Comment PTHF Re: If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin....

Story

NASA discover Earth's twin 1,400 light-years away

Preview

If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin.... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-09-28 19:00 (#NTY2)

...I'd be rich. Usually it is somemisinterpretation by a clueless journalist.

Re: If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin.... (Score: 2, Informative)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-28 19:47 (#NV2V)

From WP: "It is the first potentially rocky super-Earth planet discovered orbiting within the habitable zone of a star very similar to the Sun."

Re: If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin.... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-09-30 15:23 (#P1P0)

http://io9.com/could-life-have-emerged-on-earths-near-twin-1719964421

Yes, super-Earth.... or mini-Neptune. Above link gives a few more details.

Re: If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin.... (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-10-01 13:17 (#P4Y4)

Not a great read... Over and over they speculate about this theory or that, then walk it back with "but that’s assuming" xyz...

See them keep repeat that pattern reminded me of something:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXOebOaBFV4

Re: If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin.... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-10-07 17:20 (#PRWQ)

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. Not a great read? Perhaps. Not everybody is a good writer. But you make it sound as if it has no arguments at all. Actually most of the 'repetitions' in this article are quotations of several scientists of different fields. And practically all agree, that 'twin Earth' is not very likely. Maybe mini-Neptune, or huge-Venus. This does not necessarily rule out life, but probably even the Mars is more 'twin Earth' than this planet.

Re: If I get 1 Euro for each time they announce an Earth's twin.... (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-10-08 05:59 (#PTHF)

But you make it sound as if it has no arguments at all.
It has lots of speculation, based on no available information, and several paradoxically-contradictory theories. That is no argument. Hence my youtube link.

"Astronomers aren’t completely sure it’s a terrestrial planet" is the worst that can be said. Stretching that to claim it's a "mini-Neptune" is baseless, and also misleading. It's only a slim "possibility that it is actually a small gas planet".
And practically all agree, that 'twin Earth' is not very likely.
"It is the first potentially rocky super-Earth planet discovered orbiting within the habitable zone of a star very similar to the Sun." Nasa's science chief John Grunsfeld called the new world "Earth 2.0" and the "closest so far" to our home. And even the io9 article you cited, calls it "Earth's Near Twin" right in the title...

Here's a list of just a few of the more straight-forward self-contradictions found in the article:
"Models of what might happen on this planet indicates that it could be on the verge of experiencing a runaway greenhouse gas effect like that on Venus." ... Jenkins did add, however, that there’s no guarantee Kepler 542b has experienced, or will ever experience, a runaway greenhouse gas process.

a possible “water world”, but that’s assuming it even has water

a smaller mass core, between 0.5 and 1.5 times the mass of the Earth ... holds on to far less of the lighter gases, making it much more likely to develop an atmosphere suitable for life.* / exoplanets with masses two- to three-times that of Earth could give rise to “superhabitability” — a perfect storm of life-friendly factors that could make an exoplanet even more habitable than our own.

assuming that it is, in fact, habitable, it is possible that life has had significantly more time to evolve there

We’re not even sure if it’s rocky, let alone certain what its atmospheric and chemical composition is like.
* Not on-page, a linked-to io9 explanation of the theory.

History

2015-10-08 05:59
But you make it sound as if it has no arguments at all.
It has lots of speculation, based on no available information, and several paradoxically-contradictory theories. That is no argument. Hence my youtube link.

"Astronomers aren’t completely sure it’s a terrestrial planet" is the worst that can be said. Stretching that to claim it's a "mini-Neptune" is baseless, and also misleading. It's only a slim "possibility that it is actually a small gas planet".
And practically all agree, that 'twin Earth' is not very likely.
"It is the first potentially rocky super-Earth planet discovered orbiting within the habitable zone of a star very similar to the Sun." And even the io9 article you cited, calls it "Earth's Near Twin" right in the title...

Here's a list of just a few of the more straight-forward self-contradictions found in the article:
“'"Models of what might happen on this planet indicates that it could be on the verge of experiencing a runaway greenhouse gas effect like that on Venus.'" [...] Jenkins did add, however, that there’s no guarantee Kepler 542b has experienced, or will ever experience, a runaway greenhouse gas process."

a possible “water world”, but that’s assuming it even has water

a smaller mass core, between 0.5 and 1.5 times the mass of the Earth ... holds on to far less of the lighter gases, making it much more likely to develop an atmosphere suitable for life.* / exoplanets with masses two- to three-times that of Earth could give rise to “superhabitability” — a perfect storm of life-friendly factors that could make an exoplanet even more habitable than our own.

assuming that it is, in fact, habitable, it is possible that life has had significantly more time to evolve there

We’re not even sure if it’s rocky, let alone certain what its atmospheric and chemical composition is like.
* Not on-page, a linked-to io9 explanation of the theory.
2015-10-08 06:02
But you make it sound as if it has no arguments at all.
It has lots of speculation, based on no available information, and several paradoxically-contradictory theories. That is no argument. Hence my youtube link.

"Astronomers aren’t completely sure it’s a terrestrial planet" is the worst that can be said. Stretching that to claim it's a "mini-Neptune" is baseless, and also misleading. It's only a slim "possibility that it is actually a small gas planet".
And practically all agree, that 'twin Earth' is not very likely.
"It is the first potentially rocky super-Earth planet discovered orbiting within the habitable zone of a star very similar to the Sun." Nasa's science chief John Grunsfeld called the new world "Earth 2.0" and the "closest so far" to our home. And even the io9 article you cited, calls it "Earth's Near Twin" right in the title...

Here's a list of just a few of the more straight-forward self-contradictions found in the article:
"Models of what might happen on this planet indicates that it could be on the verge of experiencing a runaway greenhouse gas effect like that on Venus." ... Jenkins did add, however, that there’s no guarantee Kepler 542b has experienced, or will ever experience, a runaway greenhouse gas process.

a possible “water world”, but that’s assuming it even has water

a smaller mass core, between 0.5 and 1.5 times the mass of the Earth ... holds on to far less of the lighter gases, making it much more likely to develop an atmosphere suitable for life.* / exoplanets with masses two- to three-times that of Earth could give rise to “superhabitability” — a perfect storm of life-friendly factors that could make an exoplanet even more habitable than our own.

assuming that it is, in fact, habitable, it is possible that life has had significantly more time to evolve there

We’re not even sure if it’s rocky, let alone certain what its atmospheric and chemical composition is like.
* Not on-page, a linked-to io9 explanation of the theory.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk