Possible First Photo of an Exoplanet

[MeteorWayne]

<p><strong><font color="#1b4872"><em>Possible</em> First Photo of Planet Around Sun-Like Star (italics mine) </font></strong></p><p><strong><font color="#1b4872">From Space.com&nbsp; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080915-first-exoplanet-picture.html<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/2/6d6f68c3-4876-4180-826d-9b2482c8d620.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /></font></strong></p><p class="MsoNormal">Astronomers have taken what may the first picture of a planet orbiting a star similar to the sun. </p><p class="MsoNormal">This distant world is giant (about eight times the mass of Jupiter) and lies far out from its star (about 330 times the Earth-Sun distance). But for all the planet's strangeness, its star is quite like our own sun. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Previously, the only photographed extrasolar planets have belonged to tiny, dim stars known as brown dwarfs. And while hundreds of exoplanets have been detected by noting their gravitational tug on their parent stars, it is rare to find one large enough to image directly.</p><p class="MsoNormal">"This is the first time we have directly seen a planetary mass object in a likely orbit around a star like our sun," said David Lafreni&egrave;re, an astronomer at the University of Toronto who led the team that discovered the star. "If we confirm that this object is indeed gravitationally tied to the star, it will be a major step forward."</p><p class="MsoNormal">Further study will be needed to prove that the planet is in fact orbiting around the star, as opposed to the possibility, however unlikely, that the two objects just happen to lie in the same area of the sky at roughly the same distance from us.</p><p class="MsoNormal">"Of course it would be premature to say that the object is definitely orbiting this star, but the evidence is extremely compelling," Lafreni&egrave;re said. "This will be a very intensely studied object for the next few years!"</p><p class="MsoNormal">The researchers used the Gemini North telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii to glimpse the planet and its star, 1RXS J160929.1-210524, which lies about 500 light-years from Earth. Though the star has about 85 percent the mass of the sun, it is younger than our star. In order to image the far-flung system, the team utilized adaptive optics technology, which uses flexible mirrors to offset the distortion light suffers as it passes through Earth's atmosphere.</p>http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080915-busmon-satellite-launchers.html<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"><p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the&nbsp;Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em>&nbsp;</font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really&nbsp;miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080">&nbsp;</font></p></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Possible First Photo of Planet Around Sun-Like Star (italics mine)&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Very cool.&nbsp; Thanks for the link. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[3488]

<p><strong><font size="2" color="#000000">I really hope that the planet's existence can be conformed with the Hubble Space Telescope after the STS 125 mission with the new WFPC/3 & the repaired ACS.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2" color="#000000">I have my doubts as this is a ground based image after all, Adaptive Optics or not, the telescope is still looking through the Earth's atmosphere,&nbsp;so could be a faint Phantom&nbsp;image of the parent star, but this is a exciting find if proven beyond any doubt..</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2" color="#000000">Perhaps the Spitzer could look, in IR the planet will be pretty bright as it is so hot.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="1"><font color="#000000"><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /></font></font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have my doubts as this is a ground based image after all, Adaptive Optics or not, the telescope is still looking through the Earth's atmosphere,&nbsp;so could be a faint Phantom&nbsp;image of the parent star, but this is a exciting find if proven beyond any doubt.</DIV></p><p>Gee, and I thought I was a skeptic. &nbsp; I guess I've come to respect the adaptive optics techniques and the those that use the technology to sort out such phantom images.&nbsp; I agree it's pretty exciting stuff, and corroboration is a necessary part of science.</p><p>One can't help but wonder what other foms of life might exist out there in space when we observe planets forming around many stars.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>FYI, the coronal detail sold me. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gee, and I thought I was a skeptic. &nbsp; I guess I've come to respect the adaptive optics techniques and the those that use the technology to sort out such phantom images.&nbsp; I agree it's pretty exciting stuff, and corroboration is a necessary part of science.One can't help but wonder what other foms of life might exist out there in space when we observe planets forming around many stars.&nbsp;&nbsp;FYI, the coronal detail sold me. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Which of course are artefacts of the adaptive optics processing.... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which of course are artefacts of the adaptive optics processing.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, yes and no.&nbsp; The shape is certainly an averaged artifact, but we can see our own sun's corona with enough resolution.&nbsp; I would be surpised if some of the light the received did not come from the corona. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, yes and no.&nbsp; The shape is certainly an averaged artifact, but we can see our own sun's corona with enough resolution.&nbsp; I would be surpised if some of the light the received did not come from the corona. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />You're serious? Wow!</p><p>It's 500 light years away. The purported planet is 330 AU from the star.</p><p>Think about it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're serious? Wow!It's 500 light years away. The purported planet is 330 AU from the star.Think about it. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Ok, lets do that.&nbsp; I'd be willing to bet that some of that light around the sun is a scattering effect over distance.&nbsp; I'd be willing to be some of it is related to a scattering effect within our own atmosphere too.&nbsp; The resolution of the planet however would suggest to me that this equipment is fully capable of resolving a clear outline of a "sphere" however, and there may be more than just a little scattering going on here.&nbsp; It seems to me that the distant sun will emit visible photons from the coronal regions as well as the surface.&nbsp; These coronal photons then may how up as tiny little "hits" the blur the edges of the sun, yet they don't interfere much with the planet's clear outline.&nbsp; I can't think of a logical way to rule out light from the coronal regions, particularly in an instrument that is sensitive enough to observes planets in the solar system from this distance. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, lets do that.&nbsp; I'd be willing to bet that some of that light around the sun is a scattering effect over distance.&nbsp; I'd be willing to be some of it is related to a scattering effect within our own atmosphere too.&nbsp; The resolution of the planet however would suggest to me that this equipment is fully capable of resolving a clear outline of a "sphere" however, and there may be more than just a little scattering going on here.&nbsp; It seems to me that the distant sun will emit visible photons from the coronal regions as well as the surface.&nbsp; These coronal photons then may how up as tiny little "hits" the blur the edges of the sun, yet they don't interfere much with the planet's clear outline.&nbsp; I can't think of a logical way to rule out light from the coronal regions, particularly in an instrument that is sensitive enough to observes planets in the solar system from this distance. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />So lets see, based on the image, you are saying the star is 100 AU across (bigger than the orbit of Neptune), and the visible "corona" extends over 50 AU (pluto's aphelion distance) away from the star.</p><p>michael, your lack of understanding of how imaging instruments work is what allows me to completely dismiss your interpretations. On any subject.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So lets see, based on the image, you are saying the star is 100 AU across (bigger than the orbit of Neptune), and the visible "corona" extends over 50 AU (pluto's aphelion distance) away from the star.michael, your lack of understanding of how imaging instruments work is what allows me to completely dismiss your interpretations. On any subject. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>When you build strawmen like this, it's hard to have an enjoyable discussion with you.&nbsp; Could you quote me where I said any of these things?</p><p>I've yet to hear you explain the "coronal effect" we seem to observe in these images, and how you know that sun's coronal activity played no part in any of the photons we observe in that image?&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't honestly figure out a way to rule out this effect.&nbsp; If you can explain it, please enlighten me, but please desist from putting words in my mouth. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you build strawmen like this, it's hard to have an enjoyable discussion with you.&nbsp; Could you quote me where I said any of these things?I've yet to hear you explain the "coronal effect" we seem to observe in these images, and how you know that sun's coronal activity played no part in any of the photons we observe in that image?&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't honestly figure out a way to rule out this effect.&nbsp; If you can explain it, please enlighten me, but please desist from putting words in my mouth. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />As I said, since you don't understand imaging it's hard to explain.</p><p>How many coronal photons can we see near our sun? Answer, it makes no difference, since they are swamped by the photons from the surface. And you expect it to be different when examining a <strong>point </strong>of light that is a star from 500 light years away?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'll state it clear. The size of the star as well as the alleged corona is an IMAGING ARTEFACT.</p><p>That should be obvious.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[danhezee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br />&nbsp;wow that is neat!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I said, since you don't understand imaging it's hard to explain.</DIV></p><p>Try me.&nbsp; It's hard to have a friendly conversation when you *assume* things about me that I didn't say and that are not true. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How many coronal photons can we see near our sun? Answer, it makes no difference, since they are swamped by the photons from the surface.</DIV></p><p>Well, I agree that the surface will be brighter, and the inner ring is indeed brighter, but I don't see how you can rule out photons from the corona reaching these images.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you expect it to be different when examining a point of light that is a star from 500 light years away?&nbsp;I'll state it clear. The size of the star as well as the alleged corona is an IMAGING ARTEFACT.That should be obvious. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>The fact the size is an artifact is not in question.&nbsp; We both agree that "scattering happens" too.&nbsp; The notion that no (as in zero) photons from it's corona reach this image is the issue we are debating.&nbsp;&nbsp; You seem to expect no distortion from the corona to be observable in this image whereas I would be surprised if we did see with enough resolution to see a planet and *not* see some light from the corona.&nbsp; I'd be suspicious in fact if that was the case.&nbsp; The sensitivity required to see photons from a planet at that distance would be likely to obvserve some coronal effects around the sun too.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The notion that no (as in zero) photons from it's corona reach this image is the issue we are debating.&nbsp;&nbsp; You seem to expect no distortion from the corona to be observable in this image whereas I would be surprised if we did see with enough resolution to see a planet and *not* see some light from the corona.&nbsp; I'd be suspicious in fact if that was the case.&nbsp; The sensitivity required to see photons from a planet at that distance would be likely to obvserve some coronal effects around the sun too.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No, that is the issue you are debating. I never said they no coronal photons would be recieved. I said that the idea that they would be resolvable at this distance is ludicrous...perhaps not in those words, but my intent was pretty clear.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As usual, you are debating a semantic issue different from the focus of my original statements.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, that is the issue you are debating. I never said they no coronal photons would be recieved. I said that the idea that they would be resolvable at this distance is ludicrous.</DIV></p><p>These two statements seem at odds with one another IMO.&nbsp; If some of the coronal photons are "recieved, then they are potentially "resolvable"&nbsp; in the image too.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't quite grasp how you can claim that some photons from the corona are "recieved" but not resolvable at this distance.&nbsp; Please explain.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.perhaps not in those words, but my intent was pretty clear.&nbsp;As usual, you are debating a semantic issue different from the focus of my original statements. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm just trying to clerify my point.&nbsp; I was not trying to suggest that no scattering occured.&nbsp; In fact I was quite clear that I expected to see scattering over the distance, and scattering in the atmosphere too.&nbsp; I'm simply arguing that some of the photons we observe may have originated in the corona rather than the from the photosphere. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These two statements seem at odds with one another IMO.&nbsp; If some of the coronal photons are "recieved, then they are potentially "resolvable"&nbsp; in the image too.&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV> </p><p>That is not a valid assumption. It indicates you don't understand what is involved. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't quite grasp how you can claim that some photons from the corona are "recieved" but not resolvable at this distance.&nbsp; Please explain.I'm just trying to clerify my point.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Exactly. You don't grasp it. Just because 8 photons from the corona are received among the 10^10 photons from the star doesn't mean they are "resolvable"&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I was not trying to suggest that no scattering occured.&nbsp; In fact I was quite clear that I expected to see scattering over the distance, and scattering in the atmosphere too.&nbsp; I'm simply arguing that some of the photons we observe may have originated in the corona rather than the from the photosphere. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Which I have never said wouldn't happen (IIRC). It's just that there is no recoverable data from such a small percentage of those received. Or such a small number of photons over such a large area.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That is not a valid assumption. It indicates you don't understand what is involved. Exactly. You don't grasp it. Just because 8 photons from the corona are received among the 10^10 photons from the star doesn't mean they are "resolvable"</DIV></p><p>How many photons do you figure come from that planet?</p><br /><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How many photons do you figure come from that planet? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Many more than come from a highly dispersed source covering hundreds (or hundreds of thousands of times as you assert) of times the area. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try me.&nbsp; It's hard to have a friendly conversation when you *assume* things about me that I didn't say and that are not true. Well, I agree that the surface will be brighter, and the inner ring is indeed brighter, but I don't see how you can rule out photons from the corona reaching these images.The fact the size is an artifact is not in question.&nbsp; We both agree that "scattering happens" too.&nbsp; The notion that no (as in zero) photons from it's corona reach this image is the issue we are debating.&nbsp;&nbsp; You seem to expect no distortion from the corona to be observable in this image whereas <u>I would be surprised if we did see with enough resolution to see a planet and *not* see some light from the corona.&nbsp; I'd be suspicious in fact if that was the case.</u>&nbsp; The sensitivity required to see photons from a planet at that distance would be likely to obvserve some coronal effects around the sun too. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> (Emphasis added.)</p><p>I'm not sure what the difference of opinion is about.&nbsp; But, isn't this an infrared composite image?&nbsp; Is the difference of opinion here due to a misunderstanding between "visible" light and the compositing techniques used to obtain the photograph?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (Emphasis added.)I'm not sure what the difference of opinion is about.&nbsp; But, isn't this an infrared composite image?&nbsp; Is the difference of opinion here due to a misunderstanding between "visible" light and the compositing techniques used to obtain the photograph? <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Here's the pre-print:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1424</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Many more than come from a highly dispersed source covering hundreds of times the area. </DIV></p><p>How might you demonstrate that, and how many more times are we talking about?&nbsp; Even a minor amount of light in the coronal region due to the coronal emissions would show up with enough sensitivity. The only issue seem then to be one of sensitivity, and how many photons it might take to show up in that image.&nbsp; I've seen plenty of Lasco (and other) images where the streamers coming off the sun are brighter than the stars and planets in the background.&nbsp; Even a modest type of flaring would create a significant amount of light. </p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(or hundreds of thousands of times as you assert)<br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Quote me.&nbsp; This was your strawman, not my claim.&nbsp; Sheesh.&nbsp; Talk about a loaded conversation.&nbsp; You haven't accurately represented my views even once in this thread.&nbsp; Stop that! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (Emphasis added.)I'm not sure what the difference of opinion is about. </DIV></p><p>Don't feel bad, Wayne hasn't figured it out either, and I certainly don't have a clue.. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, isn't this an infrared composite image?&nbsp; Is the difference of opinion here due to a misunderstanding between "visible" light and the compositing techniques used to obtain the photograph? <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>It seems to be an issue of "sensitivity".&nbsp; I'll have to read the paper to understand the full implications of their techniques.&nbsp; Fortunately Derek has provided a link to the paper. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't feel bad, Wayne hasn't figured it out either, and I certainly don't have a clue.. It seems to be an issue of "sensitivity".&nbsp; I'll have to read the paper to understand the full implications of their techniques.&nbsp; Fortunately Derek has provided a link to the paper. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>My point was that this isn't simply a "visible light" photograph.&nbsp; So, discussions about the appearance of that stars corona and such would have to take that into account.&nbsp; It seemed as if you were focusing on a "visible light" type of argument.&nbsp; That's all.</p><p>Tks to derckmcd for the arxiv link!</p><p>Here's a Science Daily article on it as well: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080915162420.htm</p><p>Picture caption: "<em>Gemini adaptive optics image of 1RSX J160929.1-210524 and its likely ~8 Jupiter-mass companion (within red circle). <u>This image is a composite of J-, H- and K-band near-infrared images</u>. All images obtained with the Gemini Altair adaptive optics system and the Near-Infrared Imager (NIRI) on the Gemini North telescope. (Credit: Image courtesy of Gemini Observatory)" <font size="1"><em>(Emphasis mine)</em></font></em> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[lildreamer]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's the pre-print:http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1424 <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Thanks Derekmcd just finished reading the pdf - should clear up the arguement nicely... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>I look at it this one. One day will be will categorizing the MANY types of planets that are seen. Sure that day is a few years away, but hey, there are TRILLIONS of planets out there. </p><p>One day, we will look to SDC and see a blue planet NOT named earth, that will be something.&nbsp; Then we will find hundreds of millions of similar planets.&nbsp; </p>