Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
...scientists discovered the "puffy" nature was due to its interior being mostly made of a substance remarkably similar to "fluffy chocolate nougat". Mars, Incorporated could not be reached for comment.
This was reported in the Tampa Tribune as a small page-6 blurb under the headline "New Largest Planet Sports Squishy Surface", a conclusion drawn from a quote by a scientist saying the planet has no firm surface. I almost cried.
ResidntGeek
It's way too big to be a planet and since small planets are called dwarf planets, please welcome the first discovered troll planet.
Isaac Newton has mod points again, I guess.
Uh no.
Go back to school. The hierarchy in science, in order of increasing evidence, is speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, theory.
The word "theory" in common parlance is an unsubstantiated guess. In science, the word "theory" means hypothesis supported by a large body of evidence, where the truth value of the theory is considered very high. Evolution is a theory that has so much evidence in its favor that the IDers are essentially nutcases who can't read or reason properly. It is the IDers that try to equivocate the position by using the common parlance flavor of the word "theory" when discussing science.
I've got a theory, it could be witches, some evil witches, which is ridiculous because Wicca good and love the earth and woman power and I'll be other there.
Ok, it isn't the mass that is surprising, it is the volume. Larger (in mass) exoplanets have been found, sometimes they fall in to the category of Brown Dwarfs. But TrES-4 is hardly massive. According to the article, the density is .2 g/mL and the volume is 1.7 times that of Jupiter. That gives a mass of
1.7*(1.43128*10^15 km^3) * .2 g/mL = 4.866352 * 10^26 kg.
Jupiters mass is 1.8986*10^27 kg. That means TrES-4's mass is only about one quarter the mass of Jupiter ((4.866352 * 10^26 kg)/ (1.8986*10^27 kg)= 0.256312651)
Are we sure NASA is reporting in inches and not centimeters?
Unfortunately, it hasn't been kept current
Are you fucking serious? Sure, Darwin's original ideas have been tested and built upon, but the idea of competition driving genetic variance still holds pretty fucking strongly.
See, the thing about evolution is, by most scientific standards of today, a good majority of the principles Darwin outlined in The Origin of Species are actually provable. I'm guessing you think they aren't just because the fundies and IDers are yelling loud enough.
On the more flamebait side, when one of those nutjobs are lecturing in the main mall of your local university, try asking them what they think about crystal lattices- complex, beautiful geometrical structures which will form naturally, and ask if there was an intelligent designer forming the covalent bonds in your ice tray this morning.
+5, Truth
Because their theories better fit the data. When they find a place where their theories and those of their predecessors don't work (this planet may be such a case), they work on formulating more general theories based on what they already know. And when they do this, they don't start from scratch each time, but build instead on previous discovery.
That's what science does. It progresses. It works. Would you rather we abandon the scientific method and just make up random stuff without testing it against reality? Even dark matter and dark energy aren't arbitrary: they're provisional descriptions of stuff we're actually seeing happen.
I'm getting really sick of this "oh, we can't really ever know anything because no theory is perfect, so let's just give up on this science thing" attitude.
DNA just wants to be free...
Astronomers have given the planet an official name, "Puff Daddy".
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Dark energy is a mathematical placeholder name. There is an observed force which we can measure, but which we have no tested model to explain. We call this force dark energy.
When you say, "maybe dark energy," you demonstrate that you don't know what that phrase means. That's like saying, "maybe the solution to the problem is x!" X is just a variable name, not an answer to a question. Even maybe we have to revise theories in astrophysics because we were wrong on something... Which happens all the time as our ability to measure and test the universe around us expands. This is an expected consequence of having more information. Someday, we'll marvel at how little we knew "back then" (e.g. today). For now, we have some very good ideas of how the universe in our local vicinity works, but no one expects to not be surprised by something new. sigh, why do scientists think they are right now when their forbears were wrong? Why do you think that scientists are some alien species that don't understand basic logic? Of course astrophysics know that they have some things wrong today, but this is how we learn. We build solid ground upon which to base further ideas, and we constantly assail these ideas and their underpinnings in order to determine which parts are reliable enough to continue to bear the weight of many other theories. Speaking of Astrophysics, if we can look into the sky and only see x millions of years back based off of light years, That's kind of broken statement. Let's try again, shall we? We can measure distance (in ways that range from simple triangulation to measuring red-shift). We know that light travels a certain distance in a certain amount of time. We therefore know how long light from an object would have traveled in order to get to us.
Now that's not quite "seeing x millions of years back," but it's close enough that I understand (I think) where you're going. how do we know that we are not seeing the opposite side of the big bang curve? What is the "big bang curve?" Do you mean, "how do we know that we're not seeing light that started out at a time before the big bang?"
Well there are several easy reasons for that: 1) The big bang started as a singularity. You can't measure or view anything through a singularity. It's a cosmic wall through which no information can pass 2) If that were true, then the expansion of the universe would change as we looked out into deep space, and those distant objects would be moving toward us. This is not the case.
Of course, your question (at least, as I understand it) assumes that the big bang was "preceded" by a big crunch (the universe collapsing into a singularity). That may or may not be true, and we have no way to prove that it is or isn't, since we can't extract information about what happened before the singularity.
Here we are -> ( *Bang* )
More dumb observations later.
I go with a simpler explanation. Something is wrong/missing with our observations.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I've got a theory, some kid is dreaming, and we're all stuck inside his wacky Broadway nightmare.
Eh, just wondering, because that seems to be counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.
http://www.mhall119.com
Well, science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence
Well, it depends on who we're talking about. As I said, "creationists" generally use a somewhat less subtle approach, more easily identifiable as logically fallacious equivocation. One minute they'll tell you "it's just a theory," and the next, invoke the second "LAW" of thermodynamics to refute evolution -- for some reason, they almost never see fit to remind us that the entire scientific model of thermodynamics (or any other well-subscribed, religiously inoffensive science) is also "just a theory."
Intelligent Design is all about casting doubt on evolution and people who understand ID usually don't make the "just a theory" equivocation argument, but as I said, many attempt to create an impression that ID is scientific -- a genuine theory of science, just like evolution (only better, more correct!) The problem is that ID, scientifically speaking, hasn't earned the right to be called a theory, the same way the theory of evolution has. It'd be more accurate to say it's a conjecture. Those aspects of ID that haven't been effectively refuted by evidence or rational examination are sometimes impossible to produce evidence against, because of how they've defined their belief in such a way that it cannot be falsified, which is another reason (besides the dearth of supporting evidence) that it's not a valid scientific theory. ID lacks predictive power, a requisite quality for any good scientific theory. It's pretty clear now that ID hasn't been arrived at or verified through honest application of the scientific method.
Intelligent Design could be correct. Heck, even young Earth creationism could be correct
That's funny, because in this day and age, I'm more worried about a populace that treats divine dictates handed down from a priesthood as having more weight and credibility than well-tested scientific theories.
The real danger lies with a scientifically illiterate public, who are unable to distinguish junk science and pseudo-science from the real thing -- or those who behave as if some kind of superstition is just as good, right and reliable as science (if it's not in fact what they consciously believe).