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)
your right. but the stars are mostly called (vocally) without the letter.
Yes i am aware, they are only named by letter if it is a binary or greater system. So as not to confuse people with naming Kepler78 is the same as Kepler78A. While in a Single star system the planets naming starts at B and not A. Although your statement does seem reasonable but is not true :/
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.
Thanks for clarifying the point they where getting at.
From my point of view, it's not ridiculous to think that the planet could have been dislodged from a different orbit and then stabilized in its current orbit (obviously over billions of years).
This is similar to what think caused the planet's strange orbit to be disturbed in it's original formation orbit, If indeed this planet did form from the star. It might even be from another strange sounding event. The distance from the surface of the star is about 40 time closer than mercury orbits between 29m-40m miles. So i work this out to be around 1m miles. This distance if i was to put to in terms that mean something to me.
Would be suitable if that star is a planet and the planet a moon. I know they are not but the distance between them is similar to some planet-moon systems. So one thing i would like use a hypothesis. This is that the object Kepler78b would have been a moon of an Ex-planet. With the Ex-planet to have crashed into star. The Object Kepler78b could of either survived as it might of been captured from the Ex-planet by the star.
Another variant to this could be. Due to some gravitational event where celestial bodies get ripped apart from the Roche limit, forming a ring. With another body acting on this ring put the fragments out far enough to have formed this planet.
I am not currently aware on the life-cycle of the Kepler78 Star. It has appeared to shrunk I am unaware of as to why? One thing that jumps to my mind is. A close approach of a gravitationally strong body (Probably a star) Might have knocked any planets that did exist out of orbit and likely to death inside Kepler78. With the body acting on these some of the mass of Kepler was lost.
and yet plausible. (with luck i guess) some good discoveries, ideas and inventions are found/thought of/done by ordinary people like me and you.
I know these might sound bizarre but imagination is a creative tool. Imagination is more important than knowledge. -Albert Einstein
Keep us using our minds until the experts workout the true fate of this occurrence.
I am not currently aware on the life-cycle of the Kepler78 Star. It has appeared to shrunk I am unaware of as to why?
This is just another instance of the general point others were making. All stars 'shrink' in this way between the time of their formation and that of the planets in their system. But without a deep and rich understanding of astronomy, how are we to know that? (I only do from taking an astrophysics class as an undergraduate, which was years ago.) All of this just points again to the fact that we're wasting our time with meaningless conjecture.
No I don't understand how it's more justifiable that an alien race did it.
You'd be right to worry if the claim was that alien intervention was more justifiable than divine intervention. But it's not a claim about justification, and the claim is that the suggestions are doing (roughly) the same work.
The question of why Kepler 78 is at its current location is quite vague, so confusion is expected. But a smart alec response would be 'Oh, because so-and-so put it there'. What we really want to know is what mechanisms brought it there. So saying that it's due to God or aliens or a giant sandworm isn't really answering the question we want to know.
So maybe we could say that God 'magicked' it over there or that an alien race used some sort of interstellar tow truck. But now our explanations are a bit silly and fall well without the ambit of what would be considered a satisfactory answer to the question. So in the relevant sense, those answers are on the same level.
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.
I am realistic and pessimistic in equal measure. Again, I do not deem it unjust or unwarranted to reject and put down theories and speculation that have no concrete grounding. It is paramount to be inquisitive about new discoveries and our natural surroundings, but adding a dose of reality to the mix needs to be done, lest the whole issue spirals away.
And if you read it more carefully, nothing I said explicitly rejects the group speculation wholly, but rather, adds caution to it.
This is just another instance of the general point others were making. All stars 'shrink' in this way between the time of their formation and that of the planets in their system. But without a deep and rich understanding of astronomy, how are we to know that? (I only do from taking an astrophysics class as an undergraduate, which was years ago.) All of this just points again to the fact that we're wasting our time with meaningless conjecture.
I haven't found any information on this star except that it is about 600LY away. I know it is less massive than our sun. The thing that i needed was how old this was. To know what stages it would of went through. It just lack of the material was needed to make the known calculations.
Since there are so many fields in the study of space, it is almost unfathomable to know every detail about everything. Threads like this should be for discussion and expanding each others knowledge on it. I am not trying to solve this i am merely posing random scenarios using my imagination. Currently there will be people that under maybe the star or the planet body knowledge better than me and it is unlikely i will reach a better conclusion first. Who cares though? I am not publishing this to some website for it to be documented. It seems like any thought discussion is off the table as people take things to seriously for some reason.
Although your statement does seem reasonable but is not true :/
yes i already stated myself corrected. just pointed out where my mistake was. =) i was not so much looking for A. but i knew C D E. making a wrong assumption. got it corrected now.
Another planet discovered that defies planetary formation theories
Interesting. Though if I understand the article right, the formation theories themselves may not be challenged if we find the reason why this new planet got so big.
And Awww, 13million is so young! Good example of how our universe is still in motion as always.
