So recently, the planet Kepler-78b was discovered. A few things about this planet.
-Mass 1.69 -1.86 times that of Earth -Radius 1.16 - 1.6 times that of Earth -Density essentially equivalent to that of Earth's -40 times closer to its star than Mercury is to the Sun.
The most interesting thing about this planet, according to astronomers, is that its existence is quite an anomaly, given that because of the construct of the planet, it shouldn't exist. ""It couldn't have formed in place because you can't form a planet inside a star. It couldn't have formed further out and migrated inward, because it would have migrated all the way into the star. This planet is an enigma," explains Sasselov." Source
Now, this thread can be about us ogling in awe at this enigma of a planet, but there is more to this!
Discussing with a fellow member of AG, this planet has become an argument for Creationism. The argument entails that because this planet has no logical reasoning for existing within the constraints of evolution, it finds solace in it having logical reasoning within Creationism.
Any thoughts on the matter? (whether it be about the planet itself or the argument)
Astronomy has nothing to do with Evolution, ******! >
Anyway, because this planet is newly discovered, of course it will take some time for scientists to figure out exactly how the planet has this formation. We seriously can't expect to already know everything about planets despite having sophisticated astronomy in its Blastula stage.
What this would demonstrate is a lack of understanding in planetary formation. The argument being put forth by creationists is nothing more than a classic God of the gaps argument. Since we currently can't explain it they inject God. We could just as easily say an advanced alien race put it there if we get to fill the gap with whatever unproven thing we like. At least would have more plausibility of existence.
It should also be noted that evolution here is being used in a more generic sense of change rather than the theory (which I wouldn't be surprised is what the creationists are trying to imply) dealing with biological diversity.
Should be noted: I was not on the side of this being an argument of Creationism. In case that may have caused any confusion, or could cause potential confusion.
Anyway, because this planet is newly discovered, of course it will take some time for scientists to figure out exactly how the planet has this formation.
Ay..something I pointed out. Just because we do not understand it now does not mean we won't be able to understand it in the future.
It should also be noted that evolution here is being used in a more generic sense of change rather than the theory (which I wouldn't be surprised is what the creationists are trying to imply) dealing with biological diversity.
Another thing I pointed out (among other things)...this planet has little (nothing) to do with the concept of evolution. It seemed to be solely of an argument of "it could only have been -created- there, therefore creationism."
Discussing with a fellow member of AG, this planet has become an argument for Creationism.
I don't think it's very charitable to so quickly disregard this point. While of course a planet can't be an argument for Creationism, it could be a motivator for such an argument. There is a claim that's well motivated - that astrophysicists currently don't have a complete understanding of planetary formation or the mechanisms by which planets shift orbital paths. It would take quite a bit more argument to get from this to the claim that God created this planet as it is.
The point is that this argument could be made, so we shouldn't dismiss it so out-of-hand.
But I don't understand why the presence of this planet is so baffling. From what I can tell, it seems to be approaching its Roche limit quickly. So why couldn't it have been ejected from its orbit? Its composition seems to suggest that it was formed well after (and away from) its host star, Kepler 78.
There is a claim that's well motivated - that astrophysicists currently don't have a complete understanding of planetary formation or the mechanisms by which planets shift orbital paths. It would take quite a bit more argument to get from this to the claim that God created this planet as it is.
The point is that this argument could be made, so we shouldn't dismiss it so out-of-hand.
It could be made. But the way I undestood the debate so far, the only claim made is we cannot explain something, hence creationism. Which is not even a stretch of an argument, it is a plain fallacy. And to me sort of shows how desperate those people are to cling to any new titbit they can misuse.
It will, of course, become a valid point even to me if it can be shown that there is reason to think it was designed.
But I don't understand why the presence of this planet is so baffling. From what I can tell, it seems to be approaching its Roche limit quickly. So why couldn't it have been ejected from its orbit? Its composition seems to suggest that it was formed well after (and away from) its host star, Kepler 78.
I like that idea! What we know of that planet might not be more than a snapshot, in this case potentially a fortunate snapshot of a planet in process of being, er, dissolved, absorbed? This universe is not static, after all.
I don't think it's very charitable to so quickly disregard this point. While of course a planet can't be an argument for Creationism, it could be a motivator for such an argument. There is a claim that's well motivated - that astrophysicists currently don't have a complete understanding of planetary formation or the mechanisms by which planets shift orbital paths. It would take quite a bit more argument to get from this to the claim that God created this planet as it is.
As noted I could just as easily and more justifiably say an advanced alien race moved it there. It's an explanation that really gets us nowhere. Even if we were to grant God did it as a valid explanation it still tells us nothing of how the planet is there. It would be like if I had a huge pile of dirt and you asked how that huge pile of dirt got there and I said a flangbacker put it there. All this would tell you is a flangbacker can move and pile up dirt, it tells you nothing about how the dirt was moved.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitches
But I don't understand why the presence of this planet is so baffling. From what I can tell, it seems to be approaching its Roche limit quickly. So why couldn't it have been ejected from its orbit? Its composition seems to suggest that it was formed well after (and away from) its host star, Kepler 78.
Something I thought was a reasonable explanation, yet the researches claim that such a fact was impossible. Albeit, I don't see an explanation for how it is impossible.
This planet has become an argument for Creationism.
This is what people jump to when they can't think. God did and made everything was an easy way for primitive man to understand the early world.
But I don't understand why the presence of this planet is so baffling. From what I can tell, it seems to be approaching its Roche limit quickly. So why couldn't it have been ejected from its orbit? Its composition seems to suggest that it was formed well after (and away from) its host star, Kepler 78.
I won't be surprised if it breaks apart soon. The force that is applied to it's 8 and half hours orbit is extreme.
Maybe it's cause none of us actually are trained in astrophysics...
Judging from what source? Stars, planets and space is something that has always interested me. It's a world that we can see but not yet interact with exception of the solar system. and voyager1 that isn't in the solar system now but interstellar space, if you decide the solar system ends after the Heliosphere or Heliopause. I would say the solar system ends at the Oort cloud? The extent of our suns gravity be other stars knock anything else out of orbit. It does extend 1 Light-year though so we can't really go that far might be a reason we say the solar system ends where the solar winds get terminated.
Kepler78 has been a star i been interested in to find a planet. They always seem strange how many different ways planets are composed of and how they interact with their stars (Suns). It is amazing how we are finding planets of this size, most ones discovered are normally larger than Jupiter. I suppose due to how close it is it reflects enough light to be seen directly instead of watching for star dimming or blinking effects. To work out why this might of formed in the way it did will of-course take time since it is more unusual to other exoplanets. I think it be good to keep looking over that way and seeing if other planets can be detected. If this is the only one there then that will cause a few questions and would probably mean it came from another star. If other planets are there then it is possible it formed from the star maybe something hit into it causing it the be the way it is now?
The planet makes the star wobble, due to its size and if at larger distance it normally wouldn't happen. Since it is so close the wobble effect is a good way to of detected this. It also causes the stars' light to reflect off and is noticeable.
