to my original question: Do any proponents of creationism/intelligent design (other than Latter-day Saints) have a position on whether or not there is life beyond earth? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:22 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Question On Recently Discovered Planet Maybe you're joking, Guy, but today's news about exoplanets has generated talk of Kolob on the KSL web site. See it here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1280897&comments=true pw On 23 May 2007, at 12:04, diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Surely you've heard of the word "Kolob"... And I don't mean the canyon.
Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
In response to Kim's question, Strict creationists (e.g. the folks who run www.answersingenesis.org) argue that since life on other worlds is built on the premise of biological evolution and natural forces, and since strict creationists reject evolution and natural forces as the origins of life, then there can be no such thing as life on other worlds. Less strident believers are willing to accept the notion that God may have other "designs" in place elsewhere and since it's a big universe, we shouldn't be too surprised if we're not alone. I've always wondered, however, about what we do if one day a communication from an extraterrestrial civilization is received and it contains a religious message that is as alien to us as is their biology. Something along the lines of, "How much do you know about church of Xorakrathlymon and her symbiotic shell-mate Zyxlefrup, co-mothers of All The Universe, and would you like to know more?" More seriously, what happens when some form of life no more complex than lichen is found under a rock somewhere on Mars? I think the odds of that happening are not small. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:08 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Question On Recently Discovered Planet Try to ask a serious question and this is what you get... At the risk of offending my LDS friends (oh, and I'm LDS, too) I would add that when I read the scriptures I find much of what I read to be taken figuratively, especially when the Lord is trying to explain issues of science to ignorant peasants and shepherds. There may be a place called "Kolob" but the description of it in the LDS scriptures begs scientific scrutiny, and I don't think that it stands up. If, however, you're a shepherd with no knowledge of physics and cosmology, and you when you look up at the night sky you wonder about the points of light that you see, then I suppose it makes perfect sense. So, back to my original question: Do any proponents of creationism/intelligent design (other than Latter-day Saints) have a position on whether or not there is life beyond earth? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:22 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Question On Recently Discovered Planet Maybe you're joking, Guy, but today's news about exoplanets has generated talk of Kolob on the KSL web site. See it here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1280897&comments=true pw On 23 May 2007, at 12:04, diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Surely you've heard of the word "Kolob"... And I don't mean the canyon.
Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
And if mankind is indeed created in God's image, then the the aliens are, too. Therefore, the Star Trek universe would be a product of Intelligent Design. On 5/30/07, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
... believers are willing to accept the notion that God may have other "designs" in place elsewhere and since it's a big universe, we shouldn't be too surprised if we're not alone.
Hi all, my next-desk neighbor, Deborah Bulkeley, arranged for someone from SLAS to give a presentation to her group, the local grotto (I think it's the Wasatch Grotto) of the National Speleological Society. The presentation is Monday. But she can't remember her contact's name and would like to get in touch with him so she can give details to people who are asking about the talk. Could this person please call her? Whoever you are, drop me a note and I'll send her cell number. Or you could write to her directly at dbulkeley@desnews.com. Thanks, Joe
Forget about life beyone earth; I'd sure like to have a word or two with that so-called "intelligent" designer about my troublesome prostate! Grrrr! ;o) --- Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
At least you got one! Quoting Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com>:
Forget about life beyone earth; I'd sure like to have a word or two with that so-called "intelligent" designer about my troublesome prostate! Grrrr! ;o)
--- Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Didn't they let you take it home- in a jar? *;o) * On 5/23/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
At least you got one!
Quoting Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com>:
Forget about life beyone earth; I'd sure like to have a word or two with that so-called "intelligent" designer about my troublesome prostate! Grrrr! ;o)
I wish... I would have sold it on Ebay! ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
Didn't they let you take it home- in a jar? *;o) * On 5/23/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
At least you got one!
Quoting Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com>:
Forget about life beyone earth; I'd sure like to have a word or two with that so-called "intelligent" designer about my troublesome prostate! Grrrr! ;o)
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Regarding your question to any of us who believe in intelligent design that have a position regarding life beyond this Earth: We of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints have long believed in life elsewhere. As an example, we have a verse of scripture that our Prophet Joseph Smith translated from Moses's teachings that reads: "And Worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten." (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:33. Translated by Joseph Smith in June of 1830) I'm not prepared to give an oration on this topic, but we believe their are other worlds and that great prophets like Moses and Abraham believed it as well. Given the date of Joseph's penning this, I'd say that's pretty awesome. By the way, I accept the fact that there were Dinosaurs and that this world is very old. As I understand it, the Lord took existing materials and formed it. The word create should be formed. When the Old Testament refers to days, it is just referring to periods of time. If God exists, which I believe he does, he has been around a long time and a day to him could be a long period of time, for example one spin of the Milky way. Snuff said. Have a great day! Gary Thompson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim" <kimharch@cut.net> To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:57 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet
Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it.
Kim
David, in the July 2007 issue of Sky & Telescope, page 20, there is a "News Notes" article detailing some of the known physical quantities as well as speculation on the nature of the "earth-like" planet orbiting Gliese 581. Also note the article immediately below it, on the same page, referring to a paper which casts doubt on the chances of planets of red-dwarf suns having substantial water or atmosphere. On 5/22/07, baxman2@comcast.net <baxman2@comcast.net> wrote:
I have a question on the recently discovered Earth-Like Planet.
participants (11)
-
baxman2＠comcast.net -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Dunn, David -
Gary Thompson -
Joe Bauman -
Kim -
Lockman -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Seth Jarvis