B
B
Black Globe Generator
Guest
Wikipedia has this to say: "HAT-P-1b's physical size and density defies all current theories/models of planetary formation."
This is one reason that I tend to take a "slightly squishy" rather than "hard" science approach to Traveller: we've seen so little and have so much yet to learn that I tend to be open to ideas that may exceed the present state of knowledge.
B
Black Globe Generator
Guest
It is, somewhere around 0.7 grams per cubic centimeter.
Sadly, BGG, many of the working scientists tend to be pretty hide-bound by the time they start doing real science.
Take, for example, Dr. Thomas. A font of useful info, but unwilling to consider that what he thinks is right might be based upon inadequate data. And unwilling to have data he believes in questioned on the basis of the quality of the source data... Especially by "laymen." This is, in my experience, Typical of many working scientists in many fields.
Edit: This isn't intended to be a personal attack upon Dr. Thomas, and is based upon his behavior in a prior thread. I do, however, feel it important to leave this substantially intact. It isn't always true of him, but seems to be generally his reaction.
In planetology, there just isn't enough known to be useful, other than proving current theories are not adequate description, since they don't generate and/or allow for all the results we know can happen by observation...
The current theories ARE important, in the same way that early germ theory was important: even though they are both examples of error from inability to get good enough data sets to extrapolate from, finding the errors leads to revisions which are more useful.
The basic physics models say that a big enough ball of gass should self-compress to higher density than SG0.5g/cc (half that of water at STP); Saturn is supposedly pretty close to the "minimum density sweet spot"...
That this thing is bigger than saturn AND less dense by a factor of 3, well, that indicates some serious oddities...
Which would say that the thing has higher internal pressures than mass alone would indicate; given the orbit speed, that it's thermally heated to the point that the core isn't compressing to metallic Hydrogen... but that's a guess.
Take, for example, Dr. Thomas. A font of useful info, but unwilling to consider that what he thinks is right might be based upon inadequate data. And unwilling to have data he believes in questioned on the basis of the quality of the source data... Especially by "laymen." This is, in my experience, Typical of many working scientists in many fields.
Edit: This isn't intended to be a personal attack upon Dr. Thomas, and is based upon his behavior in a prior thread. I do, however, feel it important to leave this substantially intact. It isn't always true of him, but seems to be generally his reaction.
In planetology, there just isn't enough known to be useful, other than proving current theories are not adequate description, since they don't generate and/or allow for all the results we know can happen by observation...
The current theories ARE important, in the same way that early germ theory was important: even though they are both examples of error from inability to get good enough data sets to extrapolate from, finding the errors leads to revisions which are more useful.
The basic physics models say that a big enough ball of gass should self-compress to higher density than SG0.5g/cc (half that of water at STP); Saturn is supposedly pretty close to the "minimum density sweet spot"...
That this thing is bigger than saturn AND less dense by a factor of 3, well, that indicates some serious oddities...
Which would say that the thing has higher internal pressures than mass alone would indicate; given the orbit speed, that it's thermally heated to the point that the core isn't compressing to metallic Hydrogen... but that's a guess.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The same, reported in New Scientist:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn10075-puffedup-planet-puzzles-astronomers.html
The article mentions this is the second such object discoverd:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn10075-puffedup-planet-puzzles-astronomers.html
The article mentions this is the second such object discoverd:
A note on hide-bound scientists.
Sadly it is true that there have been, and will continue to be close-minded scientists.
Sometimes the 'hide-boundedness' is actually just caution or a requirement for *significant* refuting evidence. This is often misinterpreted as hide-bond by non-specialists.
Sometimes it is either conscious or subconscious protection of limited funding/resources/prestige, etc. More a fault of the insecure science funding environment than a lack of scientific ability. But no excuse.
Sometimes it is just plain poor scientific rigour/experience. Sadly, you can go fairly far in science these days just being a glorified technician rather than a real scientist. A testament to the power of technology, but at the price of stiffled creativity.
I have always tried to encourage my students to delve into scientific philosophy and to cultivate critical and adaptable minds. It doesn't always work though
Sadly it is true that there have been, and will continue to be close-minded scientists.
Sometimes the 'hide-boundedness' is actually just caution or a requirement for *significant* refuting evidence. This is often misinterpreted as hide-bond by non-specialists.
Sometimes it is either conscious or subconscious protection of limited funding/resources/prestige, etc. More a fault of the insecure science funding environment than a lack of scientific ability. But no excuse.
Sometimes it is just plain poor scientific rigour/experience. Sadly, you can go fairly far in science these days just being a glorified technician rather than a real scientist. A testament to the power of technology, but at the price of stiffled creativity.
I have always tried to encourage my students to delve into scientific philosophy and to cultivate critical and adaptable minds. It doesn't always work though
Likewise, the press has created a reactionary environment.
Take for example the claims that Fluffy is inexplicable under current paradigms: Is it really? That seems to overlook the obvious heating-based expansion possible, especially at 0.05AU, with 400 times the energy per square meter as earth...
Specialization has also reduced scientific flexibility; what may be obvious to one isn't for another as the baseline knowledge just isn't there. Where, 50 or 100 years ago, a science degree was fairly broad in scope, now there are people getting bachelor's degrees in VERY narrow fields (Ex: Petrochemical Engineering, Tundra Biology, Pacific Salmon Management). Fields that used to be narrow enough for Doctoral degrees are now masters level, or even the occasional bachelors degree. THIS IS A BAD THING... perhaps needed, but bad for interoperability.
During a program about S. Hawking, several scientists complained about how narrow their fields have become.
Take for example the claims that Fluffy is inexplicable under current paradigms: Is it really? That seems to overlook the obvious heating-based expansion possible, especially at 0.05AU, with 400 times the energy per square meter as earth...
Specialization has also reduced scientific flexibility; what may be obvious to one isn't for another as the baseline knowledge just isn't there. Where, 50 or 100 years ago, a science degree was fairly broad in scope, now there are people getting bachelor's degrees in VERY narrow fields (Ex: Petrochemical Engineering, Tundra Biology, Pacific Salmon Management). Fields that used to be narrow enough for Doctoral degrees are now masters level, or even the occasional bachelors degree. THIS IS A BAD THING... perhaps needed, but bad for interoperability.
During a program about S. Hawking, several scientists complained about how narrow their fields have become.
