Funny to see same old “arguments” and misconceptions repeated over and over, ignoring answers and counterarguments, and debunking (for example this damn “clearing orbit”, will this beating of a strawman ever end?).

This is exactly same standards as, say, creationists. Nice to be among people with similiar mindset, eh StevoR?

All? Probably not. Likely? That is being looked at now. The main issue is we don’t have a handle on how our own solar system formed. Its therefore hard to gauge how typical our system is. So right now our understanding is based on the systems we find these exoplanets around and computer simulations. While I’m a big fan of them, you have to watch out for simulations because their assumptions can cause certain outcomes to be more likely. For instance, at the time the Fomalhaut planet was found, simulations showed that A type stars are likely to form ice giants like Uranus and Neptune. Only time will tell how accurate that is. The more we learn about our own system, the better we will be at predicting.

And in the mean time we might soon discover earth-like worlds as well.

I wonder if knowing what we still do not know about physics will allow us to see loopholes to reach those worlds.

But maybe its to soon, I wouldn’t want humans in their current state unleashed upon other planets. Humans are to greedy, irresponsible and destructive. Look at what the overpopulating humans did to their own poor homeworld!

So if there is a possibility to travel to other stars, then I hope humans don’t discover it if/until they become a more responsible species.

How I wish we could just EDIT or even preview these posts – for the umpeteenth time .. Sigh

Exoplanet tally -wise :

Fomalhaut b, Beta Pictoris b, HR 8799 (Or shall we call it “Harry”?) b & c & d are all confirmed imaged exoplanets I understand so that’s five certyain ones right?

Or, wait a minute, is Beta Pic b not so certain? Leaving four planets in two exoplanetary systems.

We’ve also got 2 M 1207 b (the brown dwarf one from 2004 – shall we call it “Twelver”? ) which seems pretty definitely imaged and an exoplanet with very small uncertainties. Safe enough to add to that list? So five planets in three systems then? (HR 8799 – 3, Fomalhaut-1, 2M1207 -1)

Or shall we also count the likely planet of that K7 orange drwaf 1 RSX J numerals (Oh call it ‘Rissex’ or something for pity’s sake please!) making six planets, four systems ..

Or do we go the whole hog and add in GQ Lupi (”GiQueLupis? Giquelupe?”) and Ab Pictoris (”Abpict”? Or just “Fred”? ) too even though they may well be brown dwarfs and NOT planets which would make a grand total of eight planets in six exoplanetary systems ..?

Exciting times and fantastic work by the teams involved however we count them and certainly we’re doing better in this area than I expected to see in my lifetime already!

Cloan : thanks -glad to see I’m not alone in this regard.

Could we hear the ‘Fomalhaut b’ song somehere, please? Sounds interetsing. Ifanyone wants to use my little piece of doggrel (ie. that “Finding of Fomalhaut b” poem posted above on here) for anything btw. feel free to do so also.

Torbjorn Larsson OM wrote :

“But if you are dead set to make the analogy [& yes I sure am! - Ed!] surely Fomalhaut b is an exoplanet ‘planet’ that has cleared its orbit, as it AFAIU is responsible for the cutoff of the visible debris disk? And it’s iffy to understand the significance of the parts in the Beta Pictoris image consisting of superposed and processed parts, but it sure looks to me like Beta Pictoris ‘b’ may be another one.”

Yes but is its orbit actually cleared? What the blazes does “cleared” actually mean anyhow? I mean technically, as I’ve noted before comets and asteroids cross all our planets paths – does that make them not clear and not planets? Can there ever even be any such thing as a “planet” under the stupidity of that IAU “orbital clearance” rule – which was deliberately imposed for the sole purpose of kicking out Pluto? Its just such a nonsense -and it doesn’t even apply to exoplanets showing just how inadequate and silly the IAU definition is.

(So what exactly does the IAU call these new found worlds I wonder? Dwarf planets? Clasical planets? Stark inconvenient facts that destroy the IAu’s decrees maybe? )

I honestly think the IAU are doing themselves and astronomers worldwide a real disservice and making themselves and us all appear very foolish.

I also really think the wider astronomical community needs to get them to reverse their anti-Pluto definition and replace it with something more reasonable – sooner rather than later.

Can we astronomers cast a vote of no-confidence in the IAU leadership and replace them or something? Anyone know?