Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These three "Super-Earths," as the planets are known, are part of a "dynamically packed planetary system" of at least six planets orbiting a star that exists 22 light years from Earth, according to the report. Super-Earths are planets that are bigger than Earth, but smaller than planets like Uranus or Neptune, according to the European Southern Observatory.
The "habitable zone" of the star, Gliese 667C, is the temperature region where liquid water could exist, according to Space.com. Gliese 667C is part of a three-star system, so the planets could see three suns in their daytime skies.
All the term "habitable zone" means is that the temperatures on the surface of the exoplanet may fall within the range of 0°C to 100°C, which means that it could support liquid water on the exoplanet's surface. Currently, there are only two confirmed planets around Gliese 667C. However, there may be as many as seven total planets. There is only one confirmed planet in the habitable zone, Gliese 667Cc. The rest have yet to be confirmed.
Using the data from SIMBAD and Wikipedia, exoplanet GJ 667Cb has an average surface temperature of 215°C, which is clearly not in the habitable zone. Exoplanet GJ 667Cc, however, would have a surface temperature of 58.9°C, which is in the habitable zone.
Wikipedia was the only source I could find that included data on exoplanets d, e, and f. Interestingly, Wikipedia lists the unconfirmed exoplanets d and e with a semi-major axis of 0.123 AU and 0.130 AU respectively. Which is only a separation of 650,691 miles. Considering the mass of these exoplanets, that is extremely close. Exoplanet d would have a surface temperature of 33.5°C and exoplanet e would have a surface temperature of 26.4°C. Exoplanet f would have a surface temperature of -56.3°C, which is not in the habitable zone.
Unconfirmed exoplanet d has a mass of ≥3.1 (+0.4 or -0.5) M⊕ and an eccentricity of 0.16 (+0.08 or -0.15).
Unconfirmed exoplanet e has a mass of ≥2.4 ±0.4 M⊕ and an eccentricity of 0.35 ±0.21.
When plotting the orbits of these two planets they prove to be unstable, and eventually (within a few dozen orbits) they collide. So if their existence is eventually confirmed, the orbital information cannot be accurate.
Considering that the star these exoplanets orbit is an M1.5V with 59% ± 10% less metallicity than our sun, it is reasonable to presume that the exoplanets would have fewer metals and therefore be less dense since they would have formed from the same material as the star. So even though they may be classified as "super-earths", they may still have a gravity close to 1 G (9.78 m/s^2).
The "super Earths" found around GJ 667C in the habitable zone may have one more advantage that makes them a good candidate for the possibility of life:
Quote:
Red dwarf stars could strip away planetary protection
Red dwarf stars are the most common type of stars, making up about 75 percent of the stars in our galaxy. They are much smaller and much less massive than our Sun and, for that reason, a lot dimmer. If planets are found around these stars, then given the number of red dwarfs, life could be commonplace. But a group of scientists led by Aline Vidotto of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland has cast doubt on this idea. Their work suggests that the magnetic fields of red dwarfs could squash down those found around planets like Earth, leaving any life vulnerable to radiation from space.
Because of their faintness, even small planets in orbit around red dwarf stars block out a significant amount of light if they pass between the star and Earth. The low masses of these stars also mean that the gravitational pull of an Earth-sized planet is enough to make its star wobble as the planet moves around it. This motion leads to a back and forth shift in lines in the spectrum of the star that can be detected with telescopes on Earth.
A larger planet will be more likely to exert a stronger magnetic field. One of the chief differences between Earth and Mars is their respective magnetic fields. Some time around 500 million years after Earth was formed it underwent an "iron catastrophe" where the molten iron and nickel that was evenly distributed around the planet sank to the center of the planet to form its core. Mars, being only one ninth as massive as Earth, may not have experienced this "iron catastrophe." Which may explain why the magnetic field around Mars is significantly less than Earth.
The information posted in the post above (#3) has been updated. The following is a list of the now confirmed exoplanets orbiting Gliese 667C, in the order they are from their star.
b: Mass (M⊕) = 5.4598; Semi Major Axis (AU) = 0.0504; Orbital Period (days) = 7.199 ± 0.001; Ecc. = 0.09 ± 0.05.
c: Mass (M⊕) = 4.2585; Semi Major Axis (AU) = 0.1251; Orbital Period (days) = 28.130 ± 0.030; Ecc. = 0.34 ± 0.10
f: Mass (M⊕) = 2.7013 (+1.398, -1.208); Semi Major Axis (AU) = 0.156 (+0.014, -0.017); Orbital Period (days) = 39.026 ± 0.2; Ecc. = 0.03 (+0.16, -0.03)
e: Mass (M⊕) = 2.7013 (+1.589, -1.398); Semi Major Axis (AU) = 0.213 ± 0.02; Orbital Period (days) = 62.24 (+0.55, -0.75); Ecc. = 0.02 (+0.22, -0.02)
d: Mass (M⊕) = 6.9280; Semi Major Axis (AU) = 0.3035; Orbital Period (days) = 106.4 ± 0.100; Ecc. = 0.68 ± 0.06
g: Mass (M⊕) = 4.6081 (+2.542, -2.288); Semi Major Axis (AU) = 0.549 ± 0.05; Orbital Period (days) = 256.2 (+14, -18); Ecc. = 0.08 (+0.40, -0.08)
Source:GJ 667C --- Extrasolar Planet Catalog
FYI: You will note that the semi-major axis between exoplanets d and e has been corrected from the post above.
1. There are many non-empirical, non-objective traditional misconceptions regarding the relationship between science and the Bible. Actually- on the one hand (origins) the 'Big Bang' theory is a concise validation of Genesis 1:1, which literally means created matter out of nothing. Meaning that at the point before creation time/space as we know it did not exist. This is the same as the 'bib bang' which says that before time/space began there was no time/space; and that they came into being almost instantaneously.
2. On the other end of the spectrum- very much related to the search fo life elsewhere in the universe, there is nothing spcriptural to preclude life elsewhere (the permutations of Einsteinian relativity allow this). Also, correlating the finished product of life on earth as it changes when the "new heavens and earth" take place depicts some specific astronomical differences (7-fold intensification at least in the visible spectrum) which may be observable astronomical phenomenom conceivably explaining heretofore inexplicable observations. For more specific details, see............<censored>
Okay, moderator: is this relevant and noteworthy enough for this thread?
email me for more: pgardner31
Science keeps on proving the Bible wrong. I don't know why we can't keep the religion crap out of the Science forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe "poncho_NM" will allow this.
