Hubble Reinforces Planet Formation Theory

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hubble Reinforces Planet Formation Theory

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Thursday October 12, 2006 @03:51AM from the music-of-the-spheres dept.

eldavojohn writes "Physorg is running an interesting article on the most recent of Hubble's accomplishments. It has provided us evidence supporting that which Emmanuel Kant proposed over 200 years ago — that planets do indeed form from disks of gas and dust that surround stars. The trick, apparently, was observing many cases where a star's planet forms on the exact same circumstellar disk as the dust and gas. Hubble also aided the researchers in determining the weight of many extrasolar planets. Some had contended that these were not planets but rather brown dwarf stars — which is determined by measuring their weight." Update: 10/12 23:08 GMT by T : That's not the only theory Hubble's recent observation's have supported: read on below for a bit more. somegeekynick writes "Hubble has spotted a bunch of little galaxies, nicknamed Spiderweb, over 10 billion light-years away in the process of merging. This observation supports the so-called 'bottom-up' theory of galaxy formation, according to which smaller clumps of matter collided and merged with each other to form larger galaxies during early stages of the universe's evolution."

79 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 03:56 · Score: 0

I don't think that she's the brown dwarf star that they are talking abour.
Mass != Weight by Daniel_Staal · 2006-10-12 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative

The article means mass, not weight: A star's weight is effetively zero, as it is in a microgravity environment. It's mass is trillions of kilograms.

Sorry, just needed to be pendantic for a moment.

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.
1. Re:Mass != Weight by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  We amass many weighty topics on /.
2. Re:Mass != Weight by cplusplus · 2006-10-12 04:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The article discussed mass measurements, and the word weight appears nowhere in the text. I think the submitter made a classic Physics 101 mistake, not the article.
  
  --
  "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
3. Re:Mass != Weight by Daniel_Staal · 2006-10-12 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I meant Slashdot article, not the article the Slashdot article refers to... (Since, after all, we all know no one reads those, right? ;) )
  
  Anyway, thanks for the correction.
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
4. Re:Mass != Weight by balsy2001 · 2006-10-12 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You are many orders of magnitude off on the mass of a star. The mass of the earth is 5^24 kilograms, so use that as a reference point The sun is ~ 1 billion times the mass of the earth.
  
  --
  GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
5. Re:Mass != Weight by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-12 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's quadrillions of grams, or billions of tons.</PEDANTIC>
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
6. Re:Mass != Weight by balsy2001 · 2006-10-12 04:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So I should have checked my facts BEFORE submitting. The mass of the sun ~ 333000 times the mass of the earth.
  
  --
  GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
7. Re:Mass != Weight by EggyToast · 2006-10-12 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  The submitter seems like a class act all around, as they not only goofed on weight!=mass, but the link goes to the "print this story" version, which prompts the user to print the story.
8. Re:Mass != Weight by Dr+Caleb · 2006-10-12 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's quadrillions of grams, or billions of tons.
  
  <PEDANTIC>"Tons" is a measure of weight. "Tonnes", is what I believe you were looking for.</PEDANTIC>
  
  --
  "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
9. Re:Mass != Weight by Hillgiant · 2006-10-12 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but the comments amount to a load.
  
  --
  -
10. Re:Mass != Weight by trongey · 2006-10-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  The article means mass, not weight: A star's weight is effetively zero, as it is in a microgravity environment. It's mass is trillions of kilograms.
  
  On the other hand, weight is a measure of one object's gravitational attraction to another. The measured wobble of these stars is induced by said gravitational attraction. Therefore, HST is helping to determine the weight of suspected planets.
  
  --
  You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
11. Re:Mass != Weight by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  It's pedantic, not pendantic. Just had to be pedantic there for a moment.
12. Re:Mass != Weight by Keith+Russell · 2006-10-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  ...the link goes to the "print this story" version, which prompts the user to print the story.
  
  I was about to comment on how the advertising-is-teh-devil crowd would bitch about the number of pages the regular version spanned, but the regular version is only one page, too.
  
  --
  This sig intentionally left blank.
13. Re:Mass != Weight by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Turn off Javascript and it won't prompt you.
juxtaposition != causation by prgrmr · 2006-10-12 04:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

from TFA:

has at last confirmed what Kant and scientists have long predicted: that planets form from debris disks around stars.

Again, "modern" scientists jumping to unsupported conclusions. Simply observing a dust cloud and a planet in the same orbital plain around the same star doesn't prove the planet formation theory. Until they find a dust cloud containing a proto-planet in the process of condensing, the theory is still unproven.
1. Re:juxtaposition != causation by peragrin · 2006-10-12 04:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  of course do you really know that the planet they found wasn't a proto planet, in the process of being formed?
  
  The onyl way to be certian is to go visit the planet.
  
  Now where's my hyperspace drive.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
2. Re:juxtaposition != causation by prgrmr · 2006-10-12 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  The article stated that the dust cloud and the gas giant were in different orbits. How precisely we are currently able to measure the boundry of the dust cloud is probably the key question. That, and what's the ratio of gas to dust in the cloud?
  
  There's possibly a Nobel prize waiting for the person who can produce the formula for planet creation that accounts for the mass and rotation speed of the star; the mass, area, composition, rotation speed, and over-all gravimetric effect of the dust cloud; and the gravitational effect of any already-formed planets, comets, and other near-by objects.
3. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Again, "modern" scientists jumping to unsupported conclusions.
  
  Nobody did that, you just have no idea what you're talking about.
  
  The theory had a major loophole in it because nobody had ever before been able to observe a planet formation on the same plane as it's sun's disk of dust and gas. This find goes a long way toward closing that loophole and, when combined with all prior evidence for the theory, also goes a long way to validating it's accuracy to the point of virtual certainty.
  
  I have no idea why you felt the need to take a glib stab at "modern" scientists like that, but maybe in the future you should make sure you have at least a tiny clue what you're talking about before you make yourself look like an idiot in the process of trying to make other people appear that way.
4. Re:juxtaposition != causation by prgrmr · 2006-10-12 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  The new observation does, indeed, go a long way to supporting the current theory of planet formation. However, it is far from a smoking gun. The article doesn't state if there's sufficient observable evidence to support the conclusion that this planet came from this dust cloud. If that's not the case, then we have no "virtual certainty", just more "probably" data points.
  
  As for the "glib stab", presenting conclusions in the face of non-conclusive evidence calls for questioning, and any ethical scientist ought to expect that.
5. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  I saw a couple articles on this report, and I think it really wasn't the researchers trying to make it sound so conclusive, but the author of this particular article.
6. Re:juxtaposition != causation by rca66 · 2006-10-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Until they find a dust cloud containing a proto-planet in the process of condensing, the theory is still unproven.
  
  Due to the time scales on which this happens, this is just impossible. How do you want to oberserve a process, which takes longer as our civilization exists? (And btw: how would you tell a proto-planet from a planet?) Similar to the way astrophysicists have confirmed the theory of stellar evolution, you have to find examples of systems in different stages. They have planet systems without debris, just disks with debris but no planets and now they have a planet in a debris disk. This star is quite young, so this also fits the theory. If it would be an older star, it would be difficult to explain. On the other hand, he is not too young, which would make a planet formation unlikely. So, the theory of plantetary formation has found at least a further confirmation.
7. Re:juxtaposition != causation by rca66 · 2006-10-12 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  The article stated that the dust cloud and the gas giant were in different orbits.
  
  Where? Can you quote it? I would be intersted to see, where they ascribe an orbit to a disk.
8. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Durandal64 · 2006-10-12 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Very funny. So I guess it's sheer coincidence that the planet's orbital tilt just happens to be the same as the surrounding dust ring's? Maybe you should actually read the article before presuming that you have the authority to question astronomers on matters which they've spent years studying, while you're lucky to get a few minutes'-worth of exposure to them on a weekly basis on Internet news aggregators.
9. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Now where's my hyperspace drive.
  
  Right next to your improbability drive?
10. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  However, it is far from a smoking gun.
  
  Never mind. Anybody who thinks the notion of a "smoking gun" has any relevance to a scientific theory whatsoever is so utterly and inconcievably ill-informed about science that it's really just not worth the time it takes to argue with them.
  
  I wish I'd have known that before I wasted my time making that last post...
11. Re:juxtaposition != causation by prgrmr · 2006-10-12 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  How do you want to oberserve a process, which takes longer as our civilization exists?
  
  Obviously we cannot observe the entire process, but an agreed-upon mid-point would certainly do.
  
  And btw: how would you tell a proto-planet from a planet?
  
  I hope there's already a general description for when a group of matter within a dust-cloud would be considered a planet, or planet-like, or at least planet forming. That would be a conclusive smoking gun to justify the theory as now being an observed working method.
  
  and now they have a planet in a debris disk.
  
  That's not what the article stated:
  show for the first time that a planet is aligned with its star's circumstellar disk of dust and gas
  Which is what changes the conversation.
12. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Even in the absence of any other experimental evidence, the fact that computer simulations obeying Newton's laws predict the formation of planets from such discs is nothing to sneer at. The question is not whether planets can form in this way, but in exactly how they form (e.g., what are the roles of friction, hydrodynamics, etc. in accounting for the observed features of solar systems).
13. Re:juxtaposition != causation by rca66 · 2006-10-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously we cannot observe the entire process, but an agreed-upon mid-point would certainly do.
  
  Ahem, yes something like - a planet inside a disk of dust for instance...
  
  I hope there's already a general description for when a group of matter within a dust-cloud would be considered a planet, or planet-like, or at least planet forming. That would be a conclusive smoking gun to justify the theory as now being an observed working method.
  
  Your notion of a "smoking gun" is a bit too simple. Scientific theories are nearly never proven by a single, and deceisive observation. I doubt, that it is possible with todays technology to tell a protoplanet from a planet in a system lightyears away. But a system in a stage as observed in this case is also a quite good evidence for the theory, as it is still somewhere inbetween just a dust disk and a planet system like ours.
  
  and now they have a planet in a debris disk.
  
  That's not what the article stated:
  
  What to you criticise? The word "debris" as opposed to "dusk". Well, on such a scale it is hard to distinguish and the article uses both words for the disk. Or do you say, the planet is not inside this disk. Well, here is what the article says:
  It is still surrounded by a disk of dust that extends 30 billion kilometers from the star. [...] The planet's orbit is inclined 30 degrees to Earth, the same angle at which the star's disk is tilted. [...] The planet is in an elliptical orbit that carries it as close to the star as Earth is from the Sun, and as far from the star as Jupiter is from the Sun. [i.e. between 100 and 500 million miles]
  
  This put together describes a planet moving inside a disk of dust.
14. Re:juxtaposition != causation by Kagura · 2006-10-12 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Dang, you just got owned, Prgrmr!
Question for the science folks out there by WndrBr3d · 2006-10-12 04:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

So does this article back up the claim that Pluto isn't a planet, but more a free floating dwarf planet that was captured by our suns gravitational pull? I had read an article that supported the theory because it stated that Pluto was the only "planet" that didn't orbit on the same circumstellar disk as the rest of our solar systems planets.
1. Re:Question for the science folks out there by imsabbel · 2006-10-12 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  This claim doesnt need backing up, its entirely obvious when you look at the orbit parameters.
  
  --
  HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
2. Re:Question for the science folks out there by Red+Flayer · 2006-10-12 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This claim doesnt need backing up, its entirely obvious when you look at the orbit parameters.
  Just as the sun orbits the earth, which is entirely obvious if you observe its track through the sky.
  
  I happen to agree that it's most likely that Pluto is a captured object, but another theory out there is that Pluto formed the same as the first eight planets, but then was knocked out of a normal planetary orbit by collision with another object (like its moon).
  
  In science, the term entirely obvious is a very bad one -- it limits the drive to seek alternate explanations, which may end up being the correct ones.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
3. Re:Question for the science folks out there by misleb · 2006-10-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting Pluto was adopted?
  
  -matthew
  
  --
  "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
4. Re:Question for the science folks out there by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Neil deGrasse says that if pluto were in the inner solar system as earth is, it would form a tail. "no behavior for a planet" as he put it.
5. Re:Question for the science folks out there by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Of course he was. Mickey and Minnie are both Mice, and Pluto is a dog. My guess is that he is the love child of Minnie and Goofy.
6. Re:Question for the science folks out there by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why Mickey sued for divorce.
7. Re:Question for the science folks out there by cbass2 · 2006-10-12 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  The reason the planets are all in roughly the same plane and have nearly circular orbits is conservation of angular momentum of the protoplanetary disk. All planets, because of collions occuring roughly equally from all sides.
  Pluto, being further out in less dense space, probably experienced fewer collisions, so it could not achieve the same equalibrium as the rest of the planets. Hense whey it's orbit is the most oblong and not on the same plane.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
  I'm sure we will all find out more once the probe reaches pluto in 2015:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_probe
Replacement? by From+A+Far+Away+Land · 2006-10-12 04:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

In a move all to familiar to environmentalists in Canada [see Conservatives "green approach"], a national government has canceled a scientifically motivated project [Hubble] for which they have no replacement yet. When will governments realize that redundant-capable science projects [Internet] work better than canceling a project and leaving us blind for a measure of years?

I suppose worldly wastes just get a higher priority than figuring out how the Universe is put together, and thus learning to better manage and predict it...

--
Oh You POS
1. Re:Replacement? by iamlucky13 · 2006-10-12 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Once again, a post suggesting that astrophysics research basically stops without the Hubble.
  
  It is true that the particular wavelengths it images are largely unique among current and proposed space observatories, but those are certainly not the only wavelengths of interest. The justification of the high cost of the James Webb Space Telescope comes from the fact that no other observatory has the deep infrared capability or sensitivity to examine early galaxies in the detail that JWST will. In fact, JWST will actually build on what Hubble revealed with its ultra deep field survey. Basically, Hubble (and Spitzer) showed that infrared is the most interesting part of the spectrum inaccessible from the ground. Of course, there's also the x-ray, microwave, and ELF bands, all useful for astronomy, which the Hubble can not observe, but other projects do.
  
  Furthermore, the Hubble's capabilities aren't really unique. There is significant overlap in the infrared capabilities between it, JWST, and several smaller space observatories, and even ground observatories in the near IR range. Obviously, the Hubble's visible wavelength observations are redundant with the many ground-based observatories, some with better resolution than the Hubble due to adaptive optics. Not to mention data collected by the Hubble will continue to be analyzed and even reused for additional projects long after Hubble is de-orbited.
  
  Don't get me wrong, the Hubble is a great tool, probably the most versatile observatory available. It will be missed, and I personally think it's worth the risk of one extra shuttle mission to get another five years out of it. However, the cost of continuously maintaining it compared to the additional science it can offer versus investing in new observatories is hard to justify when we only give NASA $16 billion a year, and there's a huge political pressure (and plenty of slashdotters) that would have the shuttle grounded as soon as possible.
  
  An "internet" of redundant space telescopes is a marvellous idea. NASA would surely love to have a fleet of Hubbles at their bidding, but the internet and astronomy, both functionally and economically, can't even be compared as apples to oranges. It's more of an apple orchard to Faberge egg comparison.
2. Re:Replacement? by From+A+Far+Away+Land · 2006-10-13 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  "a post suggesting that astrophysics research basically stops without the Hubble."
  
  Ah, but an aspect of it does for potentially a measure of years. It's not in effect anyway. No space bourne telescope. Ooops.
  
  --
  Oh You POS
3. Re:Replacement? by iamlucky13 · 2006-10-13 04:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  FYI (my apologies for the gratuitous use of wikipedia)
  
  Hubble Space Telescope
  Spitzer Infrared Space Telescope
  Chandra X-ray Observatory
  Infrared Space Observatory
  Corot Space Telescope
  MOST Telescope
  Astro-F Space Telescope
  Swift Gamma Ray Telescope
  Kepler Space Telescope
  SOHO
  
  These are some of the more interesting ones currently operating or scheduled to come online before 2010. As you see, the different space agencies actually operate quite a few space-based observatories, each with different capabilities and goals. When any one of them is decommissioned, they lose a little bit of their overall capability, but that's life. Nobody made as much fuss, for example, when the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory was deorbited, despite its significant contributions to cosmology.
  
  Also, the astronomers who were upset about the idea of Hubble being abandoned were almost universally agreed that if push comes to shove, they would much rather give up the Hubble than have any more features cut from the JWST.
4. Re:Replacement? by From+A+Far+Away+Land · 2006-10-14 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Pardon me for not reading them all now. Do any of those others work in the visual spectrum, or for how far where Hubble is designed to work?
  
  --
  Oh You POS
5. Re:Replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-14 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'm afraid I can't answer that fully. Several of them operate in various parts of the infrared range, but I don't know exactly what the overlap is, and I don't believe any of them have quite as much resolution, but Spitzer does have better sensitivity, IIRC. One of them is ultraviolet, which is apparently a rather boring spectrum astronomically, but is also covered by Hubble. I believe one of the smaller ones is visible wavelength, but of course, visible light can be seen from the ground. The only advantage Hubble has over Mauna Kea, for example, is slightly better sensitivity, but much lower resolution.
Re:Not weight! Mass! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 04:08 · Score: 0

Thank god someone else remembered that mass != weight -- I thought I was the only one who stayed awake in middle school science class. Maybe cause I'm just too white and nerdy?
This is pretty silly by Flying+pig · 2006-10-12 04:11 · Score: 1

Theories of very hard to observe things are built up by weight of evidence. Currently study the Kuiper Belt is providing a lot of information, and as telescopes improve we find more and more about small objects in our own solar system. But if we wait till we have evidence of an object orbiting another star accreting mass from a dust cloud, that could take thousands of years.

--
Pining for the fjords
Hear Here by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-12 04:12 · Score: 1

Hubble has taught us much because it's a big eye in the sky. Maybe if we put a big ear in the sky, we'd prove the wisdom of the old Music of the Spheres. We've already got the studio album... when will NASA release the live concert?

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:Hear Here by Rob+T+Firefly · 2006-10-12 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  So we've done eyes, and we're talking about ears. Why have we not yet examined the possibilities of sticking a big tongue out into the sky?
  
  --
  Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
2. Re:Hear Here by inviolet · 2006-10-12 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yes! And then a big nose! Will we really have to wait 1000 years for somebody to invent a Smelloscope?
  
  --
  FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
3. Re:Hear Here by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-12 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Some would say the entire Earth is a cosmic raspberry.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
4. Re:Hear Here by Ruie · 2006-10-12 05:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  Yes! And then a big nose! Will we really have to wait 1000 years for somebody to invent a Smelloscope?
  
  Actually, this has been done in a number of ways. Nose is just an instrument to analyze chemical composition of substances. An incomplete list of existing techniques:
  
  Original Mars landers had chemical tests on board (in particular to test for presence of life)
  
  Comet dust gathering probes
  
  Radiation-based chemical composition testing (Mossbauer spectrometer)
  
  spectrometers: X-ray, radio (hydrogen line, ammonia line, etc - though, afaik these are mostly Earth based), optical
  
  This is just off the top of head, I am sure I am forgetting some - and don't know about many others.
5. Re:Hear Here by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Sniff, sniff... ewww... which planet farted?
Like by toddhisattva · 2006-10-12 04:38 · Score: 0

I like it when Western "philosophers" copy the work of Indians and pass it off as their own.

Real philosophers, like Leibniz and Wolff, gave credit to the Chinese when it was due.
**sigh** by everphilski · 2006-10-12 04:40 · Score: 1

there is a repair mission in the works to keep Hubble alive till 2013.

the James Webb Space Telescope is slated to enter operations in 2013. Some parts are under construction already.
Original text by bumptehjambox · 2006-10-12 05:02 · Score: 1

If you aren't looking to print the story... http://www.physorg.com/news79617716.html
wtf by jaimz22 · 2006-10-12 05:27 · Score: 1

Isn't weight calculated by the amount of force exerted on a particular mass? how in the hell can something that is floating in a 0 gravity environment have weight? Unless thier talking about it's relative weight if it were here on earth.

like saying "planet blahblah wieghs 700billion ton" NO IT DOESN'T it weighs nothing! there's no gravitational force acting upon it. If it was heavy it'd fall somewhere LMAO

really.. come on.. and how do they weigh something by looking at it anyway? they don't KNOW what the density is of the crap it's made out of. all the scientists know is what they have access too, that's the crap they have on earth. how do they know that some planet 10 light years away is made up of the same elements as ours? Thats like saying that you can tell how much a chunk of some unknown metal weighs because you know how much a chunk of aluminum, thats about the same size, wieghs.

ranting EOF
1. Re:wtf by Tod+DeBie · 2006-10-12 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't weight calculated by the amount of force exerted on a particular mass?
  Yes. They are calculating mass, not weight.
  how do they weigh something by looking at it anyway
  If the planet was dead in space (not moving) we would not be able to estimate its mass very well: it might be made of lead or marshmellows and we would not be able to tell very well one way or the other from this far away without having more, um, powerful instruments. However, when a planet is moving around a star, we can make a fairly good mass estimate based on, among other things, how much the star is 'wobbled' by the planet in orbit around it. Based on the stars observable properties, spectrum, light output, etc., we can make very good estimates on the star's mass and if a given star of a given mass is wobbled so much by a planet in orbit, we can calculate the mass of the planet. This only works well for larger planets and well behaved stars.
2. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  They probably estimate the mass of the planet using techniques like spectroscopy and other such things you have no clue about. Don't rant when you really don't understand anything you're talking about.
3. Re:wtf by jaimz22 · 2006-10-12 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have to say that'd be a better way to measure it's magnetic field, if one does infact exsist. let me point out, just because we have something on earth and on surrounding planets doesn't mean it's on ALL planets..
4. Re:wtf by Tod+DeBie · 2006-10-12 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  that'd be a better way to measure it's magnetic field
  We can't indirectly measure the magnetic fields of the other planets in our own solarsystem, we actually have to send out robots to measure them directly. I don't think we have any chance of measuring the magnetic fields (or lack thereof) of extrasolar planets, they are too weak and far away.
Proposterous by kernel_pat · 2006-10-12 05:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Planets are made by god, your theory is ludicrous, I'm sueing you for not acknowledging my alternative theory.
1. Re:Proposterous by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2006-10-12 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  You spelt God without proper capitalization. That is an even greater sin than drawing a cartoon of His Prophet (peas be upon him). Brace yourself buddy, anytime now millions of people will march in the streets of Karachi, Pakistan protesting this grave insult.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
2. Re:Proposterous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  He also spelled 'Preposterous' wrong.
Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by DudeTheMath · 2006-10-12 05:29 · Score: 0, Troll

A boyfriend of Renée Descartes? Or her own, personal, Jesus?
Perhaps the editor meant Immanuel? Honestly, this is two major errors in the posts this week.

--
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
1. Re:Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, Emmanuel Kant- he's that philosopher that wrote Critique of Poor Spelling, the essential text of the spelling Nazi.
2. Re:Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Iiiiiiiiimannuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
  Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
  
  I say again, are you a poofter?
3. Re:Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by thePig · 2006-10-12 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually his name was Emanuel Kant.
  Later he changed it to Immanuel.
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
4. Re:Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by geedra · 2006-10-12 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, they got it wrong. Immanual or Emanual. NOT Emmanual.
5. Re:Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  *ALL* of your spellings are wrong too.... Immanuel Kant or Emanuel Kant is correct.
6. Re:Never heard of Emmanuel Kant by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-13 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Actually his name was Emmanuelle Cunt, a well known european slut.
  /me waits for "-1: Lewd" -moderation...
You have a competing theory? by mmell · 2006-10-12 06:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

And evidence to support your theory? Evidence which negates the currently accepted theory? Evidence which can be readily reproduced by scientists skeptical about your theory?
I thought not.
Not all scientists accept Kant's theories regarding planetary evolution as correct. Even the scientists who do accepts Kant's theories as correct (and they are the overwhelming majority) will be the first to admit that they are theories. That's the nature of science.
Yes, the theory is still unproven - but it is well-supported, and this data from the HST provides even more support. Scientists haven't "jumped to unsupported conclusions" - they've (quite correctly) described this data as supporting an existing theory, not as proof or evidence of a fact.
Yes, TFA describes these things as facts, rather than theory. Blame the journalists, not the scientists.
Brown dwarf stars?! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 06:47 · Score: 0

"not planets but rather brown dwarf stars -- which is determined by measuring their weight"

Brown dwarf stars?! Ahhh, they've got the Hubble pointed at Gary Coleman's house again.
So difficult by HotBBQ · 2006-10-12 07:27 · Score: 2, Funny

[insert William Shatner voice]
Must-resist-urge-to-make-lame-"Brown Dwarf"-comment.
[/insert William Shatner voice]
Of course we all know... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-12 10:47 · Score: 0

God put all the gas there to test our faith! Duh!