Astronomers Discover the "Mega Earth," an Entirely New Type of Planet

[Cidersomerset]

http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/2.60.9/desktop/3.5/img/blq-blocks_grey_alpha.png

June 2014 Last updated at 18:17

'Godzilla of Earths' identified
Jonathan Amos
By Jonathan Amos
Science correspondent, BBC News



http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VZUIhyYm--/j47ktwlhmadoqva1k3bx.jpg


Kepler-10c Scientists say the "mega-Earth" Kepler-10c may have a thin atmosphere
There is a new class of planet out there that astronomers are calling the "mega-Earth".

It is an object with a hard surface like our own world but much, much bigger.

The necessity for the new designation follows the discovery of a planet which has a
mass some 17 times that of Earth.

Known as Kepler-10c, it orbits a star about 560 light-years away. Scientists described
its properties at an American Astronomical Society meeting in Boston.

They confess it is something of a head-scratcher.

Theorists had always thought that any planet that large would pull so much hydrogen
on to itself that it would look more like a Neptune or a Jupiter.

"We were very surprised when we realised what we had found," said Xavier Dumusque
of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), who led the research team.

"This is the Godzilla of Earths!" added the CfA's Dimitar Sasselov, the director of the
Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. "But unlike the movie monster, Kepler-10c has
positive implications for life."

Kepler-10c, as the name suggests, was detected by the US space agency's Kepler
telescope.This finds new worlds by looking for the tiny dip in light as they pass in front
of their parent stars.The technique gives a diameter - in this case, 29,000km, or just
over two times the width of Earth - but not a mass.For that, astronomers looked at 10c
with the Harps-North instrument on the Telescopio Nazionale Galileo in the Canary
Islands. It extracts a mass measurement by examining the gravitational interaction
between the planet and its host star.Combined with the diameter, the mass number
showed that Kepler-10c cannot be a gaseous world but must comprise very dense
material.Interestingly, the age of the host star is about 11 billion years old, which is
early in the evolution of the Universe when generations of exploding stars have not
had long to make the heavy elements needed to construct rocky planets.

"Finding Kepler-10c tells us that rocky planets could form much earlier than we
thought. And if you can make rocks, you can make life," says Prof Sasselov.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27669572

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON POST

Kepler Space Telescope spies a ‘Mega-Earth’


http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/02/Health-Environment-Science/Graphics/w-megaEarth.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/kepler-space-telescope-spies-a-mega-earth/2014/06/02/b73cf006-e8e7-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

read more.....

Astronomers Discover the "Mega Earth," an Entirely New Type of Planet

http://io9.com/astronomers-discover-the-mega-earth-an-entirely-new-1584689126

[Cara]

Thanks for sharing Billy.

I don't know why but when I read this, I immediately got the picture that this is "managed news". That this is the start of a set of media "news" pieces designed to lead the public towards an alien / ET threat announcement.

I have no idea where this image / view comes from but it was just clear in my mind as I read. (It may be nothing at all besides an over active imagination). Whatever its genesis I thought better to share it than not.

Regards
Searcher

[Star Tsar]

Godzilla of Earths?
Do you think there is a message in there somewhere?

:eyebrows::laugh:

[panpravda]

Once more, I can't pass an opportunity like this up ...


Astronomers Discover the "Mega Earth," an Entirely New Type of Planet

They confess it is something of a head-scratcher.

"We were very surprised when we realised what we had found,"

"Finding Kepler-10c tells us that rocky planets could form much earlier than we thought. And if you can make rocks, you can make life," says Prof Sasselov.

The reason that what passes these days for "astro-scientists," being confused by this find, is, of course, because it does not fit their accretion model for planet formation, the one that is similarly applied to the formation of stars. Well no wonder their observations don't fit that model, cos it's wrong!

Stars are formed at points of instability (z-pinch points) which develop along the axis of a Birkeland current. Planets, we believe of all descriptions, are thereafter formed by stars when they become electrically over-stressed due to an excessive build-up of charge density in their ionised environment, and because of this, just like any electrical imbalance, they naturally seek to reduce that stress, in this case by shedding into space, some of the plasma (ionised matter) the star itself consists of. For gaseous planets, their "birth" takes place from the equatorial region of a star's plasmasphere as it spins, and for rocky planets, this takes place through a "spitting-out" process from a star's polar regions, where the matter these solid planets consist of, originates from the small and solid, inner core of the star.

Check what I've said here out by reading any one or all of these ... "The Electric Sky (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Electric-Sky-Donald-Scott/dp/0977285111)" by Dr Don Scott, or "The Electric Universe (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electric-Universe-Wallace-Thornhill-Talbott/dp/0977285138)" by Wal Thorhill and Dave Talbott, or "One Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe (http://www.newtoeu.com)" by Tom Findlay (this one being a free pdf download here on Avalon.)

Good luck to those who still cling to gravity theories to explain everything out there. Times have changed, the science has moved on, but "the astro-science establishment" refuses to acknowledge it's been wrong, and the individuals involved certainly don't want to admit that their life's work has been spent working with unworkable, discredited theories.

[olddragon]

Well, this star is 11 billion years old.
They tell us our star in 4.6 billion years old.
They tell us the universe is only 13.7 years old.
So in 2 billion years, stars formed and died to create the heavy elements to form the planet.
I just can't help but feel they have it all wrong.
I think the Universe is far older than they claim. Or, our star is far younger than they claim.
At any rate the maths, for me, just doesn't add up!

[GuyFox]

Specific comments on specific planets ? - Why not More ?

With so many ET's (supposedly) visiting the Earth from all around the Solar system,
I am surprised that we do not know more about the planet(s) they come from

Is this lack of info part of "The Prime Directive"* perhaps?

Another factors is that they supposedly misinform:

= snpM3BUst_U =

According to Mark Snider's version of what Billy Meier's contacts have told him:

The contacts originally told him; "We are from the Pleadies", but later he learned from them,
that they are Plejarians.

Why the need for misinformation?

=====
*The Prime Directive:
In the fictitious universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive is the guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets. The Prime Directive, used in four out of five Star Trek-based series, prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations. This conceptual law applies particularly to civilizations which are below a certain threshold of development, preventing starship crews from using their superior technology to impose their own values or ideals on them. Since its introduction in the first season of original Star Trek series, it has served as the focus of numerous episodes of the various series. As time-travel became a recurring feature in the franchise, the concept was expanded as a Temporal Prime Directive, prohibiting those under its orders from interfering in historical events.
==
> Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

[Sidney]

The only head scratcher is how in hell did mainstream media become so arrogant. It really is beyond me, between media and so called scientists/astronomers think they can possibly put a date on any planet, even ours. Nobody knows those things, they are all blowing smoke out of their %#_%)_:pend rant lol

[GuyFox]

Well, this star is 11 billion years old.
They tell us our star in 4.6 billion years old.
They tell us the universe is only 13.7 (billion) years old.
So in 2 billion years, stars formed and died to create the heavy elements to form the planet.
I just can't help but feel they have it all wrong.
I think the Universe is far older than they claim. Or, our star is far younger than they claim.
At any rate the maths, for me, just doesn't add up!

Snider talks about info from ET contacts that our universe is Trillions of years old

[Frank V]

Well, this star is 11 billion years old.
They tell us our star in 4.6 billion years old.
They tell us the universe is only 13.7 (billion) years old.
So in 2 billion years, stars formed and died to create the heavy elements to form the planet.
I just can't help but feel they have it all wrong.
I think the Universe is far older than they claim. Or, our star is far younger than they claim.
At any rate the maths, for me, just doesn't add up!

Snider talks about info from ET contacts that our universe is Trillions of years old

Experiments have shown that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is correct and that time is slowed down by gravitational forces. By consequence, an object in what Earthlings consider "deep space" - i.e. outside of Earth's exosphere - knows a faster progression of time than here on Earth.

However, the whole solar system is also permeated with gravitational fields from all celestial bodies making up for it - not in the very least the sun - and so time will still progress more slowly within the "deep space" of our solar system than it does in interstellar space. And interstellar space is still also bound by gravitational forces from the galactic core, so time will progress even faster in intergalactic space.

The three local galaxies - Milky Way, Andromeda and Triangulum - form a local cluster of galaxies. There are billions of such clusters, so outside of the gravitational pulls of the clusters, time will progress even faster. So who's to say how old the visible universe really is?

There are similar flaws of thinking in the experiments conducted to measure whether the visible universe is flat or curved. The experiments showed that it was flat, but considering the principle the experiments were based upon, that would have been the only possible outcome anyway. The universe is definitely curved - otherwise, wormholes wouldn't even be possible - but its curvature does not express itself in a 3D context. If you shine a laser through an optic fiber, the laser light too will "think" that it's traveling in straight line, while the fiber is curled up or bent in all kinds of directions.

Science has a way of always proving two things: how incredibly intelligent the human species is, and how incredibly stupid it is at the same time.

[panpravda]

Well, this star is 11 billion years old.
They tell us our star in 4.6 billion years old.
They tell us the universe is only 13.7 years old.
So in 2 billion years, stars formed and died to create the heavy elements to form the planet.
I just can't help but feel they have it all wrong.
I think the Universe is far older than they claim. Or, our star is far younger than they claim.
At any rate the maths, for me, just doesn't add up!

olddragon: This, I totally agree with, as does sensible astro-science and its practitioners.

There is no way we can come up with figures about much of anything out there, especially distances and ages. (If people haven't read Halton Arp's book on "redshift" then, for those who are interested in better science, I suggest they do so.) You have pointed out the simplicity of the establishment's tendency to make and adopt wrong assumptions as fact, and in doing so, have also pointed out our own unforgivable ignorance and cowardice for not taking "them" to task on these things. The bottom line being that there has been and still is, far too much investment in the pursuit and analysis of wrong theories for them to say "sorry folks, but it looks like we've been working for all of our lives on the wrong things!"

It is sad to say but, since the beginning of the last century, the time when, unfortunately, wrong directions in theoretical cosmology were set; the time when Einstein's postulates were reified by influential scientists who were prepared just to accept and not question, this was the broad period in our science history where everything took a wrong turn. Maxwell and his theories of electromagnetism, along with others who did associated work, had been ignored for the simpler notion through rough observations, fantastic assumptions, and schoolboy mistakes in theoretical mathematics, of gravity being a separate force which ruled everything. They then, arrogantly went on to believe they understood enough about gravity and everything else for them to move along with confidence to influence, throughout the decades since, the world, its people, and science itself. This, however, at last and thankfully, is now being corrected, albeit gradually, but it seems that the progress now being made to reach interested, intelligent scientists, researchers and lay people with the far better science of the electromagnetic / plasma model of our universe, is gaining traction and, in fact, is growing exponentially.

As for the other comments in this thread which I believe deserve a bit of feedback ...

Sidney: You said ...
The only head scratcher is how in hell did mainstream media become so arrogant.

I totally understand your frustration and the labelling of your comment as a rant. It is not a rant. I suggest instead that it is justifiable indignation at the lack of good science practice by the worthless shower who are currently at the helm of theoretical astro-physics. The answer to the question you pose is unfortunately very human ... it is because of, as I say above, the breadth, depth, and intertwined nature of the investment already made in a fairy story which we have allowed ourselves to believe, is just too great in its extent. Human self-interest rules once more, and in this case, to an incredibly deep, broad, and entrenched extent. Please, keep asking questions that will make people think about these things; we are all waking up, slowly. Max Planck said ... "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Aragorn: You said ...
So who's to say how old the visible universe really is?

This is the single thing you said in your comment that I can agree with. Please take a serious look at The Electric Universe model, then come back with questions that will help others think for themselves, instead of just parroting what many have just picked up through inattentive rote.

To all ... It is not my intention to come across as arrogant here or anywhere else you may find my comments, and especially not when it come to what I say in support of the far superior Electric Universe model. By way of explanation about this, after studying the popular gravity-centric Standard Model of our universe for many years, I began to see holes, obvious holes in the science and the logic, so I gave up for a while in the belief that theoretical astro-science, which actually, is inappropriately driven by theoretical mathematics (cart before the horse), was essentially lost in its own fantasy world.

Then, when I came across the EU model, everything changed, for that model, based on what we already know for sure and practice in science and industry, and with which the theories it is based upon can be experimented with to find both solid and plausible results, just makes so much greater sense; it is logical and far more simple to understand. I have spent many years now studying the EU and have written extensively on it, hence my frustration rearing its head when blatantly mistaken claims are stated as science fact. Thank you.

[Frank V]

The emphasis through color is mine.



Aragorn: You said ...
So who's to say how old the visible universe really is?

This is the single thing you said in your comment that I can agree with. Please take a serious look at The Electric Universe model, then come back with questions that will help others think for themselves, instead of just parroting what many have just picked up through inattentive rote.

To all ... It is not my intention to come across as arrogant here [...]

Just because you didn't intend to come across as arrogant doesn't mean that you didn't. If you cannot bring your point across in a civilized and respectful manner, then I suggest you refrain from doing so until you've taken a course in social interaction.

[ThePythonicCow]

The emphasis through color is mine.



Aragorn: You said ...
So who's to say how old the visible universe really is?

This is the single thing you said in your comment that I can agree with. Please take a serious look at The Electric Universe model, then come back with questions that will help others think for themselves, instead of just parroting what many have just picked up through inattentive rote.

To all ... It is not my intention to come across as arrogant here [...]

Just because you didn't intend to come across as arrogant doesn't mean that you didn't. If you cannot bring your point across in a civilized and respectful manner, then I suggest you refrain from doing so until you've taken a course in social interaction.

I too recommend the Electric Universe to the consideration of those inclined to consider it.