Few of us seriously consider running software from the FBI without source, unless it's to test it. Similarly, we know not to trust programs from MS, Real,..., or cookies from DoubleClick. But what about hardware? Do you know what that router is really doing? Or what about your switch?
How can we apply the same standards to hardware as we do for software?
It is certainly not just another plasma. The consituents (quarks and gluons) of the consitutents (protons and neutrons) of the neucleii of atoms are beleived to be out of their usual state (bound in triplets). I'd say that's a much more fundamental different than the different between gas and liquid.
Actually, if you slow down you will move into a higher orbit. If you speed up you will go into a lower orbit. It's the negative specific heat of gravity that explains this curiosity
Ok, I think dressing up and having a little fun while doing work is cool. But wearing a skin-tight latex outfit is really unnecessary. Why did you do that? Did you want men to look at you and think primarily about how sexy you looked?
On one hand, I'd guess being a techy female and quite attractive you must be in high demand. On the other, I don't understand why you'd make a point of attracting males' attention, unless you were on the verge of desparate.
Given our society, by wearing something like that, you're almost asking to be thought of sexually rather than for who you really are. (I'm not saying that's right, but that's the way it is.) To me it seems like you're degrading yourself. Like saying, I'm not good enough to just be normal me. If I want you to stop and talk to me, I have to appeal to another of your senses.
As you can tell, I don't understand your decisions (dressing like that and posting a link on the internet on a forum where lots of males will go look and drool). I'd appreciate an explanation of what went into your decision making process?
For those of us who have been using Linux since slackware or before, Linux was something well before there was any marketing. And I beleive it will continue to be something long after the marketing goes away.
Even if the buzz word becomes old, Linux stocks plunge, and Linux companies are bought and thrown away by MS, I can still happilly run linux. And since Linux was actively developed before any marketing, I venture to guess that it will continue to be developed after the marketing.
The compiler may reorder the arithmetic better than I, but the compiler won't change the algorithm. When possible, optimizing your algorithm almost always helps. Sometimes it's your only hope at decent performance.
For example, last year I had code that took several hours for a n=256^3 box. Since it scaled as n^2, and I needed to apply it to a n=1024^3 box, optimization was necessary. By optimizing the algorithm, I got it to run on a n=1024^3 box in less than a 15 minutes. By further optimizing the C (not assembler) I got it to run in less than 25 seconds.
>As a point of interest, the first object >discovered in such a peculiar horseshoe shaped >orbit was a moon of an asteroid.
I'm not sure to what you are referring. Can you be more specific?
Then there are two two moons of Saturn (sorry, I forget the names) which are on real horseshoe orbits. I hear some astronomers actually beleived they were going to collide and tried to watch, only to see them gradually turn around. Hehe
True, we don't know what conditions are normally like, whether we're going in or coming out of an ice age, how accurate models are (I've seen models that are reasonabely successful for 20 years. That doesn't quite make the 60's, but that doesn't mean you should completely ignore them. If they predict big changes over the next 20 years, doesn't that worry you?). You are correct that those are matters of scientific debate. However, ignorance is not an excuse to do whatever you want. The fact that we don't know the consequences of our actions should be an even bigger incentive to minimize our impact on the environment.
Please do not simply dismiss our best efforts to understand what we're doing on the basis that we're not 100% sure. Scientists can run the same model with and without different effects, such as factories, rain forest burning, cars, etc. And the current best models show that there will be a significant difference depending on such factors.
I beleive nearly all researchers agree that there are significant environmental changes taking place. What is not agreed upon is whether human activity is causing those changes. I find the alarming thing is not the magnitude of the changes over the next 20 years (about as long as the models could reasonablely be trusted), but rather than rate of change. If such rates are maintained, it seems quite likely that something drastic will happen beyond the timescale of validity of the models, but not beyond the timescale of my lifetime.
Yes, there are people who put up websites saying there's nothing to worry about. That doesn't mean it is so. If you are really interested, I'd recommend researching the various sites credentials. While I don't completely trust anybody, I trust academic physics funded by NSF more than I trust "scientists" funded by oil companies.
WRT your particular situation: I beleive this is a serious enough problem that it's worth making serious sacrices. 90 miles/day would require a lot of time and effort on bike. Please consider relocating either your home or your place of work.
If you don't like the gas tax, trying walking, riding a bike, or taking public transportation.
In other countries gasonline taxes are over 100%. By using a car, you're hurting us all. You should have to pay big time for it. A measly 900% tax would still be ripping off your grandkids.
For example, I recently attended a scientific talk where the speaker showed plots of climate simulations run as far forward as they are trustworthy. According to their best model, merely permanetly parking every car in the world isn't enough action to prevent tempratures from rising 10 degrees F and cities being submerged! We need to take drastic measures fast. Imposing very large taxes on environment destroying things like gasoline is the least we can do.
I like this idea very much. In addition to releiving most Americans from "doing taxes", it would allow taxes to be targeted more precisely. If you buy rice, low/no tax. If you buy a mink coat, high tax. That way money spent on necessities is taxed only very mildly, while money spent on luxuries is taxed more heavily. Similarly, tax incentives for things like being environmentally responsible could still exist. If you buy recycled paper, you get a small reduction in the tax. If you buy natural gas, you are taxed less than if you buy oil. If you give your money to a charity, no tax.
This seems like a great idea to me. Yes, businesses and maybe investors would still have complicated tax laws, but it would still be a big improvement for most of America.
I don't know whether this law suit is stupid or not. But the Cyrix cases (which Via uses as evidence that this case is silly) were not stupid. Cyrix got off on a technicality that was ambiguous. Thus it was reasonable for both sides to think they were in the right. But it's still a shame the cases had to go to court.
Intel has provided us with Moore's Law, both in theory and in practice. We should all be greatful for this.
Regarless of whether AMD, Via, Transmeta, or another company temporarily has a product that might be slightly cheaper, faster, or cooler, Intel has consistantly provided a very competative product in good quantity at a competative prices. Not many other companies can come close.
Complaining that Intel doesn't always have the best product is silly. As is complaing about Intel not commiting to providing some companies with as many of a particular chip at a couple of speed ratings, when many other options were avaliable. You should be thankful that such high-end chips were priced so cheaply that so many people wanted them. Obviously, they could have charged more for those same chips. Simiarlly, Intel gets flak from Slashdot readers if it keeps it's prices up above AMD's prices and it gets flak from the same people if it cuts its prices to be more competative. Let's try be a little more reasonable.
Intel has invested in several linux causes, giving them not only cash, but also the credability to be a threat to other big names like MS. They regularly support educational causes such as the International Science and Engineering Fair, the Intel Talent Search, and the Research Science Institute. I only know of these, because I was a part of them. (There are probably many more that I don't even know about.) I've also read about the lengths Intel has gone to respect enviromental concerns (I forget the details, but basically they could make their fabs much cheaper and still meet all the law requirements, but instead chose to spend more money to make thier fabs more environmentally responsible). I think Intel is one of the best citizens we have. Let's give them the respect they deserve.
In the lava lamp the convection is driven by a temperature gradient. Since the two fluids have a different thermal expansivity, which fluid's density is greater changes as a function of temperature.
In this case, the bubbles have the same density and bouyancy, but different sized bubbles have different ratios of drag force to inertia. Therefore for some bubbles drag carries them along with the bulk motion of the fluid, while for others the bouyancy causes them to rise regardless.
If you are a US citizen, want to go to college, and are willing to take out loans, the government will loan you enough for a state school. If you have good test scores, etc., you can get an out-of-state tuition wavier in many states, allowing you to find a good school you can attend, regardless of where your parents live.
So if you go into CS and exert a reasonable ammount of effort, you'll be able to get a job to easily pay off your loans.
I'd encourage your brother-in-law to spend time investigating his options early. I'm confident that even he could get a good college education, but only if he wants it enough to work hard. And that work probably including researching his options a few years before he applies to schools.
Sorry no evidence for Mg, Si, or O, yet. See my earlier top-level post.
In any case, this planet does not pass directly in front of or behind it's star as viewed from Earth. Actually, the orbital plane is inclided a good bit (probably 30-60 degrees) to our line of sight. They claim to have detected a signal by looking where they would expect to find reflected stellar lines slightly shifted due to the planet's doppler shift. Again, see my previous top-level post, as this is not yet a clear detection of any light from the planet.
Don't worry. People have thought about all the issues you bring up. The solar wind isn't very significant to the orbit of the planet, although it can affec it's atmosphere. Tidal forces are important and may very well cause the planet to spiral into the star in several billion years. It is likely that they already "spun-up" the star so that the star's rotation period matches the planet's orbital period.
Unfortuantely, this story was very premature. Hopefully, we'll see a similar headline in the future that is more beleivable.
First, the group has submitted a paper to a scientific Journal, and it has been accepted, however several changes (mainly deletions) were made between the version they submitted and the version that will be published.
Second, another group of respected astronomers tried a very similar observation of this same system and published a paper claiming to have an upper limit on the light reflected off the planet. Their upper limit is below the claimed detection. Of course, either could be incorrect, but this detection is still controversial until the discrepancy is resolved, even if all their data and analysis looked convincing.
Third, I've seen both versions and discussed them with other respected astrophysicts. Their data is good, meaning they have performed a very precise observation. However, most astrophysicists that I discussed this paper with disagree with the interpretation that they have detected light reflected off the planet. The statistical analysis that led to that conclusion is questionable, and the signal is significant at no more than the 2 sigma level. I'm not saying they haven't detected light from the planet, only that they did not present the data and statistical analysis that is necessary to convincingly show they detected light from the planet. I would call this a "probable detection", meaning that they probably detected light reflected off the planet, but can't be very confident.
Finally, there is NO detection of oxygen in this atmosphere, or silicon, magnesium, or any specific elements. If you beleive their data and analysis, then you do learn that the radius of this planet is on the order of the radius of Jupiter (there's a non-trivial dependance on the albedo). This would be very convincing that the planet is a gas giant and not a terestrial planet. However, there is no evidence that there is any oxygen in the atmosphere. Now most reasonable people would imagine there's probably lots of hydrogen and helium, probably some lithium, berrilium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, flourine, neon, sodium, magnesium, etc., but there is no observational evidence that this planet has oxygen or any other individual element in it's atmosphere. Of course, if you beleive theories, I can give you lots of those...
Sunspot: Extremely unlikely, since the time of the transit matched the time of the maximum radial velocity. Also the observed radial velocity variations are way to large to be a sunspot.
Solar Prominence: This would be brighter, not dimmer
Brown dwarf: Depends on what your definition of a brown dwarf is. If it includes 0.6 Jupiter mass objects, then you can call it a brown dwarf. However, most astronomers are reserving the term brown dwarf for object that fuse dueterium, but not hydrogen.
Indeed, noone has physically touched the planet, like an early explorer finding a new island. They've only infered it based on visual observations. But that's good enough for me to beleive with >99.99% confidence that there really is something pretty massive about 0.045 AU from that star.
I'm not sure what you think is necessary to "prove" the method. If we have to touch the planet, then it almost certainly won't be proven in our lifetimes. I think may people would say that this observation of a transit gives independant evidence for this planet's existance, making the method even more credible than before.
Good question. If current theories are correct then they did not form there, but rather migrated after forming at several AU. The fact that one is observed to be a gas giant supports this since gas giants are beleived to form at several AU.
How did they move? At the moment, there are several hypotheses, each with it's own problems. To summarize:
1. Interaction with a gaseous disk to transport angular momentum outward and mass inward by exciting spiral density waves at Lindblad resonances (distance at which the orbital frequency matches the frequency of radial oscilation of the planet in an epicyclic approximation) on both sides of the planet's orbit. Big problems: Effects of additional planets, how to stop the migration right before it falls into the star
2. Interaction with a planetessimal disk in which many small bodies at orbital resonances (where ratio of the two orbital periods is a rational) have their eccentricities excited so they can be kicked out of the system by the planet in a close encounter. Big problems: Effects of additional planets, need a very massive disk for the process to be unstable (and thus significant migration).
3. Interation with other planets so that one planet gets kicked farther out (sometimes out of the system entirely) and another planet closer in, or two collide. Big problems: Can this send enough planets so close to their star to match observations?
4. Interactions with another (more distant) star that induces a long term secular increase in the eccentricity until tidal effects before important and circularize the orbit at a small radius. Big problems: Quadrupole moment of star may limit eccentrity. Some planets are around star with no observed wide binary companion.
If you want references to any of these, I can provide them.
In fact current radial velocity surveys could detect Jupiter mass planets out to several AU (AU=distance fom Earth to Sun, Jupiter at 12AU, this planet orbits at 0.045 AU) . In fact some have been detected as far as 3 AU from their star (see Marcy & Butler's list
The reason it's not called a binary system is that the mass of the "planet" is 0.6 times the mass of Jupiter. This is not massive enough for it to fuse hydrogen or even deuterium. To answer your question, the star is probably about 1.1 to 1.3 times the mass of the sun (not based on careful analysis, only it's spectral type), so the mass ratio is approximately 2000:1.
Of course how massive it is does not necessarily determine how it formed. Indeed, one hypothesis is that it did form by direct gravitational collapse from the protostellar nebula similar to the star it surrounds. However this hypothesis is no longer favored by most astrophysicsts for rather technical reasons related to turbulence in the protostellar disk. Additionally, models (see papers by Alan Boss who favors this approach) have difficulty doing this at less than a few AU (AU=distance from Earth to Sun, Jupiter is at 5 AU, this planet is at 0.045 AU).
(Other hypothesis exist about ways to form a planet at several AU and then migrate the planet to a small distance. I'll answer another question related to this after lunch, so you can read more there.)
Ever since the first extrasolar planet around a sun-like star was discovered (1995) to be in a 4 day orbit, astronomers have theorized that that planet (and recently several others like it) were not massive terrestrial planets, but rather gas giants like Jupiter (but much closer to their parent star). This discovery is the first where we accurately know both the mass and radius observationally. The observations show that this is indeed a gas giant as predicted (for similar type planets) years ago.
The bit about it not forming so close is a little more technical. But basically, we beleive that gas giants begin to for a few AU (distance from Earth to Sun, Jupiter is at 5 AU) from their parent star (based on our estimates of the temperature of the disk and at what distance different elements and molecules will condense). An alternative is that these close massive planets are accutally humoungous rocky planets (like Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars). While this observation does not prove that it didn't form there, it does prove it's a gas giant. That is a triumph of astrophysical theory.
BTW- Some of the difficulties with forming gas giants at several AU are: How do you move them in to 0.04 AU? Why do they stop right there and not continue to migrate into their parent star?
That's why this planet made slashdot and not the other six that were recently announced. For this planet, because we saw a transit, we know the mass to within a few percent and the radius to better than ten percent. So we finally know that at least this planet is a gas giant and not a humoungous terestrial planet.
Slashdot Mirror
check out www.demolinux.org
Few of us seriously consider running software from the FBI without source, unless it's to test it. Similarly, we know not to trust programs from MS, Real, ..., or cookies from DoubleClick. But what about hardware? Do you know what that router is really doing? Or what about your switch?
How can we apply the same standards to hardware as we do for software?
It is certainly not just another plasma. The consituents (quarks and gluons) of the consitutents (protons and neutrons) of the neucleii of atoms are beleived to be out of their usual state (bound in triplets). I'd say that's a much more fundamental different than the different between gas and liquid.
Actually, if you slow down you will move into a higher orbit. If you speed up you will go into a lower orbit. It's the negative specific heat of gravity that explains this curiosity
Ok, I think dressing up and having a little fun while doing work is cool. But wearing a skin-tight latex outfit is really unnecessary. Why did you do that? Did you want men to look at you and think primarily about how sexy you looked?
On one hand, I'd guess being a techy female and quite attractive you must be in high demand. On the other, I don't understand why you'd make a point of attracting males' attention, unless you were on the verge of desparate.
Given our society, by wearing something like that, you're almost asking to be thought of sexually rather than for who you really are. (I'm not saying that's right, but that's the way it is.) To me it seems like you're degrading yourself. Like saying, I'm not good enough to just be normal me. If I want you to stop and talk to me, I have to appeal to another of your senses.
As you can tell, I don't understand your decisions (dressing like that and posting a link on the internet on a forum where lots of males will go look and drool). I'd appreciate an explanation of what went into your decision making process?
>Without marketing, Linux is nothing.
For those of us who have been using Linux since slackware or before, Linux was something well before there was any marketing. And I beleive it will continue to be something long after the marketing goes away.
Even if the buzz word becomes old, Linux stocks plunge, and Linux companies are bought and thrown away by MS, I can still happilly run linux. And since Linux was actively developed before any marketing, I venture to guess that it will continue to be developed after the marketing.
The compiler may reorder the arithmetic better
than I, but the compiler won't change the algorithm. When possible, optimizing your algorithm almost always helps. Sometimes it's your only hope at decent performance.
For example, last year I had code that took several hours for a n=256^3 box. Since it scaled as n^2, and I needed to apply it to a n=1024^3 box, optimization was necessary. By optimizing the algorithm, I got it to run on a n=1024^3 box in less than a 15 minutes. By further optimizing the C (not assembler) I got it to run in less than 25 seconds.
So I'll happily ignore your suggestion.
>As a point of interest, the first object
>discovered in such a peculiar horseshoe shaped
>orbit was a moon of an asteroid.
I'm not sure to what you are referring. Can you be more specific?
Then there are two two moons of Saturn (sorry, I forget the names) which are on real horseshoe orbits. I hear some astronomers actually beleived they were going to collide and tried to watch, only to see them gradually turn around. Hehe
True, we don't know what conditions are normally like, whether we're going in or coming out of an ice age, how accurate models are (I've seen models that are reasonabely successful for 20 years. That doesn't quite make the 60's, but that doesn't mean you should completely ignore them. If they predict big changes over the next 20 years, doesn't that worry you?). You are correct that those are matters of scientific debate. However, ignorance is not an excuse to do whatever you want. The fact that we don't know the consequences of our actions should be an even bigger incentive to minimize our impact on the environment.
Please do not simply dismiss our best efforts to understand what we're doing on the basis that we're not 100% sure. Scientists can run the same model with and without different effects, such as factories, rain forest burning, cars, etc. And the current best models show that there will be a significant difference depending on such factors.
I beleive nearly all researchers agree that there are significant environmental changes taking place. What is not agreed upon is whether human activity is causing those changes. I find the alarming thing is not the magnitude of the changes over the next 20 years (about as long as the models could reasonablely be trusted), but rather than rate of change. If such rates are maintained, it seems quite likely that something drastic will happen beyond the timescale of validity of the models, but not beyond the timescale of my lifetime.
Yes, there are people who put up websites saying there's nothing to worry about. That doesn't mean it is so. If you are really interested, I'd recommend researching the various sites credentials. While I don't completely trust anybody, I trust academic physics funded by NSF more than I trust "scientists" funded by oil companies.
WRT your particular situation: I beleive this is a serious enough problem that it's worth making serious sacrices. 90 miles/day would require a lot of time and effort on bike. Please consider relocating either your home or your place of work.
If you don't like the gas tax, trying walking, riding a bike, or taking public transportation.
In other countries gasonline taxes are over 100%. By using a car, you're hurting us all. You should have to pay big time for it. A measly 900% tax would still be ripping off your grandkids.
For example, I recently attended a scientific talk where the speaker showed plots of climate simulations run as far forward as they are trustworthy. According to their best model, merely permanetly parking every car in the world isn't enough action to prevent tempratures from rising 10 degrees F and cities being submerged! We need to take drastic measures fast. Imposing very large taxes on environment destroying things like gasoline is the least we can do.
I like this idea very much. In addition to releiving most Americans from "doing taxes", it would allow taxes to be targeted more precisely. If you buy rice, low/no tax. If you buy a mink coat, high tax. That way money spent on necessities is taxed only very mildly, while money spent on luxuries is taxed more heavily. Similarly, tax incentives for things like being environmentally responsible could still exist. If you buy recycled paper, you get a small reduction in the tax. If you buy natural gas, you are taxed less than if you buy oil. If you give your money to a charity, no tax.
This seems like a great idea to me. Yes, businesses and maybe investors would still have complicated tax laws, but it would still be a big improvement for most of America.
I don't know whether this law suit is stupid or not. But the Cyrix cases (which Via uses as evidence that this case is silly) were not stupid. Cyrix got off on a technicality that was ambiguous. Thus it was reasonable for both sides to think they were in the right. But it's still a shame the cases had to go to court.
Intel has provided us with Moore's Law, both in theory and in practice. We should all be greatful for this.
Regarless of whether AMD, Via, Transmeta, or another company temporarily has a product that might be slightly cheaper, faster, or cooler, Intel has consistantly provided a very competative product in good quantity at a competative prices. Not many other companies can come close.
Complaining that Intel doesn't always have the best product is silly. As is complaing about Intel not commiting to providing some companies with as many of a particular chip at a couple of speed ratings, when many other options were avaliable. You should be thankful that such high-end chips were priced so cheaply that so many people wanted them. Obviously, they could have charged more for those same chips. Simiarlly, Intel gets flak from Slashdot readers if it keeps it's prices up above AMD's prices and it gets flak from the same people if it cuts its prices to be more competative. Let's try be a little more reasonable.
Intel has invested in several linux causes, giving them not only cash, but also the credability to be a threat to other big names like MS. They regularly support educational causes such as the International Science and Engineering Fair, the Intel Talent Search, and the Research Science Institute. I only know of these, because I was a part of them. (There are probably many more that I don't even know about.) I've also read about the lengths Intel has gone to respect enviromental concerns (I forget the details, but basically they could make their fabs much cheaper and still meet all the law requirements, but instead chose to spend more money to make thier fabs more environmentally responsible). I think Intel is one of the best citizens we have. Let's give them the respect they deserve.
Actually, this is convection, too.
In the lava lamp the convection is driven by a temperature gradient. Since the two fluids have a different thermal expansivity, which fluid's density is greater changes as a function of temperature.
In this case, the bubbles have the same density and bouyancy, but different sized bubbles have different ratios of drag force to inertia. Therefore for some bubbles drag carries them along with the bulk motion of the fluid, while for others the bouyancy causes them to rise regardless.
If you are a US citizen, want to go to college, and are willing to take out loans, the government will loan you enough for a state school. If you have good test scores, etc., you can get an out-of-state tuition wavier in many states, allowing you to find a good school you can attend, regardless of where your parents live.
So if you go into CS and exert a reasonable ammount of effort, you'll be able to get a job to easily pay off your loans.
I'd encourage your brother-in-law to spend time investigating his options early. I'm confident that even he could get a good college education, but only if he wants it enough to work hard. And that work probably including researching his options a few years before he applies to schools.
Sorry no evidence for Mg, Si, or O, yet. See my earlier top-level post.
In any case, this planet does not pass directly in front of or behind it's star as viewed from Earth. Actually, the orbital plane is inclided a good bit (probably 30-60 degrees) to our line of sight. They claim to have detected a signal by looking where they would expect to find reflected stellar lines slightly shifted due to the planet's doppler shift. Again, see my previous top-level post, as this is not yet a clear detection of any light from the planet.
Don't worry. People have thought about all the issues you bring up. The solar wind isn't very significant to the orbit of the planet, although it can affec it's atmosphere. Tidal forces are important and may very well cause the planet to spiral into the star in several billion years. It is likely that they already "spun-up" the star so that the star's rotation period matches the planet's orbital period.
Unfortuantely, this story was very premature. Hopefully, we'll see a similar headline in the future that is more beleivable.
First, the group has submitted a paper to a scientific Journal, and it has been accepted, however several changes (mainly deletions) were made between the version they submitted and the version that will be published.
Second, another group of respected astronomers tried a very similar observation of this same system and published a paper claiming to have an upper limit on the light reflected off the planet. Their upper limit is below the claimed detection. Of course, either could be incorrect, but this detection is still controversial until the discrepancy is resolved, even if all their data and analysis looked convincing.
Third, I've seen both versions and discussed them with other respected astrophysicts. Their data is good, meaning they have performed a very precise observation. However, most astrophysicists that I discussed this paper with disagree with the interpretation that they have detected light reflected off the planet. The statistical analysis that led to that conclusion is questionable, and the signal is significant at no more than the 2 sigma level. I'm not saying they haven't detected light from the planet, only that they did not present the data and statistical analysis that is necessary to convincingly show they detected light from the planet. I would call this a "probable detection", meaning that they probably detected light reflected off the planet, but can't be very confident.
Finally, there is NO detection of oxygen in this atmosphere, or silicon, magnesium, or any specific elements. If you beleive their data and analysis, then you do learn that the radius of this planet is on the order of the radius of Jupiter (there's a non-trivial dependance on the albedo). This would be very convincing that the planet is a gas giant and not a terestrial planet. However, there is no evidence that there is any oxygen in the atmosphere. Now most reasonable people would imagine there's probably lots of hydrogen and helium, probably some lithium, berrilium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, flourine, neon, sodium, magnesium, etc., but there is no observational evidence that this planet has oxygen or any other individual element in it's atmosphere. Of course, if you beleive theories, I can give you lots of those...
Sorry for the disappointment.
Actually, it's 0.6 Jupiter masses which places it at 200 Earth masses.
The low eccentricity is likely a result of tides being raised on the planet by the star.
Sunspot: Extremely unlikely, since the time of the transit matched the time of the maximum radial velocity. Also the observed radial velocity variations are way to large to be a sunspot.
Solar Prominence: This would be brighter, not dimmer
Brown dwarf: Depends on what your definition of a brown dwarf is. If it includes 0.6 Jupiter mass objects, then you can call it a brown dwarf. However, most astronomers are reserving the term brown dwarf for object that fuse dueterium, but not hydrogen.
Indeed, noone has physically touched the planet, like an early explorer finding a new island. They've only infered it based on visual observations. But that's good enough for me to beleive with >99.99% confidence that there really is something pretty massive about 0.045 AU from that star.
I'm not sure what you think is necessary to "prove" the method. If we have to touch the planet, then it almost certainly won't be proven in our lifetimes. I think may people would say that this observation of a transit gives independant evidence for this planet's existance, making the method even more credible than before.
Good question. If current theories are correct then they did not form there, but rather migrated after forming at several AU. The fact that one is observed to be a gas giant supports this since gas giants are beleived to form at several AU.
How did they move? At the moment, there are several hypotheses, each with it's own problems. To summarize:
1. Interaction with a gaseous disk to transport angular momentum outward and mass inward by exciting spiral density waves at Lindblad resonances (distance at which the orbital frequency matches the frequency of radial oscilation of the planet in an epicyclic approximation) on both sides of the planet's orbit. Big problems: Effects of additional planets, how to stop the migration right before it falls into the star
2. Interaction with a planetessimal disk in which many small bodies at orbital resonances (where ratio of the two orbital periods is a rational) have their eccentricities excited so they can be kicked out of the system by the planet in a close encounter. Big problems: Effects of additional planets, need a very massive disk for the process to be unstable (and thus significant migration).
3. Interation with other planets so that one planet gets kicked farther out (sometimes out of the system entirely) and another planet closer in, or two collide. Big problems: Can this send enough planets so close to their star to match observations?
4. Interactions with another (more distant) star that induces a long term secular increase in the eccentricity until tidal effects before important and circularize the orbit at a small radius. Big problems: Quadrupole moment of star may limit eccentrity. Some planets are around star with no observed wide binary companion.
If you want references to any of these, I can provide them.
In fact current radial velocity surveys could detect Jupiter mass planets out to several AU (AU=distance fom Earth to Sun, Jupiter at 12AU, this planet orbits at 0.045 AU) . In fact some have been detected as far as 3 AU from their star (see Marcy & Butler's list
The reason it's not called a binary system is that the mass of the "planet" is 0.6 times the mass of Jupiter. This is not massive enough for it to fuse hydrogen or even deuterium. To answer your question, the star is probably about 1.1 to 1.3 times the mass of the sun (not based on careful analysis, only it's spectral type), so the mass ratio is approximately 2000:1.
Of course how massive it is does not necessarily determine how it formed. Indeed, one hypothesis is that it did form by direct gravitational collapse from the protostellar nebula similar to the star it surrounds. However this hypothesis is no longer favored by most astrophysicsts for rather technical reasons related to turbulence in the protostellar disk. Additionally, models (see papers by Alan Boss who favors this approach) have difficulty doing this at less than a few AU (AU=distance from Earth to Sun, Jupiter is at 5 AU, this planet is at 0.045 AU).
(Other hypothesis exist about ways to form a planet at several AU and then migrate the planet to a small distance. I'll answer another question related to this after lunch, so you can read more there.)
It's 0.6 Jupiter Masses, that's still more than enough to keep it gravitationally bound even in a 3 day orbit around a ~1.2 solar mass star.
What this was probably intended to say was...
Ever since the first extrasolar planet around a sun-like star was discovered (1995) to be in a 4 day orbit, astronomers have theorized that that planet (and recently several others like it) were not massive terrestrial planets, but rather gas giants like Jupiter (but much closer to their parent star). This discovery is the first where we accurately know both the mass and radius observationally. The observations show that this is indeed a gas giant as predicted (for similar type planets) years ago.
The bit about it not forming so close is a little more technical. But basically, we beleive that gas giants begin to for a few AU (distance from Earth to Sun, Jupiter is at 5 AU) from their parent star (based on our estimates of the temperature of the disk and at what distance different elements and molecules will condense). An alternative is that these close massive planets are accutally humoungous rocky planets (like Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars). While this observation does not prove that it didn't form there, it does prove it's a gas giant. That is a triumph of astrophysical theory.
BTW- Some of the difficulties with forming gas giants at several AU are: How do you move them in to 0.04 AU? Why do they stop right there and not continue to migrate into their parent star?
That's why this planet made slashdot and not the other six that were recently announced. For this planet, because we saw a transit, we know the mass to within a few percent and the radius to better than ten percent. So we finally know that at least this planet is a gas giant and not a humoungous terestrial planet.