Posted on 05/20/2012 8:23:30 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Two Earth-sized planets circle a red giant star. By what is generally known about star evolution, they should not exist in such close proximity to their parent star. But a new theory suggests that they may have once been part of a massive gas giant that not only was ripped apart by the parent star but also helped the parent shed excess gas, allowing them to survive.
Some of the work astronomers do gravitates toward the theoretical, as when they attempt to explain certain anomalous conditions or the presence of phenomena. Such was the case when two Earth-sized planets were discovered circling a dying star. Although those who had first detected the two worlds -- using NASA's Kepler Telescope -- orbiting the red giant star KIC 05807616 had posited a theory as to how the planets had managed to survive so close to the massive stellar object, they had invited others to speculate as well. The first team to meet the challenge saw their work published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, presenting the idea that the planets' positions weren't a simple migration or stellar gravitational grab but more likely the result of a planet-destroying process where a giant world had been torn asunder.
According to the two scientists, when KIC 05807616 ballooned out into a red giant, it most likely destroyed any planets anywhere near it. However, one massive gas giant spiraled in but was saved by passing close enough to strip off excess gas as it was being ripped apart. Further studies have revealed what might be a third small body orbiting the star, a presence that could also be an indicator that the two near Earth-sized worlds were indeed once part of a much larger planet. Astronomers are searching for more orbiting objects.
(Excerpt) Read more at huliq.com ...
Why are *dark matter* and *dark energy* popping into my mind right now?
As more data becomes available, that may happen, it’s part of the scientific method.
Can you say "understatement"?
No need for more data, and it's often not scientific method as the driving force, but rather the bastardization of scientific method, which often conducts itself to promote and protect it's unfounded beliefs and desires.
If you want a good example, that you may be able to see, look at how the global warming agenda has been propagated by much of the scientific community. Those who don't play along are often marginalized or worse. The same kind of "science" is conducted in many fields of scientific study and results depend upon the preconceived desires of the political or even the religious/anti religious bent of academia. When already conditioned into a belief system it is very hard to see when it isn't purely impartial.
That’s a foolish argument, since there is *no* “bastardization” of the scientific method, *and*, none of these astronomical observations have anything to do with global warming. IOW, you’re in the same boat as the global warming propagandists.
You miss my point altogether, but that’s OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.