March 31, 2005
COME BACK, PTOLEMY, ALL IS FORGIVEN:
Five Out of Five Researchers Agree: Earth's Solar System Special (Sara Goudarzi, 3/31/05, SPACE.com)
Though researchers find more and more distant planets revolving around alien suns, the discoveries highlight that Earth and its solar system may be an exceptionally rare place indeed.That was the consensus here Wednesday evening among five planetary science experts who spoke at the 5th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Panel Debate held at the American Museum of Natural History.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium, moderated the informal discussion. At issue was whether our solar system is special, why it looks the way it does, and how others thus far detected differ. The debate took place between theoretical and observational scientists on the different aspects of detecting and categorizing alien solar systems. About 700 people attended the event.
Prior to the discovery of planets around stars other than our sun in the 1990’s, scientists thought that alien solar systems must look something like our own. They presumed that just like our solar system, there would be small rocky planets like as Earth close to their host stars and large, low density ones a little farther out. But what they discovered were solar systems unlike ours with big Jupiter-like planets close to their host star.
Of the 150 alien planets found, none of them resemble our own. “So maybe it’s not the enigma of other solar systems, it’s the enigma of our solar system,” Tyson said in opening the debate.
The more science you do the better our ancestors look. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 31, 2005 7:40 PM
Sorry, but there's not enough data to make any sort of reasonable and rational assessment. The current techniques for finding planets are biased toward big planets in close orbits, so it's not surprising that that is what they are finding. Large planets in larger orbits will take another decade or two (Think Saturn, which takes 28 years for one revolution, or even Jupiter at 12 years). I don't think we can curently find a Uranus or Neptune even by accident.
What this does mean is that the models that were developed to generate solarsystems like ours were biased to produce solarsystems like ours. Then again, the whole point of any computer model is to confirm ones prejudices, not extrapolate into the unknown. So tell me again, why is this a surpise to anyone? That when we actually gather data the models might, just might, turn out to be wrong?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 31, 2005 8:13 PM"reasonable and rational assessment" Good one!
Posted by: oj at March 31, 2005 8:20 PMI agree with Raoul Ortega. What we're seeing is a pendulum swinging freely. We go from "Earth is unique" to "Earth is typical" to "Earth is unique" without the friction caused by actual knowledge.
You see this in the social sciences all the time.
Ptolemy, of course, had no idea about other solar systems, had never seen another star with anything other than the naked eye, and thought the sun rotated the earth, which it manifestly does not. Our ancestors may well have been our equals, or superiors, in certain social sciences, but their hard science was a joke by modern standards.
Posted by: Brandon at March 31, 2005 11:01 PMI'd take issue with that, Brandon. Out ancestors' instruments were primitive by modern standards. What they did with them was often not.
Posted by: joe shropshire at March 31, 2005 11:23 PMMost of these geeks want it to be like Star Trek, where you can go to Rigel IV or Veridian III and mingle with the locals. And if you don't think that 'bias' undergirds their outlook, then you missed the 60s and 70s big-time.
Posted by: ratbert at March 31, 2005 11:59 PMBrandon:
The Universe is centered upon the Earth. Ptolemy was right. His calculations were just sketchy, but even there he was just a trailblazer for modern "science".
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2005 12:48 AMThere was nothing sketchy about his calculations. They were accurate.
It was his model that was incorrect.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 1, 2005 1:10 AMA lot of that in the business...
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2005 1:15 AMHard science? Sounds mostly like observation, then speculation. Not to demean the process that has been ongoing since humankind first looked up and wondered ... still wondrous.
Posted by: Genecis at April 1, 2005 8:37 AMOJ,
The Universe way well be centered on the Earth. Until we can find the edges we won't really know. But Ptolemy thought the SOLAR SYSTEM was centered on the Earth, which it isn't.
Joe,
I'm not doubting the intelligence of the ancients, but you can only do so much with what you have. And they didn't have nearly enough.
Posted by: Brandon at April 1, 2005 10:43 AMYes. Do you get how something that's infinite can't have a center?
Posted by: Brandon at April 1, 2005 11:29 AMEverything has a center.
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2005 11:36 AMMr. Judd;
No. What point on the surface of a sphere is the center? If you pick a point that's not on the surface, that's the same as saying the center of the Universe isn't in the Universe which kind of rules out Earth as the center.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 1, 2005 12:14 PMThe cork in the middle.
Posted by: oj at April 1, 2005 12:22 PMAn X-Y coordinate system has a center at the origin, yet the axes extend to infinity.
Posted by: Gideon at April 1, 2005 6:29 PMWe're getting a little concrete here, aren't we?
Posted by: David Cohen at April 1, 2005 8:29 PMwhy are we arguing math with OJ?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 3, 2005 3:59 PMwhy are we arguing math with OJ?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 3, 2005 4:00 PM