bump

Once again, this prop raises the issue of "what is Earth-like?" Are we defining it as a "rock" rather than a gaseous plane? Is the presence of an atomosphere required? Does the mass have to be the same as Earth, or would something ten times bigger count? Does it have to be in what they call a "habitable" orbit?

All these things need to be considered, because what passes for "Earth-like" depends on who's talking when. There were news briefs last year that called a planet "Earth-like" that was 9 times the size of earth, had no atomosphere, and followed an orbit that took it waaaay to close to the star.

But that's the way many astronomer's define it. They say if the planet is stoney (rather than gaseous), then it's "Earth-like". This ought to be included in the prop.

Vulgarian is right. If you could list some properties that you'd like the planet to have, that would be much better for prop gambling.

I see that the prop does include some information; "Using that method of searching, the chance of finding a planet the size of Earth, at the same distance from its star, around a star like ours...", but if it isn't in the payout line it will certainly lead to a lot of questions. Including the determining factor(s) in the payout seems like what would be needed.

i don't think we need to focus on what is or is not an Earth-like planet. All that needs to happen is that NASA announces they found an Earth-like planet with the Kepler space telescope. Even if a billion people say what NASA found is not an Earth-like planet, as long as NASA announces they found one, it should pay long.

From what I heard, they are simply taking picture of the silloughets of these earthlike planets contrasting against local stars. They cant tell if they have atmospheres or very many details. Its pretty mutch like looking at a flee in the middle of your cars headlights.