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)
I don't see an explanation for how it is impossible.
but you gave the reason yourself in the OP. =S
It couldn't have formed further out and migrated inward, because it would have migrated all the way into the star.
if a planet would move towards a sun lose from his previous orbit. then it wouldn't be able to stop and so crash into it.
if a planet would slowly move towards a sun while maintaining in orbit. for that to happen does the planet need to lose speed 1st, so the sun gets more grip on it. and when it comes closer to the sun it would start to move faster and faster again due to the suns gravitational force. and by the time a planet would have come that close to a sun it wouldn't be able to snap out that accelerating speed to turn back in a normal orbit. instead it will keep building speed and get closer to the sun until it crashes.
a little bit like a vortex in your sink. drop something light on the side of it. and as soon it gets taken by the vortex (suns gravitational force) then there is no way out for it and it wont be spinning around it forever either. it gets pulled inside. (crashing into the sun)
the "B" in Kepler 78B stands for the 2nd planet they found around kepler 78. it's a system they use to name the planets found by kepler. =)
This is incorrect, The Kepler 78A is the star. as far as i know this is always the case with B being the first they find. Here is a star-planet system that shows this.
Found a story explaining why it couldn't have formed where it did.
When Kepler-78, which is located around 400 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus, was in the early stages of stellar development it would have been much larger than it is now. When astronomers calculated how big the young star would have been, Kepler-78b would be orbiting inside the star. âIt couldnât have formed in place because you canât form a planet inside a star,â
the "B" in Kepler 78B stands for the 2nd planet they found around Kepler 78. it's a system they use to name the planets found by Kepler. =)
Another example of this is that of This star has a few planets. With A not normally used the star would be A with the following planets named not by distance but their discovery. With the smallest one we have observed (smaller than mercury, similar in size to the moon).
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?
Unless you're an astrophysicist, or someone trained in a related field, I don't see how this actually is even remotely relevant to my quip about how we aren't trained in the field, which would mean that we don't understand how it doesn't fit the theory. We might be very well read in a subject, but that doesn't mean we would comprehend the problem on the level that actual experts in the field do.
Unless you're an astrophysicist, or someone trained in a related field, I don't see how this actually is even remotely relevant to my quip about how we aren't trained in the field, which would mean that we don't understand how it doesn't fit the theory. We might be very well read in a subject, but that doesn't mean we would comprehend the problem on the level that actual experts in the field do.
I will state i am not by any means an Astrophysicist but i have a fundamental of knowledge of the universe. Physics is something i always excelled at in school and later college. After which everything that is proposed as a theory or a certain standard. I don't take their word for it, Instead i use the knowledge we have required on how everything works. Apply that to what is subjected.
On the note of discoveries like this being apparently unable to fit in to most theory's. There has been a number of similar events that redefine parameters.
We has a species have gone from knowing relatively just the solar system from around 1000's of years to now where we have uncovered so much is truly astonishing. Over the last 100 years we have almost completely full understanding of the universe. With 2 of the biggest issue being that how gravity essentially works at a subatomic level. With dimensions that could possibly exist which gravitons appear to go which could explain the weakness in the force in comparison to the other 3. If these higher dimensions are confirmed it will open up alot more knowledge for us to obtain. With the recent confirmation of the Higgs Boson being observed. There is alot of potential to solving an underlying problem.
Over the last 100 years we have almost completely full understanding of the universe.
This is likely over-confident. We may have a good understanding of the broad, basic astronomical issues. But there are still many huge issues left like dark matter and dark energy (stuff we assume has to be there in order to explain our otherwise faulty models, but which we cannot even see/trace/substantiate) for example. Not long ago we didn't even know how old our own planet was. And there are likely more issues we haven't realised yet, lurking somewhere ready to turn our models upside down...
Though this just makes it even more probable that we simply do not possess the knowledge to explain the Kepler 78B anomaly yet, and that there is nothing supernatural behind it.
I will state i am not by any means an Astrophysicist but i have a fundamental of knowledge of the universe. Physics is something i always excelled at in school and later college. After which everything that is proposed as a theory or a certain standard. I don't take their word for it, Instead i use the knowledge we have required on how everything works. Apply that to what is subjected.
On the note of discoveries like this being apparently unable to fit in to most theory's. There has been a number of similar events that redefine parameters.
We has a species have gone from knowing relatively just the solar system from around 1000's of years to now where we have uncovered so much is truly astonishing. Over the last 100 years we have almost completely full understanding of the universe. With 2 of the biggest issue being that how gravity essentially works at a subatomic level. With dimensions that could possibly exist which gravitons appear to go which could explain the weakness in the force in comparison to the other 3. If these higher dimensions are confirmed it will open up alot more knowledge for us to obtain. With the recent confirmation of the Higgs Boson being observed. There is alot of potential to solving an underlying problem.
This is far far too optimistic and over-confident as Hahiha has said. We are extremely far from truly understanding the universe and it's laws. We can't even observe much of it, much less break it down into researchable chunks.
It is one thing to be an enthusiast, but ultimately, an amateur, compared to one who has been tutored in the necessary field. Therefore, I do not think it unfair or partisan to state that we do not fully comprehend the subject on the level as an expert will.
Oh Hahiha....Some would say that we don't even know how old our planet/flat disc is....
This is likely over-confident. We may have a good understanding of the broad, basic astronomical issues. But there are still many huge issues left like dark matter and dark energy (stuff we assume has to be there in order to explain our otherwise faulty models, but which we cannot even see/trace/substantiate) for example. Not long ago we didn't even know how old our own planet was. And there are likely more issues we haven't realised yet, lurking somewhere ready to turn our models upside down...
Though this just makes it even more probable that we simply do not possess the knowledge to explain the Kepler 78B anomaly yet, and that there is nothing supernatural behind it.
Be it a little presumptuous or not. Observing and gathering knowledge is always something we will seek. Being positive towards issues and having the fun of acquiring newly found basis is key to our nature.
Yes dark matter and dark energy is a mystery, Once/if we fully understand how gravity acts on a sub-atomic whereas it goes in higher dimensions that we can't detect or not. Then if proven the understanding of dark matter and dark energy should be more simple.
This is far far too optimistic and over-confident as Hahiha has said. We are extremely far from truly understanding the universe and it's laws. We can't even observe much of it, much less break it down into researchable chunks.
It is one thing to be an enthusiast, but ultimately, an amateur, compared to one who has been tutored in the necessary field. Therefore, I do not think it unfair or partisan to state that we do not fully comprehend the subject on the level as an expert will.
I sense your a very negative person. It also seems regardless of anyone's thought or reasoning behind this, it is dismissed by you instantly. It is frivolous of why you are even in this discussion and only accept the findings of so called experts when they even themselves disagree on alot of things. Is it physiologically impossible for someone not with the required credentials to think like others? We all have a brain and because someone may not be designated as the one with the answers by some people, the mind of others are silenced?
This is not anything personal, I just want to try understand your view point on this. The exploration and observation of the universe is a wondrous thing, it is to be expected that we exaggerate details. I know how limited our understanding is. Getting hyped-up and being positive adds to our experiences. and encourage anticipation of when if we unfold the mysteries.
Is it physiologically impossible for someone not with the required credentials to think like others?
The point here (one with which I agree) isn't a general point about our ability to think and reason about these sorts of things. Instead, it is simply a matter of fact that, without a proper understanding of planetary formation and the physics involved in stable orbital paths, we can't give a satisfying answer to why Kepler 78B is where it is.
From my point of view, it's not ridiculous to think that the planet could have been dislodged from a different orbit and then stabilised in its current orbit (obviously over billions of years). But this notion seems preposterous to the top experts in this field. When there is disagreement of this sort, it's reasonable to (and I would suggest irrational not to): 1) Defer to the experts' judgements with respect to this particular fact, and 2) Grant that what we can conceive of or find plausible is based on some misunderstandings.
You're right that experts often disagree about particular matters of fact, but this isn't an conversation with which we can even hope to contribute.
Instead, we should grant the premise that there is no known explanation for why this planet is there. Then we can have a reasonable and somewhat well-informed discussion about the possible implications of this premise.
I agree that we should have an overall positive outlook about our abilities to engage with and understand even complex subject matters. But to think that we could contribute to the conversation of why this particular event obtained is overly ambitious.
