(01-21-2016, 06:53 PM)Beaker Wrote: The one they are talking about is theorized based upon the effect of surrounding objects. Their orbits are all converging at a single point in space which is very unusual and suggests a gravitational cause. They have come up with the possibility based upon mathematical calculations. It won't be confirmed until it is found by a telescope, which is like looking for a needle in a haystack in the dark.

(01-21-2016, 07:51 PM)Stewy Wrote: Great and accurate explanation Beaker.  The essential difference is the distance from the sun.  All the Exo planets we've "found" have been based on observing stars that dim unexpectedly and have gravity wobbles, however this requires the planet causing the effects to be very close to their star.  In many cases closer than Mercury and 10 larger than Earth or larger, thus making them uninhabitable.  More recently however they believe they've found Earth size or larger planets in the "life zone" of stars, so we're getting better telescopes and better math.

(01-21-2016, 10:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Approx. 9.461 trillion km.

(01-21-2016, 10:50 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Legitimately asking a question......

What if a planet that was ten times larger than earth, somewhat near the proximity of Mercury, had an atmosphere that were ten times as thick ?
Is it possible that the size and content of an atmosphere could allow a planet to closer to a star, than being in the "Goldilocks Zone" ?

(01-22-2016, 11:30 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It's possible....probably unlikely though due to the extreme solar wind at that distance.  Even if it did though it would not be considered a viable "Goldilocks" type planet due to extreme pressures at surface combined with a massive increase to gravity  along with high temperatures due to all of the things listed above.

(01-22-2016, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe for you wussies.  I'd be out there no shirt and no starscreen.