Largest-Known Planet Befuddles Scientists 385
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."'"
Re:I have a theory... (Score:1, Insightful)
ID is not science. It's an argument (against no-one) about who created the universe and/or something in it. The how of the matter is not considered. Scientists don't care, since they want to know how. And worst of all, the ID-ers misquote, misread, and malign the Bible in all of their stupid shenanigans. The Bible says the Earth is round. So does NASA. The Bible says that the Earth was created in 6 distinct phases. So do most geologists, biologists, and anyone else with half a clue about science. Only the idiot ID-ers say that the Earth was created in 144 hours, and they do so without any biblical backing. These people deserve the verbal beatdowns they get. They are stupid zealots.
Evolution is science. Perhaps faulty, but still science. Correct or not, it does conform to the scientific method. It's a study of how the universe came to be. Unfortunately, it hasn't been kept current, and it has attracted as much zealotry as any religion would. The word "theory" used to mean "an unproven idea, still in its 'best guess' phase", basically, what we now call a "hypothesis". Evolution was a theory. Now it's a hypothesis. But the evolution zealots won't give up the word "theory" to describe their chosen faith, even though the word "theory" now means something else. These people deserve the verbal beatdowns they get. They are stupid zealots.
I see a pattern here... Perhaps everyone should focus on gaining knowledge and focus less on drawing unprovable conclusions. Eventually, the mass of knowledge will draw its holders to a fully-formed, unmistakable conclusion. Real scientists know not to let stupid ideology get in the way of real progress.
No Fatties (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I got it (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not being insightful, you're faking it by creating an issue that doesn't exist. Astrophysicists know as well as anybody how little they've actually figured out. All the new observational and simulation techniques that have been developed recently have raised way more questions than they've answered. I doubt you'd find a real scientist anywhere out there who'd say that we've figured out how the universe works.
Re:Later that day... (Score:0, Insightful)
Modded "troll"?
Really, now, is there someone out there upset that the got beat to the punchline? Or, is someone a resident of "Befuddle" and doesn't like being a "Befuddlite"?
Now, if this had been about RMS liking to dress up in ladies underwear and having BG spank his tushy, I could see the point. Even though such a statement may very well be true.
My theroy .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway thats the extent of my Grade 10 Physics, so please don't be too harsh with me!
In any event, how "fluffy" a center are we talking here. What defines a "Planet" from a slight congealing of gas? I say if it isn't dense enough to crush the life out of me as I try and float through on a drunken spacewalk, then I don't think it is a real planet!
Also perhaps we are looking too hard at what it is, and not what is could be or might become. Perhaps look at processes that make up our celestial bodies. I am not sure how concrete our science is as to the creation of various kinds of planets, perhaps this is part of the short (in space/planet creation terms) phase of planet construction. The gathering of a bunch of lose material that is slowing coalescing due to gravity into a rough planetoid. If the phase if brief in galactic terms perhaps this is why we haven't seen it before. The coalescing material not having totally solidified nor compress due to significant gravity and space could account for the light density and great size. A sort of proto-planet if you will, a huge glom of material just swirling around falling in towards itself slowly, just hasn't reached the stage that is it really recognizable as a real planet yet.
Ok now I am really just wasting work time...
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, just wondering, because that seems to be counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.
Re:Later that day... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:2, Insightful)
Language Differences. (Score:3, Insightful)
While the title is "Scientists Puzzled" and emphasizes the lack of knowledge.
Why is it that the obsession is with confusion rather than learning. At a time when many people are turning to stupidities like Intelligent Design because it claims to have "answers" perhaps some of the blame can be put on horrible reporting which seems unable to distinguish between finding new info and being "confused" "lost" or "puzzled".
Very plausibly errors in mass or size estimates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:I have a theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fictional ones, you mean?
Re:I have a theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Understanding an argument means understanding the other side, and I really think you don't.
To quote Lewis, "I was an atheist and as a former atheist I must say that you are not one. You are a god-hater, and a god-hater is not necessarily an atheist." (paraphrased)