Scientists find 'habitable' Tau Ceti planet.

The star is visible with the naked eye, not the planet.

V 3.50
[link to simbad.u-strasbg.fr]

Visual magnitude 3.5. Again, that's the star, not the planet. The planet was found with the doppler technique, it wasn't even seen by telescopes directly.
[link to star-www.herts.ac.uk]

TY

No problem

hmmmm....I was wondering about this too.

The planets are so dim the only way to see them is with an Array of Space telescopes like the Hubble.


[link to en.wikipedia.org]


Once we have an Interferometry Array setup we will be finding all the nearby planets and getting images of them.

Here, the scientific paper about the planet's discovery. See for yourself:
[link to star-www.herts.ac.uk]
It was found with the doppler technique, the planet is not naked eye visible, it wasn't even seen directly in telescopes and required a great deal of effort just to detect by the doppler shift its gravity induces on its parent star.

are you sure?

The HARPS spectrograph mounted on the ESO/3.6-m La
Silla telescope is yielding a rich bounty of information regarding planets around M dwarfs (eg., Bonfils et al. 2011).
There is a lot of interest in searches for planets about low
mass M dwarfs.
[link to arxiv.org]

question for the good Dr, Do you think faster than the speed of light travel is physically possible???

Oh wow..they just keep discovering planets that are closer and closer all the time.

This is what the article stated not me...

The fun thing about relativity is that it feels like you're travelling faster than light at relativistic speeds. It's not till you look at a clock back on earth that you realize how much time passed... As in years. Planet on the apes (the first one) really captured the essence of that. As for actually travelling faster than light, it may be possible to cheat by warping space, but there's always a catch. All those cosmic rays between you and the destination have to go somewhere...

You misinterpreted the article. I just gave you the paper the article is about. Primary source.

No I was not MISinterpreting the article I was quoting it.

Again, it's talking about the star being naked eye, not the planet. You misinterpreted it. Read the primary source.

After Astro's answer, nothing else here.

Oh please...I copy pasted...so go jerk somebody elses chain.

THE STAR NOT THE PLANET FCKIN MORON

You are right: not MISinterpreting - just a lack of reading comprehension.
If the one is more idiotic than the other is up to you.

"A planet with conditions that could support life orbits a twin neighbour of the sun visible to the naked eye, scientists have revealed."

not

"A planet with conditions that could support life orbits a twin neighbour of the sun visible to the naked eye, scientists have revealed."


.

[link to www.independent.co.uk]


Scientists have discovered a ‘habitable’ planet that orbits a sun visible to the naked eye.

The world is just 12 light years away, is between two and six times bigger than the earth, and is thought to be circling Tau Ceti, a star almost identical to our sun.

The planet is one of five orbiting Tau Ceti, and lies within the star's habitable zone. It is thought to have five times the Earth's mass.

Also known as the “Goldilocks zone”, the habitable zone is the orbital region that is neither too hot nor too cold to allow liquid surface water and, potentially, life.

This is the full article and the link.

Thanks:)

Inaccurate. At least 5% of the extrasolar planets are directly imaged. Furthermore, it's not a problem of size: "planets are extremely faint light sources compared to stars and what little light comes from them tends to be lost in the glare from their parent star"

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

I wonder if any of you out there could shed light on how this discovery will effect - if it will - the Drake equation?

Interesting article but what is an astroboffin?

theory/propaganda is what they have. You repeat anything they say as if it is all true.

He's down with it!

Direct imaging = interpretation of blobs

The same scientists that make these claims also believe in the now discredited big bangism.

"Discredited big bangism"? By what counterexamples?

^^THIS^^

shuts some trolls mouths obviously