ForumGarden

A while back the news was out. We found an Earth-like planet that had the best chance, ever, of sustaining life similar to life on Earth.

Well, it was 3 times bigger than Earth, and the star was significantly smaller than our Sun, but the orbit was in a range that would sustain life. How exciting.

But now, we find that this amazing planet, probably does not even exist.



One of the Most Earthlike Planets Ever Found May Not Exist

LarsMac;1459245 wrote: A while back the news was out. We found an Earth-like planet that had the best chance, ever, of sustaining life similar to life on Earth.

Well, it was 3 times bigger than Earth, and the star was significantly smaller than our Sun, but the orbit was in a range that would sustain life. How exciting.

But now, we find that this amazing planet, probably does not even exist.



One of the Most Earthlike Planets Ever Found May Not Exist


Oh, I remember this one now! I was a skeptic about it right from the beginning though; because just being in a "habitable zone" does not necessary equal having life! It's worth noting that there are some astrophysicists who are skeptics on how abundant our Universe is with life (Donald Brownlee for one) who note that a lot of highly improbable events occurred in the formation of our Solar System that were essential for us to be here today. In this instance, one of the planets has to have accomplished more than being within its star's habitable zone (sustaining liquid water), since the habitable zone is at a distance where the rock planets are and thus contain few of the lighter elements like hydrogen and oxygen for example. The theory about our beginnings is that our Earth was bombarded constantly during the early Hadean Era by comets bearing an abundance of gases...much of which went towards forming the oceans. Without that bombardment, we would have been as dry as Mercury and Venus! But, none of the news stories four years ago about Gliese 581 ever mentioned this. And I would suspect that at least part of the reason was they didn't want to include anything that would detract from their story of a large planet orbiting closely with a dim red star as a candidate for extraterrestrial life!

It seems part of the problem is that the cutbacks in real news journalism have led to major news organizations like CNN dropping the specialty of science journalism entirely. So, when they do cover a science story, it's just copied from some other source and checked by some editor who knows nothing. Previously, the science journalist could have at least presented the story in proper context...and context has flown out the window, as it has in most news coverage!

Since, there will inevitably be more "goldilocks planet" stories coming at us in the future, we need to keep in mind that, at a time when budget cuts are threatening to shut down most space exploration entirely, the astronomers and astrophysicists have a strong motivator to veer into the sensational and hype every new discovery, rather than apply their previous boring cautious and reserved approach to reporting on their findings. I fear that the era of being able to depend on expert consensus in many scientific fields may be passing us by, as space, technology, medicine, environment etc., are all scientific fields that are becoming more and more beholden to private and corporate donors, as they lose public funding.

recovering conservative;1459279 wrote: Oh, I remember this one now! I was a skeptic about it right from the beginning though; because just being in a "habitable zone" does not necessary equal having life! It's worth noting that there are some astrophysicists who are skeptics on how abundant our Universe is with life (Donald Brownlee for one) who note that a lot of highly improbable events occurred in the formation of our Solar System that were essential for us to be here today. In this instance, one of the planets has to have accomplished more than being within its star's habitable zone (sustaining liquid water), since the habitable zone is at a distance where the rock planets are and thus contain few of the lighter elements like hydrogen and oxygen for example. The theory about our beginnings is that our Earth was bombarded constantly during the early Hadean Era by comets bearing an abundance of gases...much of which went towards forming the oceans. Without that bombardment, we would have been as dry as Mercury and Venus! But, none of the news stories four years ago about Gliese 581 ever mentioned this. And I would suspect that at least part of the reason was they didn't want to include anything that would detract from their story of a large planet orbiting closely with a dim red star as a candidate for extraterrestrial life!

It seems part of the problem is that the cutbacks in real news journalism have led to major news organizations like CNN dropping the specialty of science journalism entirely. So, when they do cover a science story, it's just copied from some other source and checked by some editor who knows nothing. Previously, the science journalist could have at least presented the story in proper context...and context has flown out the window, as it has in most news coverage!

Since, there will inevitably be more "goldilocks planet" stories coming at us in the future, we need to keep in mind that, at a time when budget cuts are threatening to shut down most space exploration entirely, the astronomers and astrophysicists have a strong motivator to veer into the sensational and hype every new discovery, rather than apply their previous boring cautious and reserved approach to reporting on their findings. I fear that the era of being able to depend on expert consensus in many scientific fields may be passing us by, as space, technology, medicine, environment etc., are all scientific fields that are becoming more and more beholden to private and corporate donors, as they lose public funding.


Well there are plenty of fake stories which get popular in media and create wrong atmosphere..Some sort of law must be made in order to check these stories..

MikelBrum;1464338 wrote: Well there are plenty of fake stories which get popular in media and create wrong atmosphere..Some sort of law must be made in order to check these stories..
Last thing we need is more laws.

People just need to consider the source, and the intent of the article.

LarsMac;1464340 wrote: Last thing we need is more laws.

People just need to consider the source, and the intent of the article.
That is the very nature of science. Don't forget the 'Monkey Trials' when they tried to enforce laws to stop the teaching of new, scientific laws, not yet acknowledged by the masses.

FourPart;1464346 wrote: That is the very nature of science. Don't forget the 'Monkey Trials' when they tried to enforce laws to stop the teaching of new, scientific laws, not yet acknowledged by the masses.


well, now days, there are just too many budding journalists, anxious to get a bi-line, so as soon as someone talks about something they may have found, it is in the news, before it is actually found, or in the case of the OP, not found.

LarsMac;1464340 wrote: Last thing we need is more laws.


ditto

LarsMac;1464340 wrote: People just need to consider the source, and the intent of the article.


For me the first thing is the "smell test".

What is the "source"?

Often on this site posters rag on FOX NEWS

FOX NEWS like MSNBC is a source of news.

Both are not much unlike Drudge Report

Unless there is deliberate manuplation only difference is to the consumer who, for whatever reason prefers one over the other.

So really, what is the source?

tude dog;1464362 wrote: ditto



For me the first thing is the "smell test".

What is the "source"?

Often on this site posters rag on FOX NEWS

FOX NEWS like MSNBC is a source of news.

Both are not much unlike Drudge Report

Unless there is deliberate manuplation only difference is to the consumer who, for whatever reason prefers one over the other.

So really, what is the source?


Firstly, the source is seldom the particular agency, like Fox, or MSNBC, or the like. Those are distributors, like Wal-Mart, or Target, and the like.

In the case of the planet. several publishers took the bait. The National Geographic and Scientific American published the article, based on findings from a team of astronomers who reported behavior of a star indicating the possibility of a planet being there. Rather than wait for confirmation, an eager reporter ran with the story, and got his bi-line in two prestigious publications. Their editors ran with the article, without following due diligence. a few days later, the astronomers said, "Oops, never mind."

This happens a lot. you can't really blame the publishers, can you. Well, you can, but really, at this point you just need to keep a lot of salt handy to swallow all the stuff coming down the pike.

Wait for the actual scientific journals to publish the data, and THEN read about it.

Or, as with elsewhere in this forum, Creationist Ministry websites constantly being cited as reliable, incontrovertible "Scientific Fact".