http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27702538
Like redshift bring the big bang theory, that is a fact picture. Like it or not. Thats what count. So....
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081114.html
This planet must be from the land of ozzzzzzzzz.13-Nov-2008: The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has taken the first visible light snapshot of a planet circling another star.
Estimated to be no more than three times Jupiter's mass, the planet, called Fomalhaut b, orbits the bright southern star Fomalhaut, located 25 light-years away in the constellation Piscis Austrinus (the Southern Fish).
Aha! I was trying to find that picture. Thanks.JDsg wrote:The Economist http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... d=12592240 (of all magazines) has an article in today's issue on the three planets of HR 8799. I also suspect we'll consider this photo http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080919.html to be the first visual photograph of a planet, unlike the two more recent pictures.
Great idea!Helio George wrote:It was 1781 when William Herschel announced for the very first time a planet was discovered -- the others were obviously known for eons till then.
Therefore, since Herschel was not allowed the name he chose for his planet (and they went with Uranus???), I propose we name the first planet with him in mind. Whatever name he used then might work great now. I think it began with a G, right?
. King Richard III > Act I, scene IHelio George wrote:It was 1781 when William Herschel announced for the very first time a planet was discovered -- the others were obviously known for eons till then.
Therefore, since Herschel was not allowed the name he chose for his planet (and they went with Uranus???), I propose we name the first planet with him in mind. Whatever name he used then might work great now. I think it began with a G, right?
Apologies aside, they got their glory with 60 weeks atop the charts with the original cast album.neufer wrote:(With apologies to Lerner and Loewe)
Actually, the first I know of was Young Star With Hot Planet, Gemini N gets pic (19Sep08) (discussion of the APOD JDsg mentions above). Harry's OP was in the Café. This one, however, had two Café threads merged into it. Both Doum's and Harry's posts were in the Café.apodman wrote:And has there been another historical occurrence? In my experience, this is the first time a Café thread has been merged into an APOD thread. Usually the flow goes the other way. We might need to reconsider the laws of physics. On the other hand, a thread that anticipated the next day's APOD might have been predictable in this case.
It's my understanding that the dust cloud outside the planets orbit is more like our Oort cloud. There's plenty of room between the planet and the star for other planets to exist in stable orbits. What I found amazing was the extreme elliptical nature of the planets orbit. See the animation at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... lhaut.htmlBMAONE23 wrote:With all that apparent gas and dust surrounding the star perhaps it will form a lot of planets
Sure glad I checked for new posts before breakfast.geckzilla wrote:Heh, somehow astronauts drinking their own "urine" is overshadowing this news. Sigh.
The radial streaks are light from Fomalhaut (which isn't perfectly masked) scattered by optics in the telescope and camera. It has nothing to do with scatter from dust in space.tricera wrote:Can somebody help me with this?....
About the image, HubbleSite says .... "The radial streaks are scattered starlight."
These streaks aren't something you'd see up close, are they? Would they retain their arrow straight courses while ploughing through all that dust? Are they lens artifacts?
If Venus has a Venereal atmosphere does Uranus have a Uranal atmosphere?apodman wrote:Sure glad I checked for new posts before breakfast.geckzilla wrote:Heh, somehow astronauts drinking their own "urine" is overshadowing this news. Sigh.
Close up or far away, it makes no difference. Better to say it would appear fairly homogeneous if viewed without artifacts. In fact, the eye/brain is an excellent filter for removing these sorts of highly structured artifacts. Since the radial scatter is seen both inside and outside the dust ring, I find it quite easy to view the image and remove the artifacts in my mind's eye, leaving what I perceive to be your homogeneous dust ring.tricera wrote:Thanks Chris. So the dust belt itself would appear as a fairly homogeneous mass close up?
Thanks. If it's the same thing as lens eye/artifacts Ithink I understand.Close up or far away, it makes no difference. Better to say it would appear fairly homogeneous if viewed without artifacts.