We say we have found planets around other stars, have we ?

Question

our proof seems to hinge on software since we can't actualy observe these changes ( wait- is this the same software that predicts the weather) and of course we must trust the scientist to be objectable ( wait- cold fusion) what the hell is going on in science these days (when grant money and fame awaits how much trust can there be) YES I KNOW multiple teams ( not possible the same software/model was used now is it ? see all of the above again please)

KAIN of course it's not the same software the point was garbage in garbage out

YOOPER if i had i would have no ?

JUDY i agree 100% but have we seen them around those stars

attacking methods is not attacking science the need to know is the most human of traits and the most admirable BUT the need to be right may be one root of our greatist failings AND if you need to produce to eat (grants) and impressing your peers is your personal goal (cold fusion-maybe) then abuse can and will happen IF TO ? IS WRONG then why do we even support science at all ? all things and you may learn something even if what you learn is that the ? is wrong it's worth the trip

Answer 1

Skepticism is a perfectly healthy response to scientific assertions ... science can "take it".

1. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. There are "facts", observations that everyone can agree on. When the evidence piles up so that only one theory is left, and there is no contrary evidence, the theory is accepted ... for the moment; with the proviso that new evidence may require revising the theory.

2. Actually we can't observe the stars directly either ... they're too far away. All we can see are pinpoint sources. The rest has to be deduced from the available evidence. There's LOTS of it. It's not magic; crimes are solved without actually *seeing* the crimes.

3. You don't have to trust the scientist to be objective, that's the job of other scientists who will check the *reproducible* observations and the logic of the conclusions. If you don't trust the other scientists, you have the option of educating yourself and testing the results yourself.

4. We have found LOTS of evidence that *strongly* suggests the presence of planets around other stars. Of course, the "proof" will have to wait until we can go there.

Answer 2

For some quick answers:

1. No, it's no the same software that predicts the weather.

2. Cold fusion is one example of a scientist that wasn't doing his job correctly.

3. You mistake the "grant money" and "fame" for something it's not. It's true that some scientists make a lot of money, but that's not a compunction to make up data and get money for doing so. There are multiple checks on the same and different data with multiple methods. You'll find that the people who make the real discoveries are neither famous nor rich for it.

Now, to answer your question. We, of course, can never be 100% sure until we do our own "observations" with our eyes, and even that's a metaphysical question.

We can however, use well tested theories (like Newton and Kepler's laws) to come up with models on how these things *should* work. Then we select a quantity(ies) that we find most likely to help us fit to the model, and we take data. Then analyzing that data, if we find it fits the model, then we become *reasonably* sure that its what were intending in the first place.

It's the scientific method, and it's the reason you're using the internet, on a computer, watching TV, and using a cell phone today.

To answer your question, have we? If by an affirmative discovery you mean we met the conditions that I've outlined above, then yes, we've seen planets around other stars.

You'll forgive me if this answers seems a bit abrupt. Your question seems to be less asking a question and more attacking the scientific community. I felt I should address that as well.

Answer 3

Just wanted to add that the folks who uncover research fraud are other scientists, performing what are known as "peer reviews" of research claims. Science to this extent is a self-correcting process.

This process works as well as it can given the fact that human beings are involved. The reason you hear about fraud at all is because the peer reviewers are working to keep science as honest as possible. It's not a perfect system - no system can be perfect - but it's far better than nothing.

You won't find peer reviews in Creation Science. Unlike scientists, pseudoscientists never question their own beliefs. They operate on the basis of an article of faith which is never debated by them. Instead, scientists must make the effort to review such "New Earth" research claims. Creation Science consistently fails under such scrutiny, since scientists start with no assumptions and generate conclusions using real data. This real data is what ultimately discredits the claims of pseudoscientific "research".

Answer 4

These are actual observations, not software, not models, and not algorithms. By taking a spectrograph of the light from a distant star, you can observe any redshift or blueshift in its light, which shows us the star's radial velocity. By repeating the same observation with the same star over a long period of time, you can observe any changes in radial velocity.

When a star's radial velocity changes in a regular way over an observable period, it's clear that the star is being pulled by a gravitational force from an object that we can't see. But since we can compute the star's mass, and we can observe both the period and magnitude of the star's motion from the planet's pull, we can compute both the planet's orbit and mass. Note that although the orbit and mass are computed, the existence of the planet is observed, not computed.

Answer 5

Wow... you really need to learn about the Scientific Method and astronomical observation techniques...

Answer 6

Who really knows, its not like we're actually going to go visit them or anything, but odds say there are planets around millions of stars out there

Answer 7

Good to have you ask this here. I suggest google or the library. You can find better answers on your own to such academic concerns and technical questions in this way. Good luck. www.teoma.com or www.dogpile.com are good. Or even define: "and your term here: in Google

Answer 8

except the planets in our solar system there are other 177 planets that have been detected.for all the info visit the source.:)

http://exoplanets.org/

Good luck:)

Answer 9

yeah, but it's cool to think that there are other planets and possibly other galaxies out there.

Answer 10

sounds like you've already made up your mind regardless of the truth.