Posted Jun 16, 2008 at 10:56AM by Isaac C.
Listed in:
Astronomy,
Celestial Bodies
Tags:
Mars,
galaxy
Ó
|
 Five new super-Earths have been located in solar systems far, far away. What's so super about them you ask? Well, the biggest of them is 30 times huger than our own planet.These planets were found by the High-Accuracy Radial-Velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS), a device that has found 45 super-Earths since 2004. The goal of its search is to find a planet similar to our own, hopefully to duplicate the conditions that gave life to Earth. Who knows? Maybe humans can even migrate to it once we find it (fat chance of that happening in the near future since we haven't even managed to send a team to Mars yet). This is all fruitless speculation anyway, since we haven't yet found any habitable planets for us. The super-Earths found are far too massive, and far too inhospitable. Because of their rapid orbit around their respective suns (one of them has a complete revolution in four days, whereas we take 365), they are believed to be nothing more than balls of hot gas. The search for a not-Super-Earth continues. Perhaps when we have developed Faster Than Light technology, and we have created a cybernetic race we have affectionately named Cylons, and after said race tries to eradicate our own and we are forced to leave to look for another maybe-mythical Earth, maybe then. |
|
|
[Via Google]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
19 Comments
|
 |
by Advertising - |
|
 
|
|
by SonnySoul - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» Coolio
Wow... 30 times the size of Earth. Imagine finding one that big, but identical to Earth in all other ways..! And what about having all four seasons over 4 days! That would be crazy!
Anywho, 'fat chance of that happening in the near future since we haven't even managed to send a team to Mars yet'? Mate, we haven't even been to the Moon yet..! For those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about, do some research! You'll find it quite interesting.
Wow... 30 times the size of Earth. Imagine finding one that big, but identical to Earth in all other ways..! And what about having all four seasons over 4 days! That would be crazy!
Anywho, 'fat chance of that happening in the near future since we haven't even managed to send a team to Mars yet'? Mate, we haven't even been to the Moon yet..! For those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about, do some research! You'll find it quite interesting.
|
Re: Gino D. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» Moon?
"Mate, we haven't even been to the Moon yet..! For those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about, do some research! You'll find it quite interesting."
Hmm. I think I know what you're talking about. Is this the whole flapping flag and rock shadows and all? I think I saw some documentary about is some time ago.
*shrug*
I thought that was just a conspiracy theory. I'd like to believe we really *have* landed on the moon, despite the "conflicting evidence." Because... how else would we have gotten the cheese, Grommit?! ROFL! I kid, I kid. :p
Oh. And Laura Roslin for president! ^_^V
"Mate, we haven't even been to the Moon yet..! For those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about, do some research! You'll find it quite interesting."
Hmm. I think I know what you're talking about. Is this the whole flapping flag and rock shadows and all? I think I saw some documentary about is some time ago.
*shrug*
I thought that was just a conspiracy theory. I'd like to believe we really *have* landed on the moon, despite the "conflicting evidence." Because... how else would we have gotten the cheese, Grommit?! ROFL! I kid, I kid. :p
Oh. And Laura Roslin for president! ^_^V
|
Re: ultimax - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» I KNEW IT!
Boot up the FTL, Pippin, we're going to find Earth.
Boot up the FTL, Pippin, we're going to find Earth.
|
Re: ultimax - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» Damn
Sorry, not Pippin... I meant Adama. What the hell am I thinking...
Sorry, not Pippin... I meant Adama. What the hell am I thinking...
|
Re: SonnySoul - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» Moon
Yeah Gino, that's the one.
A number of things suggest the whole moon landing was a fake...
Flapping flag, images overlapping crosshairs on photos, items fully lit in shadows, multiple direction shadows, radiation, identical locations when NASA say they were a few miles apart etc.
I only found out about this stuff about two years ago, but it is very intriguing.
Think about it... all of the supposed manned moon landings took place within three years, from 1969 to 1972. Why on Earth (no pun intended) has there not been a manned moon landing in the last 36 years..?
Area 51 was probably the location where all of the so-called lunar footage was recorded.
Also, the Russians were ahead of the Americans in the space race until that point, and they still haven't landed on the moon. It's no coincidence, it was a hoax, and people back in those days were more likely to fall for it.
If you ever dreamt of being the FIRST man on the moon, then keep your head up, it's still a possibility..! He he!
Yeah Gino, that's the one.
A number of things suggest the whole moon landing was a fake...
Flapping flag, images overlapping crosshairs on photos, items fully lit in shadows, multiple direction shadows, radiation, identical locations when NASA say they were a few miles apart etc.
I only found out about this stuff about two years ago, but it is very intriguing.
Think about it... all of the supposed manned moon landings took place within three years, from 1969 to 1972. Why on Earth (no pun intended) has there not been a manned moon landing in the last 36 years..?
Area 51 was probably the location where all of the so-called lunar footage was recorded.
Also, the Russians were ahead of the Americans in the space race until that point, and they still haven't landed on the moon. It's no coincidence, it was a hoax, and people back in those days were more likely to fall for it.
If you ever dreamt of being the FIRST man on the moon, then keep your head up, it's still a possibility..! He he!
|
Re: WiiCool - 2008-06-17 |
|
|
» the moon
We have been on the moon...it's pretty much common sense... ask anyone who knew what was going on 1969 and you'll know we went to the moon. If we didn't go to the moon then how would we mysteriously have moon rocks and dust in museums??? What about those billions of dollars that Nasa spent to go...
We have been on the moon...it's pretty much common sense... ask anyone who knew what was going on 1969 and you'll know we went to the moon. If we didn't go to the moon then how would we mysteriously have moon rocks and dust in museums??? What about those billions of dollars that Nasa spent to go...
|
Re: WiiCool - 2008-06-17 |
|
|
» more info
some little tidbits about the moon landing: _
_
the waving flag: if you put a flag underwater, and started moving it around to get it in the ground, wouldn't it be wavy? In space and on the moon the same thing applies... while you're getting a flag in the ground (for anyone who has never done this) you have to twist it a lot and push it in. With very low gravity the fabric might just sway around as if there were wind (you'd be using a lot of force, so I'm not surprised). . .
Brightness: Of course the moon is bright! imagine Earth, but no clouds, no air, no nothing. Just grayish-white all over. That's the moon. The astronauts, also in white, would dazzle in the extreme sunlight. ;
. Overall, just use common sense like I said before. In speculation over lighting, shadows, etc, people who believe in conspiracy theories forget common sense. Of the twelve astronauts that went, nine are still alive. Not only can you ask them about it, you can also see what they brought back. If you don't believe me google "moon rocks" or just go to badastronomy.com.
Hopefully in doing this common sense will kick in.
some little tidbits about the moon landing: _
_
the waving flag: if you put a flag underwater, and started moving it around to get it in the ground, wouldn't it be wavy? In space and on the moon the same thing applies... while you're getting a flag in the ground (for anyone who has never done this) you have to twist it a lot and push it in. With very low gravity the fabric might just sway around as if there were wind (you'd be using a lot of force, so I'm not surprised). . .
Brightness: Of course the moon is bright! imagine Earth, but no clouds, no air, no nothing. Just grayish-white all over. That's the moon. The astronauts, also in white, would dazzle in the extreme sunlight. ;
. Overall, just use common sense like I said before. In speculation over lighting, shadows, etc, people who believe in conspiracy theories forget common sense. Of the twelve astronauts that went, nine are still alive. Not only can you ask them about it, you can also see what they brought back. If you don't believe me google "moon rocks" or just go to badastronomy.com.
Hopefully in doing this common sense will kick in.
|
Re: SonnySoul - 2008-06-18 |
|
|
» WiiCool, use your common sense...
You're talking about the moon being bright but you're not actually explaining anything.
Think about this, because there is no atmosphere on the moon, shadows should be completely dark, pitch black. Look at some of the photos of the astronauts on the moon. Their shadows on the ground are pitch black, as they should be, but you can still clearly see the astronauts in full detail even though the light source is behind them. Common sense says this just isn't right.
Also, a flag will wave in water, as there is matter there to move it. As the moon has no atmosphere, there is no matter above the ground to move the flag. Now what you're saying about the flag waving with the movement from the astronaut makes sense, but how do you explain the flag waving as it would on a windy day (waving a lot, stopping, then waving some more) when there is nobody touching it?
You're saying it's all common sense, but if it's so simple, explain how the astronauts survived the radiation belt, explain why images are overlapping the crosshairs on the photos, explain why on some photos one astronaut's shadow is in one direction, whilst the other%u2019s is at a different angle, explain why locations apparently a few miles apart are identical, explain why the most powerful telescopes on Earth have not seen the lunar rover or the flag on the moon, and explain why nobody has been to the moon since 1972.
If you can explain that, then I'll admit I have very little common sense, but until you can do that, don't tell us to use our common sense.
Don't let your pride cloud your judgement, use your common sense, the whole thing was faked.
You're talking about the moon being bright but you're not actually explaining anything.
Think about this, because there is no atmosphere on the moon, shadows should be completely dark, pitch black. Look at some of the photos of the astronauts on the moon. Their shadows on the ground are pitch black, as they should be, but you can still clearly see the astronauts in full detail even though the light source is behind them. Common sense says this just isn't right.
Also, a flag will wave in water, as there is matter there to move it. As the moon has no atmosphere, there is no matter above the ground to move the flag. Now what you're saying about the flag waving with the movement from the astronaut makes sense, but how do you explain the flag waving as it would on a windy day (waving a lot, stopping, then waving some more) when there is nobody touching it?
You're saying it's all common sense, but if it's so simple, explain how the astronauts survived the radiation belt, explain why images are overlapping the crosshairs on the photos, explain why on some photos one astronaut's shadow is in one direction, whilst the other%u2019s is at a different angle, explain why locations apparently a few miles apart are identical, explain why the most powerful telescopes on Earth have not seen the lunar rover or the flag on the moon, and explain why nobody has been to the moon since 1972.
If you can explain that, then I'll admit I have very little common sense, but until you can do that, don't tell us to use our common sense.
Don't let your pride cloud your judgement, use your common sense, the whole thing was faked.
|
Re: WiiCool - 2008-06-18 |
|
|
» I see your point...
I'm not at all conceding to a faked lunar landing. I see the indirect point you made: it takes a little more than common sense to figure out all the "faked" things about the lunar landings.
Here are some answers:
1. The Flag: I gave you the wrong explanation earlier about the flag. The truth is, the Apollo astronauts left it like that. The flag in the picture you're referring to is not waving. I realize it looks like it, and after watching that crack-pot documentary about how we didn't land on the moon, I almost believed them. Then I referred to the NASA site. I found out that the flag actually has two poles. When I found that out, I realized, "of course NASA would know there was no breeze on the moon and set the flag up like that!" You see, the horizontal pole was there to support the weight of the flag (so it wouldn't just flop in a photo). Now that's all well, but then I thought, "why was the flag waving?" Like I said earlier, it wasn't. After reading a little more on there website, I found out that they at first had problems in extending that horizontal (not the vertical one that sticks out the ground) pole to make the flag taught, but then when they found the problem, they preferred the first look. The first one made it look as if there were wind. In fact, here's a quote from their website: "They designed a flagpole with a horizontal bar allowing the flag to 'fly' without the benefit of wind to overcome the effects of the moon's lack of an atmosphere." (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm)
I wish I had all the time (and will ) in the world to give you the answers to the questions you asked, but I don't. I gave you one example. Other than that, just go to this website: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
In case you doubt my source, this is a rebuttal of Fox's moonlanding hoax special (the one that aired 2001) by Jim Scotti, a Planetary Scientist from the University of Arizona ( a real scientist). Just go to this website; it lists all the claims from that special and addresses them.
I'm sorry for making it seem like you didn't have common sense. That's not where I was getting at. I've always been annoyed about the Fox moonlanding hoax special because I believed it until speaking with a relative who works for NASA.
Believe me, the things you brought up are the strongest arguments against the Apollo missions. It's pretty sad to see them proved wrong so easily...that just goes to show you can't believe what you see on TV.
I hope this helped ^_^ Sonnysoul.
P.S. You never said anything at all about moon rocks... I mean no one scientist in the world who has examined a moon rock has ever denied their source of origin. Not only what we brought from the moon confirms our landing there, but also what we left there. Lasor reflectors left on the moon on 1969 still function to this day to provide exact coordinates of Earth's position in the solar system. So instead of answering your questions about our telescopes seeing the flag or rover on the moon, I found this. Surely lasor reflectors wouldn't appear out of nowhere to help us here on Earth coincidentally since 1969...
The last thing you said didn't really bother me. Why do we need to go back to the moon? I think NASA was caught up in putting money elsewhere-such as studying other planets, some even outside of our universe. If I had to make the decision, I wouldn't spend anymore money on the moon until I could somehow make some permanent building there +/.
Just lookup the websites I gave you...I have a headache from reading so much...
Here is the website again: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
I'm not at all conceding to a faked lunar landing. I see the indirect point you made: it takes a little more than common sense to figure out all the "faked" things about the lunar landings.
Here are some answers:
1. The Flag: I gave you the wrong explanation earlier about the flag. The truth is, the Apollo astronauts left it like that. The flag in the picture you're referring to is not waving. I realize it looks like it, and after watching that crack-pot documentary about how we didn't land on the moon, I almost believed them. Then I referred to the NASA site. I found out that the flag actually has two poles. When I found that out, I realized, "of course NASA would know there was no breeze on the moon and set the flag up like that!" You see, the horizontal pole was there to support the weight of the flag (so it wouldn't just flop in a photo). Now that's all well, but then I thought, "why was the flag waving?" Like I said earlier, it wasn't. After reading a little more on there website, I found out that they at first had problems in extending that horizontal (not the vertical one that sticks out the ground) pole to make the flag taught, but then when they found the problem, they preferred the first look. The first one made it look as if there were wind. In fact, here's a quote from their website: "They designed a flagpole with a horizontal bar allowing the flag to 'fly' without the benefit of wind to overcome the effects of the moon's lack of an atmosphere." (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm)
I wish I had all the time (and will ) in the world to give you the answers to the questions you asked, but I don't. I gave you one example. Other than that, just go to this website: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
In case you doubt my source, this is a rebuttal of Fox's moonlanding hoax special (the one that aired 2001) by Jim Scotti, a Planetary Scientist from the University of Arizona ( a real scientist). Just go to this website; it lists all the claims from that special and addresses them.
I'm sorry for making it seem like you didn't have common sense. That's not where I was getting at. I've always been annoyed about the Fox moonlanding hoax special because I believed it until speaking with a relative who works for NASA.
Believe me, the things you brought up are the strongest arguments against the Apollo missions. It's pretty sad to see them proved wrong so easily...that just goes to show you can't believe what you see on TV.
I hope this helped ^_^ Sonnysoul.
P.S. You never said anything at all about moon rocks... I mean no one scientist in the world who has examined a moon rock has ever denied their source of origin. Not only what we brought from the moon confirms our landing there, but also what we left there. Lasor reflectors left on the moon on 1969 still function to this day to provide exact coordinates of Earth's position in the solar system. So instead of answering your questions about our telescopes seeing the flag or rover on the moon, I found this. Surely lasor reflectors wouldn't appear out of nowhere to help us here on Earth coincidentally since 1969...
The last thing you said didn't really bother me. Why do we need to go back to the moon? I think NASA was caught up in putting money elsewhere-such as studying other planets, some even outside of our universe. If I had to make the decision, I wouldn't spend anymore money on the moon until I could somehow make some permanent building there +/.
Just lookup the websites I gave you...I have a headache from reading so much...
Here is the website again: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
|
Re: SonnySoul - 2008-06-19 |
|
|
» I see you point too..!
What you've said does make sense, ans maybe we did land on the moon.
I want to believe we did but I just don't know. You never know what to believe when it's coming from the government..! Lol!
I'm not a conspiracy chaser though, I think anybody who believes 9/11 was orchestrated by the US is a fool..! But that's a different subject.
Anywhooo, it was nice debating with you... at least the whole flag thing is now cleared up but there are still too many unanswered questions which, so what I'm saying is...
I don't know..! Does this mean I have very little common sense..!? Damn!
What you've said does make sense, ans maybe we did land on the moon.
I want to believe we did but I just don't know. You never know what to believe when it's coming from the government..! Lol!
I'm not a conspiracy chaser though, I think anybody who believes 9/11 was orchestrated by the US is a fool..! But that's a different subject.
Anywhooo, it was nice debating with you... at least the whole flag thing is now cleared up but there are still too many unanswered questions which, so what I'm saying is...
I don't know..! Does this mean I have very little common sense..!? Damn!
|
Re: WiiCool - 2008-06-23 |
|
|
» nah
It's not that, it's just that you can't believe what's on TV sometimes... sometimes they put out a complete lie to entertain people. Most of the time it works. People like to believe lies. Otherwise, why would tabloids exist?
It's not that, it's just that you can't believe what's on TV sometimes... sometimes they put out a complete lie to entertain people. Most of the time it works. People like to believe lies. Otherwise, why would tabloids exist?
|
by brosmooth - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» lol
yea im finally 1,424 years old, i can now get my liscense.....
yea im finally 1,424 years old, i can now get my liscense.....
|
by na2rul - 2008-06-16 |
|
|
» and how do we benefit from this?
waste of time, resource and money.
lightspeed travel will never happen. the speed will just make a human pancake with tomato sauce all over
waste of time, resource and money.
lightspeed travel will never happen. the speed will just make a human pancake with tomato sauce all over
|
Re: slicer4ever - 2008-06-17 |
|
|
» and so wasn't breaking the sound barrier
my friend you are so naive+-)
my friend you are so naive+-)
|
by Nathanias - 2008-06-17 |
|
|
» Excuse me
But I thought that matter turned into energy at the speed of light? rofl our only shot is terraforming mars
But I thought that matter turned into energy at the speed of light? rofl our only shot is terraforming mars
|
by Silver-Tiger - 2008-06-17 |
|
|
» ....
If they ever land on this one...
Wonder how long it will take to destroy this one, too?
If they ever land on this one...
Wonder how long it will take to destroy this one, too?
|
by wii360 - 2008-06-17 |
|
|
» moon landing
Yeah for anyone who thinks we've been to the moon, think again! Apparently we went to the moon using spacecraft in which the onboard computers wouldn't add up to some of todays calculators and at the last minute jumped ahead of the Russains (who were at least 5 years ahead of us in the space race). And the whole radiation thing... Between us and the moon there is a huge radiation belt the even the space station isn't near. How did we get past that when we can't even figure how to get past it now?
Back then it was believable, because we needed something to believe in. Now it's just plan out in the open! We've never been to the moon. Anyone been to an observatory lately? Use a powerful telescope and see if you can find a flag anywhere on the moon. LET ME SAVE YOU THE TIME, IT'S NOT THERE!!!
Yeah for anyone who thinks we've been to the moon, think again! Apparently we went to the moon using spacecraft in which the onboard computers wouldn't add up to some of todays calculators and at the last minute jumped ahead of the Russains (who were at least 5 years ahead of us in the space race). And the whole radiation thing... Between us and the moon there is a huge radiation belt the even the space station isn't near. How did we get past that when we can't even figure how to get past it now?
Back then it was believable, because we needed something to believe in. Now it's just plan out in the open! We've never been to the moon. Anyone been to an observatory lately? Use a powerful telescope and see if you can find a flag anywhere on the moon. LET ME SAVE YOU THE TIME, IT'S NOT THERE!!!
|
Re: muramasa655 - 2008-06-18 |
|
|
» Moon Landing
LOL!
You don't know what you're talking about! LOL!
P.S. - No earthbound telescope can see the moon at that level of magnification, not even Keck 1+2. Atmospheric distortion doesn't help! LOL!!!!!
P.S.S - It would be harder to keep the moon landing secret than to actually go! LOL!
P.S.S.S - Calculators? What? LOL! You obviously don't know much about computers! NASA is still using many of the on-board systems developed in the 60's!! MEGA-LULZ!!!
LOL!
You don't know what you're talking about! LOL!
P.S. - No earthbound telescope can see the moon at that level of magnification, not even Keck 1+2. Atmospheric distortion doesn't help! LOL!!!!!
P.S.S - It would be harder to keep the moon landing secret than to actually go! LOL!
P.S.S.S - Calculators? What? LOL! You obviously don't know much about computers! NASA is still using many of the on-board systems developed in the 60's!! MEGA-LULZ!!!
|
by Andrewlee_619 - 2008-06-18 |
|
|
» yay
go gov't conspiracy
xD
go gov't conspiracy
xD
|
The QJ.net Network |
|
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - November
| Most Commented | |
| No commented articles | |
User Favorites - November
| Top Jumps | |
| No available articles using criteria |
Alternative Energy
(93)Animals and Wildlife
(292)Environmental Campaigns
(152)Environmental Disasters
(36)Geology
(33)Global Warming
(122)Natural Disasters
(31)Natural Resources
(33)Oceans
(53)Paleontology
(62)Plants and Agriculture
(66)Weather
(49)
General Science
Archaeology
(67)Biology
(112)Chemistry
(52)Computer Science
(64)Engineering
(124)Geography
(4)Mathematics
(25)Nanotechnology
(30)Neurology
(32)Physics
(83)Psychology
(48)Site News
(31)
Health Science
Alternative Medicine
(67)Biomedical Technology
(173)Diseases
(202)Genetics
(105)Medical Devices
(72)Mental Health
(147)Self Well-being
(254)
Space
Astrobiology
(30)Astronomy
(204)Astrophysics
(127)Celestial Bodies
(379)International Space Station
(83)Interviews
(2)NASA
(143)News
(468)Space Exploration
(170)Space Missions
(196)Spacecraft
(234)
Archives
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
