Charlie Gay Earth Science
10/22/15 Current Events
University of Washington. "Earth-like planets around small stars likely have protective magnetic fields, aiding chance for life." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 September 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150929070703.htm>.
“Earth-like planets around small stars likely have protective magnetic fields, aiding chance for life”
In the article “Earth-like planets around small stars likely have protective magnetic fields, aiding chance for life,” interesting conclusions are made to the possibility of life on certain small planets. Magnetic fields are vital in order for life to survive on a planet in order to be protected from harmful radiation. Research was done to see whether or not Earth-like planets with small stars would have protective magnetic fields. In order for a planet with a small star to sustain life, its orbit needs to be close to the star in order for the planet to receive a sufficient amount of heat. Although this is true, planets very close to stars often become tidally locked with the same side forever pointing to its star, similar to how our moon is with Earth. The question needed to be answered with the research in this article is “are these planets going to be roasted by gravitational tides?” These tides could prevent from magnetic fields forming because they might generate heat inside the planet which is the opposite way that magnetic fields are formed (Cooling of planets interior). However, the research shown in this article explains how the more tidal heating the planet receives the cooler the core will get, allowing for a magnetic field which could protect life. These conclusions were unexpected by the researcher, Rory Barnes, because people would think that the more tidal heating a planet recieved from a star, the hotter the core will get.
This discovery is very significant to our research in astronomy. The research disproves previous found knowledge known about planets tidally locked with stars. Astronomers can now look at these type of situations as possible locations for life. This newly found research also provides more possible studies in astronomy as lead author, Peter Driscoll states, “These preliminary results are promising, but we still don’t know how they would change for a planet like Venus, where slow planetary cooling is already hindering magnetic field generation.” These results found are significant to present and future researchers of astronomy, as well as people interested in the whether or not possible life is existent on other planets.
This article was very well written and had a lot of evidence to support their claims. The article did a good job of using scientific words and then afterwards explaining their meanings. Also, the article supported their claims with evidence from their experiment. But, the article could have done a better job explaining the significance of these claim as well as what these conclusions mean for the present. Lastly, I wish that the article provided examples of some stars and planets meeting the criteria talked about earlier. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and thought that they made many interesting conclusions.
There were three things in particular that impressed me in this current events report. First, I liked how he connected the scientific facts to the thinking of a normally educated person. For example, he gave the example of how the scientist saw that there was less heating in the core in planets with more tidal wave heat. He compared this to how a normal person would think this was the other way around. Also, he explained the facts he gave from the article just to show analyzation and give the reader a better picture of what he was saying. Finally, he gave a lot of names of the scientists involved in this topic, which made the argument more solid and the research seem more reliable.
ReplyDeletePresenting the aspects of the article well is important, which Charlie did twice. First, he started off strong by presenting an intro to the evidence, stating the evidence, and then analysis it. This created an amazing structure for the reader. Also, he followed a common but very effective formula of stating the evidence, then explanation, and then overall opinion, in his paragraphs.
After reading the article, I find that I am still left with a question. I am so intrigued to know where some of this criteria applies outside of our solar system! Maybe a little extra research?
Overall Charlie did a really good job, opening with an especially strong lead.
Charlie wrote a very good review, about a very interesting topic; alternative life forms. Charlie's introduction was very strong posing a great way to lead into the evidence. The reader could breeze through this review with ease and still experience a full review. He created a flow like style in his writing, once again making it easy for the reader.
ReplyDeleteThere were multiple things that were impressive in this report. I agreed with how he interlocked the facts in the article with the basic human mind. He chose the example of how the scientist could see that there was less heating in the core in planets with more tidal wave heat. Also, he gave a basis for the facts to present an analysis and give the reader a better image of what the article was trying to say. Lastly, Charlie gave credit to the scientists whilst presenting his facts, showing that he wasn't just making information up.
Charlie's report was amazing, not only with a strong lead and conclusion, but throughout the entire review.