Newborn planet pictured for first time

Just so you are aware...this is NOT CGI.

 

The Very Large Telescope is real. It is located in Chile at -24.62733, -70.40417.

It really did make an observation of a young planet around a young star. The planet is designated PDS 70b. It is a gas giant that is even larger than Jupiter.

You can read all about it in the peer reviewed publication of its discovery here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/g...Large_Telescope&params=24.62733_S_70.40417_W_
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1514/discovery-alert-baby-pictures-of-newborn-giant-planet/
https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1821/eso1821a.pdf

 

But you're only telling me what you've read or heard in the links: personally I don't read links unless I'm convinced they're from independent (note that word?) sources.

 

There's a lot of independent academic literature regarding the VLT and PDS70. In fact, PDS70b was predicted to exist around it's host star more than 25 years ago. I did quick google search and found countless peer reviewed publications regarding PDS70 and which observations were made using many telescopes beyond just the VLT. There's no possible way you can't know that unless you are burying your head in the sand.

 

It - 'space, the final frontier' - has become a worldwide industry, and everyone who has latched on to it is making a good living from perpetuating and hyping up the crap, and who can blame them? Please don't believe everything you're told without questioning it?

 

And how do you define "independent", for this purpose?

 

Of course, that more accurately describes religion than it does any scientific field.

 

What is wrong with you? We get astounding new images of planetary formation in another star system and you suddenly have a meltdown over it? Why?

 

This much is painfully obvious.

 

Sorry, maybe a better word in this instance is 'disinterested'

adj.
1. unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives.
2. not interested; indifferent.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinterested

 

Agree that! They're based upon blind faith and a serious amount of gullibility?

 

But the motivations of scientists are irrelevant to the quality of the acoence. That is the point of the scientific method, which is repeatable, regardless of your motivations. That includes the motivation of wanting to debunk the science.

For someone to think they can judge science as "biased" simply from its conclusions is absurd.