Weird coincidence with potentially habitable exoplanets within 20 ly

[Spaceception]

Tau ceti e/f (Probably not "f", but whatever) 11.9 ly away (12 for simplicity)

Kapteyn b 12.9 ly (13 for simplicity)

Wolf 1061 c 13.8 ly away (14 for simplicity)

GJ 876 b/c (Habitable gas giants, but whatever) 15.3 ly (15 for simplicity)

GJ 832 c 16.1 ly (16 for simpicity)

GJ 682 c 16.6 ly (17 for simplicity)

Now look at the simplified distance from Tau ceti, down.

Weird, huh?

 

Edited January 10, 2016 by Spaceception

[Gaarst]

And ? Is there anything to notice ?

[Spaceception]

5 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

And ? Is there anything to notice ?

We've found potentially habitable planets (Roughly) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 ly away, isn't that consistent?

Edited January 10, 2016 by Spaceception

[Gaarst]

Just now, Spaceception said:

We've found planets 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 187 ly away, isn't that consistent?

We've also probably found dozens of other planets and they probably can give you the code of a nuclear strike order if you put some numbers in whatever order you want.

[Spaceception]

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

We've also probably found dozens of other planets and they probably can give you the code of a nuclear strike order if you put some numbers in whatever order you want.

Well, seeing as they're potentially habitable, I think it's kinda weird that earthlike planets formed at (Roughly) 1 ly intervals (From our perspective, they didn't actually form 1 (Rough) ly away from each other)

Edited January 10, 2016 by Spaceception

[sojourner]

But they're not 1 light year intervals. You applied simple rounding to make it look like they are.

[Spaceception]

16 minutes ago, sojourner said:

But they're not 1 light year intervals. You applied simple rounding to make it look like they are.

I meant to put "at (Roughly) 1 ly intervals" I'll fix it:/

[sojourner]

Why bother?

 

When you can fit entire solar systems inside your rounding distance, yeah. Not really any mysterious coincidences here.  Your just massaging numbers to create a pattern.

Edited January 10, 2016 by sojourner

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Spaceception said:

We've found potentially habitable planets (Roughly) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 ly away, isn't that consistent?

An sphere shells volume increase as its become larger, say 0-6, 6-12 and 12-18 lightyear and the last sphere has larger volume than the two inner. as sphere get larger the volume increase for each step get smaller. 
On the other hand its harder to detect small exoplanet farter away and the closer ones are more interesting anyway. 

[Shpaget]

A light year is quite an arbitrary unit, cosmologically speaking. Once you round up/down by up to 0.4 ly, it gets even less meaningful.

Also, inside those 17 ly, how many planets are there that are not habitable?
Furthermore, numerology is poo.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Shpaget

[pxi]

You can join just about any set of dots, if you use a pencil with a thick enough lead.

[Alias72]

Another thing to add.

Finding planets is hard

Finding potentially habitable planets is harder

Finding potentially habitable planets far away is almost impossible.

It is no mistake that we found a number of potentially habitable planets close to us. We only recently gained the ability to detect potentially habitable planets and are focusing our efforts on the closest ones to maximize our chances of finding them.

[Scotius]

^ This. We can miss even a planet that is very close to us, just because it never occults its star to us. There is plenty of planets we can't detect because they are not crossing our line of sight.

[Wjolcz]

I... Don't know what to say

L00minati confirmed woot!