Slashdot Mirror
Study Concludes "Planet" Was Just Stellar Spots
Kligat writes "Back in January, it was reported that the youngest planet ever to be discovered, about ten times the mass of Jupiter, was orbiting the eight- to ten-million-year-old star TW Hydrae. Now a Spanish research team has concluded that TW Hydrae b doesn't exist, and that cold spots on the star's surface actually produced the dip in brightness instead of a transiting planet. Not as cool as if a planet had actually been there, but refutations are science, too, right?"
And I had just bought real estate there too! Think they'll give me my money back if I ask nicely?
Not if what you are refuting is backed by "a consensus" and has the support of the political left.
Talk about a not-so-real estate bubble.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is all part of the process of science.
People are trying to figure out the unknown, and don't always get it right the first time.
The popular press may spin it differently for the layman, but this is how science works.
just provide evidence that offsets fanbois about apple, linux, global warming or the democratic party on here and find out how much refuting anything will get you modded down by a bunch of faggot bitches.
What is the criteria for a planet to be called a planet? They keep downgrading every "planet". Can't they study the stars/planets, analyze and make a final decision? Or do they just want to make a statement every now and then to be in the evening news?
slashdot rocks
Interesting that they should investigate this, I wonder whether this could implicate other planets discovered or if this was clearly questionable from the beginning.
I record my sleeptalking
but could this mean that OUR planet is just a stellar spot?
There goes my vision of meeting a 3-breasted green space-babe who likes D&D. As Elton J. would say, it's just the clouds in my eyes.
Table-ized A.I.
... the tour bus was not scheduled to start for some years, so I guess I am not too terribly upset.
Frankly, I think the CS'ers (Cold Spotters) are just trying to debunk established scientific facts with fantastic claims that are based in conjecture. All of us Transitional Planetists need to make sure these clowns don't teach this shit in our schools!
This is where I sit back and watch the establishment piss themselves to mod me down first.
Not as cool as if a planet had actually been there, but refutations are science, too, right?
Wait, I thought we had a consensus on this planet issue. Somebody needs to pull this group's funding.
I say this every time a science post like this is posted: modern science is a joke. What I hate the most is the very concept of theories. The idea that some half-assed guess gets passed around as an acceptable explanation until proven otherwise just strikes a nerve with me. I wish science would stick to black and white, "we know this" and "we don't know this". Stop this "we think this and that, have no real clue, but are going to pat ourselves on the back for pretending to know something we don't".
I doubt it, because most other measurements were based upon the apparent wobbling of the parent star, not direct observation. This one, AFAIK, was tied to an attempt to "see" the planet transition across the parent star. Actually, I was of the frame of mind to think this is almost as exciting (if not more so) than a planetary discovery. If we can detect "cold spots" on an alien star, there's all sorts of fascinating implications.
From the article:
Impressive! There's a lot we may be able to learn about our own sun by monitoring the daily happenings of other stars. Things like the frequency of solar maximums, sunspots, and so forth on other stars comparing them with our own would be one such course of study.
He who has no
That's -LIFE-. People take their best shot at mastering the unknown, namely, the future, and if they get it right, they are heros, and if they get it wrong, they are goats. Baseball players, bankers, drillers, salesman, farmers, all either have to guess the future correctly, or, they pay the price... hell, we all have to, or we pay the price. Why should scientists be treated any differently?
This is my sig.
Finally, conclusive proof that our lord God, in all his wisdom, would not allow another planet to corrupt His grand design. It is good, and by God's grace that the lies of these heretical scientists are exposed.
They see things in little more than fairy tales, shadows on a star, and believe with all their fibre that something exists that doesn't.
Our Lord God, in all his wisdom, would never allow another planet, not in the 5,000 years since creation itself has He ever done anything so looney.
The exo-planet scientists are bumbling their way into obscurity. The public does not understand science. They don't understand small discoveries. They don't understand "backwards" discoveries like this one. Currently there is some interest in inferring that planets may exist around other stars, but it is quickly becoming a passing interest and the media attention is quickly turning from awe to skepticism (and not the good kind of skepticism required for science). It's like the 60s when inference of planetary atmospheres using starlight was proposed.. the interest was strong but no-one actually did the experiment for so long that when probes were proposed to go and directly measure the atmosphere of Venus the results of starlight interferometry were completely ignored.. and that was in the scientific community, which has a much longer attention span than the mainstream.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Charlie Manuel, manager of the Phillies, yanks out home run hitter Pat Burrel for pinch hitter Tso Taguchi, because Taguchi is said to be a better fielder and base runner. But.. Pat has worked on his field, made a number of great plays in outfield, hits 30 home runs, and Taguchi is batting like .150, and just gets a pop fly and, fails to get on base again.
Therefor, Charlie Manuel is a godamned moron, and if the Phillies blow this game against the Dodgers in the same way they blew the season by dropping behind the Mets, I hope they fire his sorry ass. But, if he somehow turns it around, and gets the Phillies into the world series, he's the finest man I ever knew and I hope they make a saint of him.
Your scientists should be thankful they are not "stupid jocks playing baseball."
"Booooo!!!! Fire the guy... this guy shouldn't be a university.. he ought to be doing showing the moon through a 4" Meade at the local middle school... if he could find the moon. retard"
We should probably invite the original scientists to come to Philadelphia, so we can throw snowballs at them and boo them, the same way we booed Santa Clause.
This is my sig.
Well, refutation *is* the foundation of science, after all.
Maybe the extraterrestrial Richter is lying to Cohagen again...
How many other 'facts' about things in the universe might merely be tainted observations?
So many times I read the most fantastical things astronmers have discovered a billion light-years away, and I think, how do they really know that? When there's that much distance, couldn't there be something out there fooling with their observation?
Seems like it does happen.
and I don't believe it is just the public mis-interpreting something that the scientists said was 'probable'. A lot of these guys pass off their discoveries as facts.
If that's one thing I love about science, is that; you better be right, because there are 50 other people out there working on your project to prove its a fallacy.
(Didn't Galileo about get put to death for proving some overbearing theology was wrong?) =(
Inseparably so! You can't have science or Scientific Method without falsifiability; anything else would just be... a religion.
I know, I know... the question was just rhetorical preaching to the choir, but the answer bears repeating nonetheless. There's still a few billion humans who haven't grokked it yet. 8-/
Does anybody want either a "Georgia Bigfoot" or "TW Hydrae b" t-shirt in men's large? Both shirts say "We are not alone" in front and look pretty cool. Five dollars takes the pair of them, or best offer.
I am DOCTOR RICHARDS OBAFEMI and I will be glad to assist you in getting your REFUND. In order to commence REFUND PROCEDURE please deposit the sum of $5000 (FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS US) demurrage fees to the account attached.
Your BROTHER IN GOD,
Dr. RICHARDS OBAFEMI
...it's just a bunch of astros as obsessed with sensational headlines as everyone else.
R.I.P.
Science Reporting With Proper Perspective
(i.e. "Dip in brightness that MAY have been caused by an orbiting planet, but more likely was caused by one of the following more common phenomenon:...")
January, 2008
In all seriousness, though, reporting true science to the masses...just doesn't work. The masses (myself included) simply cannot understand the complexity of the data/system/science well enough to receive it properly. So "Reporting of Science with Proper Perspective" can't have died...because it never existed.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Scientist 1: "OMG! There's a tear in the cosmic fabric of space-time! It's swallowing galaxies, heading right for us, and we're all going to DIE!"
Scientist 2: "Would you chill out? It was just a hair on the eyepiece. Look again."
Scientist 1: "Oh. Right. Well, that's enough science for this morning. I think I'm going to break for lunch, now..."
Also, for whatever it's worth, there have been rumors floating around since the original announcement that several groups have photometric data showing the variations in stellar flux due to these spots. The period of this variability was supposed to be consistent to the "planet's" period, a very strong argument that it was a rotation/spot effect.
Microsoft delenda est!
Karl Popper would be proud...
All we are is dust in the wind.
... that we can pick up the "sun spots" of stars that are lightyears away.
I thought I felt a disturbance in the force.
Refutations are one of the MOST important parts of science. Proving something incorrect is far more useful than suggesting that something might be correct.
Then Truth has scored yet another point.
> but refutations are science, too, right?
Absolutely. And it is precisely that which distinguishes it from religion.
Under what circumstances can ID be refuted?
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
R U sayin' that observation creates objects, or just artifacts in the data? Anyway, at that distance, how can one tell the difference between planetary bodies transiting their local solar discs, and the flicker caused by nearby cloaked Klingon warships?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
A most effective way to describe science would be as the process in which the smartest people on the planet have been proven wrong.
I see no reason to think thats going to change anytime soon.
I wish science would stick to black and white, "we know this" and "we don't know this".
Alright. That's a little more philosophy's jurisdiction, but it fits your request: "I think, therefore I am" is irrefutable, as long as I'm willing to compromise on what exactly I am (the rest of Descartes argument is significantly flawed, so we'll stop here).
I don't know anything else for sure.
I'm not sure that I exist in the form I think I exist. All that I see could be an illusion. Every person I meet could be in my mind. It's possible there's no such thing as a past, the universe was just created RIGHT NOW and all my "memories" are fake.
Obviously, that's a bit extreme. However, we can't rule it out. That's what science is all about. You take your observations, you make some assumptions about them (and the fact that they're not an illusion created by your mind is an assumption), and you make some conclusions based on the data you have. That's the best you can do until more data comes along. If it contradicts your previous conclusion, you make a new one that fits your observations and now you know a bit more about your universe than you did before. Still, you can never be sure that you have all the data, and so you can never be sure that you are right..
Re: "Not as cool as if a planet had actually been there, but refutations are science, too, right?"
Actually, refutations are MORE important than findings.
The degree in which we can trust science from a particular field is directly coorilated to how freely one scientist can dispute the findings of another. The REAL value comes from propping up the refuters.
Viva la scienctific-principal :Me
1. Actually, no, Galileo only got house arrest, and not as much for "proving some overbearing theology wrong" as for flaming an absolute monarch. There had been closed minded popes and cardinals, but Pope Urban VIII was not one of them. Before becoming a pope, he had actually defended Galileo and opposed other church officials like Bellarmine. And as a pope he actually encouraged Galileo to write his book, and only asked that he presents both models, both his new and his old one, and shows what his model explains that the other didn't.
What Galileo did... was a lot more like flaming. He took the Pope's words, distorted them, and put him in the mouth of a bumbling idiot of a character called, basically, The Stupid. That was the defender of the old model.
The pope didn't take lightly to public ridicule, and did a bit of an abuse of justice to show Galileo who's boss. He suddenly made the helliocentric model the official church position (where he had been very neutral before) just so he could prosecute Galileo and put the offending book on the index of forbidden books. But make no mistake, it wasn't about science vs religion, it was just a troll personally flaming an absolute monarch and getting smacked upside the head for it.
At any rate, Galileo got just a house arrest at his own mansion for his efforts. Hardly the worst possible fate. Other people routinely got executed for lesser offenses against secular monarchs.
2. I think the one you're talking about is Giordano Bruno. That one got burned at the stake all right. However, even there the waters are muddier.
For a start, Giordano Bruno had a _lot_ of accusations of heresy against him, with heliocentrism being by far the least important. Other stuff like preaching that Mary wasn't a virgin, or eastern-style reincarnation (including into animals), plus a few assorted things about Mass, Jesus and the Trinity. The Church couldn't care much less about heliocentrism, but when you start preaching that everything in the new testament is a lie, they started to care. A lot.
Furthermore, Giordano Bruno was a monk. The Church took policing its internal ranks very seriously. (And honestly, it had all the reasons to, since any excesses of one of its members got used as examples of what's wrong with the church as a whole.) Things you could have gotten away with as some lay person, became very serious offenses as a member of the clergy.
Not saying that it makes it "right". Just saying that there's more to it that "science vs religion." I don't think that Giordano's views on reincarnation qualified as "science", for example. Whatever "science" was in his position, seemed to have been more incidental than the fundament of it all. He was tried and executed for plain old heresy.
Again, I'm not saying that the power to try people for heresy is good or right. But let's treat it as the excess of totalitarian power that it was, rather than some grand science-vs-religion battle.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Too many people take every theory they stumble upon as fact. Science is the new religion. Follow-ups like this demonstrate that scientists and science is fallible.
Evolution
People are trying to figure out the unknown, and don't always get it right the first time.
Unless, of course, the subject is evolution. Then its Gospel Truth(TM). Before you think this a troll, know that I could care less one way or another whether evolution is "true" or not. Personally, I don't believe it conflicts with my theist leanings.
But there are people who believe evolution somehow proves God doesn't exist. For these people, any part of the scientific process which questions their dear theory is somehow suspect. They're going to find something to prop up their biases, and - unfortunately for science - evolutionary theory becomes the victim. They attempt to extend evolution from a qualified explanation to a provable tenet. Regardless of the strength of the evidence, evolution will never be proven in the philosophical sense, and attempting to graft science into a philosophical debate is fruitless at best.
To anyone familiar with the scientific method, these things are to be expected. We know that science is neither proven nor true - at least not in the mathematical or philosophical sense. Yet, the larger population often lacks the ability to discriminate between a tentative explanation which may be refined or disproved with the discovery of additional evidence and something that is provably correct. When science speaks, they listen.
Unless, of course, they're the fundamentalist type, in which case they treat all science with suspicion. Not because the claims of science are false, but because they can't understand the difference between an eternal truth (like the resurrection of Jesus) and a qualified statement.
And this is really what the debate about evolution, and the role of science in our society is about. It's not about the scientific method; it's about culture. It's about whose authority (Church or Academia) is accepted by the public at large. Yes, we know science is self-correcting; yes, we know that it has limits, and is frequently wrong. That's not the point. The point is the average person wants to find an authority in whom they can trust. For some people, that authority is their pastor. For others, it is the scientific establishment. For others, it is their parents/politicians/etc... It is these people who need to be convinced that - while the experts might know more than them - they are still expected to think and exercise independent judgment. So many don't, and that is the real root of the problem of science's public image. It is not for the intellectually lazy.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Kirk: Matt, where's your crew?
Decker: On TW Hydrae b.
Kirk: There IS no TW Hydrae b.
Decker: Don't you think I know that? There was...but not any more!
The error is entirely your own. How's that for black and white, you clown?
What I hate the most ...
So personal!
What I hate the most is the very concept of theories. The idea that some half-assed guess gets passed around as an acceptable explanation until proven otherwise just strikes a nerve with me. I wish science would stick to black and white, "we know this" and "we don't know this".
You either understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and don't whine about scientists' fallibility, or you're not qualified to comment on science at all and as a result when you do comment, you whine like a fool.
Stop this "we think this and that, have no real clue, but are going to pat ourselves on the back for pretending to know something we don't".
Unless you are a fellow astronomer, and have a better model for the very radial-velocity variation around TW Hya here under discussion, but your superior hypothesis and research have not been published due to some personal bias, you have no complaint about those scientists that are investigating that phenomenon nor that their success is as yet incomplete. If you're not curious enough about whether it's a planet or a cold spot on the sun to contribute to the research, and if you're not appreciative enough of the scientific process to at least cheer for the researchers, just go away.
Sports fans often cheer for each goal scored, and almost never whine in the middle of a contest that it isn't won yet. Boxing and races may be exceptions, so let's keep this sports analogy to (timed) ball games. People attend ball games only to support of one of the two teams, not to bitch and moan about ball games being a waste of other people's time because those of us who hold that opinion have the option to not attend, so we simply don't waste our own time on ball games. Such is the extent of one's right to "hate" any endeavor in which we are disinterested: non-participation. And neither I nor any of the authors show up at brothels or johns' homes to heckle you about your career. Be a good sport and kindly show the same respect for professional scientists that we show to professions we don't enjoy or appreciate. You obviously don't appreciate science so just go away, and stay there. Yes, I promise to do the same when your program begins, Jerry Springer.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p