[Me - comment # 30]

@13. lordbubonicus Says:

@Messier Tidy Upper: Wolszczan and Frail’s paper was published in Nature in 1992. I don’t know when the observations were made, but that’s why we normally state that the first exoplanets were discovered in 1992.

The paper was announced on 9th January 1992 after a couple of years of work which started in about May 1990. (Source : Pages 108-109, New Worlds in the Cosmos – the discovery of exoplanets Michel Mayor & Pierre-Yves Frei, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003.) So I guess it is fair to say either 1991 or 1992.

Interestingly enough, there is also a sub-stellar object discovered in 1988 around the star HD 114762 by a team led by David Latham that may be either a planet or a brown dwarf that could also stake a claim as the first exoplanet ever discovered. (Pages 136-137, Mayor & Frei, 2003.)

&

[Me again - comment # 33 this time.]

The object around HD 114762 is probably a brown dwarf around this Procyonese or sun-like type F9 V star – just a bit hotter & brighter than our Sun – but *if* the lower mass range turns out to be correct then this one could be the first extra-solar planet ever detected – albeit not confirmed for decades afterwards. Then again, if its actually at the highest mass of the possible range then HD 114762 b might be a red dwarf star rather a brown dwarf or exoplanet.

So HD 114762 to be or not to be? Mass is the question!

- With apologies to Shakespeare and Hamlet for that one.

NB. HD 114762 b has its own Wiki-page too from which I got much of that info but I won’t include the link here to avoid this going into moderation. Just type it in or cut’n'paste to the ‘search’ box.

Hope this helps!

Of course, the odds of anyone seeing this now are remote but, oh well, what the blazes!

I always had a problem when naming the first confirmed exoplanet. Discoveries goes as far as before 1990 but, at the same time, were not confirmed before 1996. I mean, it always seems the first observed-confirmed exoplanet is around 51 Peg.

Don’t forget the pulsar planets of PSR B 1257 +12 discovered in 1991-2 by by Wolszczan & Frail using the Doppler shift effect in slightly disrupted pulsars beam. These pulsar planets are the one’s that have the record!

There’s not just one confirmed exoplanet there either but a whole exotic exoplanetary system of four worlds orbiting a millisecond pulsar – located about 1,600 light years away in the constellation Virgo. These 4 Pulsar planets are arranged like a half-scale version of our inner solar system, the spacing being equivalent to the same proportions as Mercury, Venus and Earth while the tiny outermost world orbits at a distance equivalent to the middle of the asteroid belt in our system. All these worlds are far smaller than Jupiter or even the “Super-Earth” planet Gliese 581 c too.

So, das Blog ist wieder da nachdem ich heute Nachmittag von VServer auf OpenVZ umgestiegen bin. Gebracht hat mir das ganze zunächst einmal ein loopback device für jeden virtuellen Server und die Möglichkeit iptables innerhalb eines virtuellen Server zu…

Darn, being specific is quite a pain in the ass.
Sorry my ranting around here.

Was the spectrum of light from the planet analyzed to determine whether it had the right mix of elements to exclude the possibility that it was a star?

If not, then there’s still a possibility that 2M1207b could be a star. If the direction and velocity of 2M1207b and the parent star 2M1207A are similar enough to be within the margin of error for the motion tracking equipment, then they could simply be a pair of optical companion stars.

Keep of the good work BA

Here is my reply to your attempt to discredit Hoagland.

bryansail said…

So anonymous decides to attack RCH’s credentials here in a blog? Very
interesting…What part of RCH really worries you? Your unsolicited ‘enlightenment’
is not very central to the work (mixed w/ entertainment) being done here.

I also have read these criticisms of RCH long before coming to this blog.
Despite possible conflicts in origination of an idea (often a problem in REAL
scientific discovery) and thus his ‘credentials’ he has shown amazingly good
instincts over multiple decades. Of course you didn’t mention the other
credentials that are ‘trotted out’ when he appears on Coast because they are
not in question. In time Richard Hoagland will be given scientific respect and
credit for popularizing and indeed originating truths and for taking
on NASA when others would not. That he is sooo controversial is clearly an
indicator that using the term ‘pseudo’ alongside his name is incorrect and a sad
attempt to put a lid his claims. It would appear that you are a part of the huge problem
that plaques science today. I suspect that you will also not have nearly
the legacy that RCH will.

Perhaps you should be blogging with those who are coloring the skies of Mars
red, and those who are withholding images and data at NASA. You should be discussing
models of life only existing in the narrow spectrum of ideal, earth-like conditions.
I’m sure that blog will be a real snoozer, but you’ll likely have a wonderful time
there. We have learned more about the universe in the last decade than we ever knew
before, I’m sure there is a little sliver of it that you can excel in, but this blog
is clearly not for you. Really what is it that bothers you about RCH? Is it that
the cover ups are beginning to crumble and that the amazing discoveries
waiting to be revealed far outweigh your narrow ‘expertise’. I’m sure your work is
important as well, it’s too bad you feel the need to attempt to slice up another’s
credentials, and try (though you fail) to discredit him.

-actually your post IS important in that it is a great example of how
many people from all walks of life are coming here to witness this
pseudo-blog. No mention from you as to your (I imagine) belief that hurricane
manipulation is impossible, no doubt that would be your claim or you
perhaps would avoid the science of it and focus on who first came up
with the idea….. because really that IS the most important thing huh?
-Bryan

9/9/05 9:19 PM

Keep up the less than great job trying to discredit someone who will
someday be recognized as being a giant in the field of scientific discovery.
Hope it keeps your fledgling attempt at publicity/career going.

At first I thought you were going to say the photo was an error (since the site is called “Bad Astronomy”) but was pleased to see that it is authentic. I guess some “good astronomy” is included with the bad here!

Thanks,
Jim

Thanks!!

Bravo!