NASA announced a fun new finding from its Kepler mission today--the smallest planet we've ever seen, and it's orbiting a sun that resembles our own. It orbits a star, slightly cooler and smaller than our own but in the same basic category, in the constellation Lyra, about 210 light-years away from Earth. And it has fellows: two other planets, both relatively rocky and small.
The planet, named Kepler-37b, was discovered as part of the Kepler project, dedicated to finding particular kinds of exoplanets--planets of a similar size to Earth, orbiting stars of a similar size to our sun, with the theory that life or at least water might exist on those planets. Due to the difficulty in spotting celestial bodies as small as planets, most of the findings so far have been giant, much bigger than Earth. So Kepler-37b and its two sister planets are definitely something exciting and new.
Of course, that doesn't mean the tiny planet is habitable. NASA suspects the surface temperature on the small, rocky planet could be upwards of 800 degrees Fahrenheit, considering it orbits much closer to its star than even Mercury does to ours.
Read more about the finding here.
I thought it was already named KPAX.
Suppose we do find what looks like a perfectly habitable planet. What do we do about it?
Because apparently we have no intention of attempting to build a star ship any time soon, and future generations will surely be better equipped to build a database of planets.
If an asteroid we cant defend against doesn't destroy us first we will most likely have to start from scratch and rescan the skies with better tools.
Finding another Earth is pointless unless we intend to go there, or you just want to rub it in the face of christians.
the kepler telescope favour the equalient strata of hubble telescope and give us a fair idea about the space exploration and nature of spacious body.
There's plenty of people thinking of building starships, such as at Project Icarus for example:
The problem is that with an ISS that cost $100 billion, any realistic [and honest] projection for a starship is probably in the trillion dollar range. Considering Congress has cut NASA's budget recently and the debt/deficit problems we have, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Businesses are welcome to do it on their own, but since their goal is making a profit and doing so consistently on a quarterly basis, I don't see many big, well-capitalized businesses convincing their shareholders of this either...the market will respond negatively immediately.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal. Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That's not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.
The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Babu G. Ranganathan*
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.