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."'"
Later that day... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Later that day... (Score:4, Funny)
I hereby claim the right to name the star system "Puzzling" and the planet shall be called "Befuddle".
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Maybe God just like puffies... (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe God just likes puffies, you know?
We all have our fetishes. I know I do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
~drool
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They found a (Score:2, Funny)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Tampa Tribune (Score:5, Funny)
You know what this means (Score:2)
Somebody grab a sun and discover the graham wafer belt already.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Not so gravity constant (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm guessing it's bigger than it should be because with a lower gravity constant it isn't as dense for its mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not so gravity constant (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides my terrible grammar, I mean. I've really got to use that Preview feature more often.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All constants are bad in physics. If all tests are made in here and they allways give you same constant to describe the event with other variables, it still doesn't rule out the possibility of certain calculation that has to be taken in consideration to make formula.
Given a very bad example, we could give a constant value to mass of water by measuring its weight in same enviroment(temperature) and decide that 1 liter of water allways weights
Re: (Score:2)
Kilograms and other measures of mass do not depend on gravity, they depend on a referential mass of a defined size (1 liter of water, which you mention) which is balanced against the object. If we take it to another planet, move closer to the sun, change the constant of gravity, whatever else it will still be defined as 1 liter of water in mass. We can use scales in whatever gravity we are in to see how many kilograms something is by measuring one against the other
Re: (Score:2)
Bad excample, I'll admit, mayby illustrative if I would have used all the terms correctly. I doubt that I could use them any better at the moment to describe the point that I was after.
If we weight the 1 liter of water on different temperatures, we will get different weights(?)in Kg. This requering that we keep the measured object allways as 1 liter.
My point being, we rely on defined constants to figure out astrophysics and then wonder why something doesn't fit to r
Re:Not so gravity constant (Score:5, Interesting)
Theoretical problem (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Those scientists, are they from (Score:2)
YAY! (Score:2, Funny)
Dude! This guy should be an adviser to Congress. He can explain science to them.
(And I mean that!)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't Congress just become more dangerous if they understood science?
ohmygawd (Score:2, Funny)
"TrES-4 is way bigger than it's supposed to be,"
Like, and it's totally dating Pluto, ewwwww!
What's with the valley-girl talk? "Way bigger"?
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it's really a.. (Score:2)
Too big! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So that's where they're from. I was just blaming Digg and the public schools.
Allow me to specify (Score:5, Informative)
Duck! (Score:4, Funny)
A WITCH! It's a witch!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that Newt Ginrich had stuff to do typing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I got betta
Language is a funny thing (Score:2)
Keep in mind that I have next to no knowledge of French and only recognize the phrase "très fort" because of Space Ghost..."Je parle français très fort, no?"
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so I'm really stretching this.
Empty Dasani and Aquafena bottle planet (Score:2)
Its a Jupiter Brain (Score:4, Informative)
The difference between a Jupiter Brain and a Matrioshka Brain is that the center of a Jupiter Brain is not running off of a gravitationally bound and driven fusion reactor (aka "star"). Most of the energy used by the Jupiter Brain comes from the external solar energy it absorbs (though in theory it could house a number of "small" fusion reactors fueled by hydrogen or helium siphoned from the nearby star).
Side note to the Dyson "Sphere" advocates -- classical "spheres" are impossible (you've been watching too much Star Trek) -- Dyson never used the word "sphere" and made a point of clarifying this in his response to the letters following his original paper. A better term to avoid confusion is a "Dyson shell".
Conversion Factor (Score:4, Funny)
They'd Named the Planet (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Prototype? (Score:2)
Superbeing A:hey! what would happen if we built a full sized mock-up entierly out of balsa wood!
Superbeing B:that sounds really pointless. where did you get such a stupid idea?
Superbeing A:I heard it in some Fump song....
Superbeing B:Cool! I'll go grab the supervodka and the meta-Dremal!
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...
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: (Score:2)
P.S. Can Hinduism be disqualified from the religion contest by having thousands of entrants or are we Hindus playing it safe by believing in so many of them?
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have a degree in baloney!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"You can allways use God to explain everything, but that's not a useful answer unless you can always and invariably get what you want by asking God. If you are of the mindset to accept that answer, you need to then ask what natural tools did God use to achieve that outcome, because that is what you can use, and so far, things tend to have been done with natural tools."
My theory is God gave the planet a lot of moons, or heavy moons, puffing up the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep they are out there....
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=264201&cid=20
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth of the matter is... religious people breed more then secular people, if you want to stamp out religion you can't do it through converting the already infected. You do it by outbreeding them and investments in education, and then waiting for them to die out.
The truth is if people really care about the state of
Re: (Score:2)
I think its fascinating to try and figure out how and why things work, rather than always putting it down to "it ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
You either don't know the claims of ID, or you are a nutcase yourself.
No, what they do is to point out that the "random mutation" aspect of the neodarwinian theory of evolution is unsupported, and in fact unsupportable, by the evidence presente
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are talking about general relativity, it's status as a theory is very highly regarded and has withstood many tests (hence it's promotion beyond other hypotheses) but it contains various serious problems and difficult situations that are unsolvable with the current understanding of it. In fact, the system o
Re:I have a theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fictional ones, you mean?
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: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Additionally, in the bible, the blue we see when we look up is water, kept out by a dome over the earth. (Genesis 1:7, Genesis 8:2)
I've yet to hear a Bible literalist (including Fundamentalists) explain this away.
The bible also contradicts itself in several places. In the first two chapters of the bible, there are two accounts of Creation. Most people only
Re:I have a theory... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never actually read about ID. ID says nothing about who created the universe, and it certainly says nothing about the Bible. It is a scientific argument that primarily contends that the ob
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically in analyzes specific systems or structures which exhibit "irreducible complexity," meaning any possible reduction in complexity of those systems would yield a non-functional system, which implies that if that system indeed evolved, it evolved with some purpose of what it would become in the future.
Right, because everybody knows we don't have any non-functional systems in our bodies....
Seriously, the premise of "irreducible complexity" is flawed in that it assumes that everything must have an immediate purpose, and that purpose must be the same as any future generations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's besides the point, but I don't think we do. Systems thought to be non-functional in the past, such as the appendix, have long since been found to be otherwise.
No, it's the theory neodarwinism that believes that every feature must
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An appendix is not critical, like a heart or brain is. It's not even serious, like eyes. It's on the same level as tonsils. Things that do something, but not so much that they'll be immediately missed when removed.
Also, why should somethi
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)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes, yes [physorg.com] I have [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Plus, the grammar Nazi insists that you must capitalize the "N".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers!
Maybe a ring around the star? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally? (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I got it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:I got it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I understand what the theory is pertaining dark matter (stuff we can't see but must exist) and dark energy (an universal force that we really don't understand but we figure exists by what we think we see). I am sorta haphazardly amazed that people are surprised that something isn't playing by the rules that we have artificially set when we haven't gotten our tails out there and truly tested. We need to remember that we are working off a mixture of proofs and assumptions that might not be exactly l
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sorta haphazardly amazed that people are surprised
No one is surprised that I know, though I'm sure someone is. Headlines on Slashdot notwithstanding, the only general and systemic surprise when we discover something new stems from the thrill of discovery, not a violation of anyone's expectations that the universe was a well-defined and cataloged thing.
... that something isn't playing by the rules that we have artificially set when we haven't gotten our tails out there and truly tested.
Well, to be fair, there's an awful lot that we can know without going to a place. For example, going to Mars resolved quite a few questions, and introduced new ones, but we knew a great deal before a rover
Re: (Score:2)
A planet would need ~6x Jupiter's mass to start a fusion reaction.
Re: (Score:2)