Largest-Known Planet Befuddles Scientists

langelgjm writes to mention that scientists are quite puzzled over the discovery of the largest planet yet. According to study-leader Georgi Mandushev it should theoretically not even be able to exist. 'Dubbed TrES-4, the planet is about 1.7 times the size of Jupiter and belongs to a small subclass of "puffy" planets that have extremely low densities. The finding will be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal. [...] "TrES-4 is way bigger than it's supposed to be," Mandushev told Space.com. "For its mass, it should be much smaller. It basically should be about the size of Jupiter and instead it's almost twice as big." "TrES-4 appears to be something of a theoretical problem," said study team member Edward Dunham, also of the Lowell Observatory. "Problems are good, though, since we learn new things by solving them."'"

Comments

I got it

[Stormcrow309]

Dark matter! Maybe dark energy! Even maybe we have to revise theories in astrophysics because we were wrong on something... sigh, why do scientists think they are right now when their forbears were wrong?

Speaking of Astrophysics, if we can look into the sky and only see x millions of years back based off of light years, how do we know that we are not seeing the opposite side of the big bang curve? Here we are -> ( *Bang* )

More dumb observations later.

Re:Later that day...

[GeckoX]

Hey Mods!

Not Funny != Off Topic

Sheesh!

Whether it is actually funny or not is left as an exercise for the reader, however it most certainly is not off-topic.

Re:Theoretical problem

[pln2bz]

As in our theory has a problem.

Isn't this just another in a long line of gas giants that are too young, and too close to the host stars for our theories of planetary formation?

It also happens to be one more observation that supports the Electric Universe Theory. This planet is most likely a red dwarf that is no longer luminous. It is either on the verge of gaining its luminosity or losing it, according to EU Theory. Scientists might observe it actually light up and turn into a star. It's only 1400 light years away, so this shouldn't be too hard to actually observe if somebody's paying attention when it happens.

It's really quite sad that people on this board do not take EU Theory more seriously. It offers a very simple explanation for all of these anomalous observations that are being made. There are no stellar or planetary anomalies left once you apply EU Theory. It absorbs all of them that we've seen so far.

If we continue to act in a pseudo-skeptical way where all against-the-mainstream theories have *more* to prove than the mainstream, despite the fact that the mainstream theories have never truly demonstrated any real predictive power, then we will have locked ourselves into a theory that does not actually work. All evidence supporting alternative theories can always be disputed on a case-by-case basis. But this is called "explaining away the data". A true, rational evaluation of which theory is a better fit does not occur until people have read what both have to say, and attempt to prove both. Only then, after we compare the two proofs, can we say with any objectivity that one is better than another.

In the case of the puffy planet, it is far easier to see how something like this can happen within the EU view. Gaseous planets puff out in an attempt to gather more electrical energy (when they're growing), or they lose their stellar luminosity and become categorized by us as a planet, as they lose their electrical focus.

But, instead, a rational discussion of these concepts is pushed aside, as if there is no value in having it. It's really quite sad to observe this happening week after week after week. I highly recommend that people here fully inform themselves of what EU Theory states by reading Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". My point here will subsequently become fully self-evident. It saddens me that I cannot witness the collective intelligence of people here on Slashdot evaluating this enigmatic data within the framework of EU Theory. That conversation would be far more interesting actually, not to mention beneficial -- by contrasting and comparing the two frameworks, the bar would be raised and the conversation would by default benefit.