https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets Basically, they detect them inderectly with powerful telescopes by measuring how they alter the appearance of the star that they orbit.
With current technology yes this is pure science. There is no practical way of actually getting there. This finding though is still important for our understanding of the Universe and our place in it. Also while current technology means that a visit is impractical who knows what will happen in the future. Warp technology could be developed making it possible to visit or even without something as exotic as that long term hibernation could be developed that could make colonization possible even though the journey would take thousands of years.
Given the pure number of planets, there has to other living organisms out there. Shocked we haven't made contact with any yet.
Shocked? The distance between planets, the confluence of factors that make them hospitable like a rotating metallic cores, the tiny fraction of time species exist, the probability of exploiting radio waves, the possible differences in perception, the deminishing nature of electromagnetism over distance .... It's almost a statistical certainty Earthlings would never make contact with extraterrestrials.
Where are you getting that number? Unless I'm missing something, they don't have a mass for this planet, just a radius. So we have no idea what the surface gravity would be. On another note, the Kepler team needs to stop overstating their discoveries, which are impressive enough without all the hyperbole. There is no good reason to think this planet is much like Earth at all. To quote the title of a recent paper by a CalTech astronomer "Most 1.6 Earth-Radius Planets are not Rocky."
That's what I'm saying. Those alien invaders in SciFi films who fly from galaxy to galaxy consuming resources? That needs to be us.
The best estimate is: we have one planet, when we **** it up, we will be another of the footnotes in the history of the Universe.
Some of the reports are putting the mass at probably 5 times Earth's. This puts the planet close to the border based on size and mass to being either rocky or mostly gas with a 50 to 60% chance it is rocky. Although I don't see why it couldn't be a rocky planet with a dense gas atmosphere. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/s...might-be-best-goldilocks-planet-yet.html?_r=0
Short Answer . . We not looking for friends. . . we looking for resources maybe a new place to live Rocket River
We? there won't be anything we consider 'human' going 1400 light years away. This is pure PR for the science programs and it would seem like a fun way to promote them, but I think giving people any of the faintest hope that humans can survive off this planet is free reign to avoid massive efforts to preserve what we have.
The mass is measured by the gravitational tug it has on it's Sun, which is observable as a wobble by the star. The Kepler team said it's a 50/50 chance or 40/60 chance that it is rocky. And that is also based upon the planet being in the Goldilocks zone. That doesn't sound much different than you're other astronomer. You make it sounds like s/he is arguing against the Kepler team. Likely not. And is that paper about Goldilocks zone planets, or just any planet with any orbit.
Vertical agriculture? Lets see, we can figure out how to feed billions of more people, or we can just stop making more people. I vote for birth control. Also I've said many time, that NASA should only be working on one project. The warp drive.
