Fascinating!

[kpierce]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...tems-pictures/

[Bob Elliott]

They saw a couple visually for the first time, but it is no suprise as we have known they are there for a while now.

Gravatational pull gives away what we cant see.

Hope I am the only one to freeze up on that link.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by relliott

They saw a couple visually for the first time, but it is no suprise as we have known they are there for a while now.

Gravatational pull gives away what we cant see.

Hope I am the only one to freeze up on that link.

You're right but there was still controversy with that method. This new evidence is not debatable.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by kpierce

You're right but there was still controversy with that method. This new evidence is not debatable.

True,and at the size it is I doubt if there is any life as it would have to be a gas giant.(personally I think they are failed stars)

[kpierce]

Nope, still fascinating nonetheless.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by kpierce

Nope, still fascinating nonetheless.

I will be impressed when they find the big wall.

Wonder if it"s flashed?

[Bob Elliott]

Kevin as Monty Pyton used to say ....here is something you will really like.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/nasa/mis...n-control.html

[kpierce]

Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by kpierce

You're right but there was still controversy with that method. This new evidence is not debatable.

It's interesting, but why isn't the "new evidence" debatable? My question about pretty much everything in the article was the same... How do you know?

How do you know the rays are an optical effect?
How do you know the ring is a dust cloud left over from the forming of the star?
How do you know the bright spot is a planet, and not another optical effect?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't so. I've just learned to question "non debatable" evidence when it's thrown at me. Because generally it's pretty debatable, and the statements that it isn't is just a smoke screen.

BTW, if that is another planet, that's pretty cool!

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

It's interesting, but why isn't the "new evidence" debatable? My question about pretty much everything in the article was the same... How do you know?

How do you know the rays are an optical effect?
How do you know the ring is a dust cloud left over from the forming of the star?
How do you know the bright spot is a planet, and not another optical effect?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't so. I've just learned to question "non debatable" evidence when it's thrown at me. Because generally it's pretty debatable, and the statements that it isn't is just a smoke screen.

BTW, if that is another planet, that's pretty cool!

I guess you're right, everything is debatable no matter what the evidence says. All it takes is someone who disagrees regardless if they are right or wrong. I retract my statement. I should say "this new found evidence, that correlates with all of the other evidence gathered, makes it highly likely that other planets exist. Unless, of course, you personally believe otherwise."