Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, November 13, 2008 | Science : Astronomy | print version Print | Comments |

Document Hubble directly observes planet orbiting Fomalhaut

by EurekAlert

Estimated to be no more than three times Jupiter's mass, the planet, called Fomalhaut b, orbits the bright southern star Fomalhaut, located 25 light-years away in the constellation Piscis Austrinus (the Southern Fish).

Fomalhaut has been a candidate for planet hunting ever since an excess of dust was discovered around the star in the early 1980s by the US- UK-Dutch Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS).

In 2004, the coronagraph in the High Resolution Camera on Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys produced the first-ever resolved visible light image of a large dust belt surrounding Fomalhaut. It clearly showed that this structure is in fact a ring of protoplanetary debris approximately 34.5 billion kilometres across with a sharp inner edge.

This large debris disk is similar to the Kuiper Belt, which encircles the Solar System and contains a range of icy bodies from dust grains to objects the size of dwarf planets, such as Pluto.


This image, taken with the Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows the newly discovered planet, Fomalhaut b, orbiting its parent star, Fomalhaut. The small white box at lower right pinpoints the planet's location. Fomalhaut b has carved a path along the inner edge of a vast, dusty debris ring encircling Fomalhaut that is 34.5 billion kilometers across. Fomalhaut b lies three billion kilometers inside the ring's inner edge and orbits 17 billion kilometers from its star. The inset at bottom right is a composite image showing the planet's position during Hubble observations taken in 2004 and 2006. Astronomers have calculated that Fomalhaut b completes an orbit around its parent star every 872 years. The white dot in the center of the image marks the star's location. The region around Fomalhaut's location is black because astronomers used the Advanced Camera's coronagraph to block out the star's bright glare so that the dim planet could be seen. Fomalhaut b is 100 million times fainter than its star. The radial streaks are scattered starlight. The red dot at lower left is a background star. The Fomalhaut system is 25 light-years away in the constellation Piscis Austrinus. This false-color image was taken in October 2004 and July 2006.

Hubble astronomer Paul Kalas of the University of California, Berkeley (USA) and team members proposed in 2005 that the ring was being gravitationally modified by a planet lying between the star and the ring's inner edge. Circumstantial evidence comes from Hubble's confirmation that the ring is offset from the centre of the star. The sharp inner edge of the ring is also consistent with the presence of a planet that gravitationally "shepherds" ring particles. Independent researchers have subsequently reached similar conclusions.

Now, Hubble has actually photographed a point source of light lying 3 billion kilometres inside the ring's inner edge. The results are being reported in the 14 November issue of Science magazine.

"Our Hubble observations were incredibly demanding. Fomalhaut b is 100 million times fainter than the star. We began this program in 2001, and our persistence finally paid off", says Kalas.

"Fomalhaut is the gift that keeps on giving. Following the unexpected discovery of its dust ring, we have now found an exoplanet at a location suggested by analysis of the dust ring's shape. The lesson for exoplanet hunters is 'follow the dust'", says team member Mark Clampin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

Observations taken 21 months apart by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys coronagraph show that the object is moving along a path around the star, and so is gravitationally bound to it. The planet is 17 billion kilometres from the star, or about 10 times the distance of the planet Saturn from the Sun.

The planet's upper-mass limit is constrained by the appearance of the Fomalhaut ring. If the planet were much more massive, it would distort the ring, and the effect would be observable in the ring's structure.

"It took the science team four months of analysis and theoretical modelling to determine that Fomalhaut b could not be more massive than three times the mass of Jupiter. Any more massive than that and its gravity would destroy the vast dust belt encircling the star", says Kalas.

Numerous computer simulations show that circumstellar disks will be gravitationally modified by the tug of one or more unseen planets. The Fomalhaut ring has a sharp inner edge that is likely shaped by the gravitational influence of a planet. The inner edge of our Solar System's Kuiper Belt is similarly shaped by the gravitational influence of Neptune.

The planet is brighter than expected for an object of three Jupiter masses. One possibility is that it has a huge Saturn-like ring of ice and dust reflecting starlight. The ring might eventually coalesce to form moons. The ring's estimated size is comparable to the region around Jupiter that is filled with the orbits of the four largest satellites.

Because the Fomalhaut system is only 200 million years old, the planet should be a bright infrared object. That is because it is still cooling through gravitational contraction. However, ground-based telescopic observations at infrared wavelengths have not yet detected the planet. This also sets an upper limit on its mass because the bigger the planet, the hotter and brighter it would be.

Kalas and his team first used Hubble to photograph Fomalhaut in 2004, and made the unexpected discovery of its debris disk, which scatters Fomalhaut's starlight. At the time they noted a few bright sources in the image as planet candidates. A follow-up image in 2006 showed that one of the objects is moving through space with Fomalhaut, but changed position relative to the ring since the 2004 exposure. The amount of displacement between the two exposures corresponds to an 872-year-long orbit as calculated from Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Fomalhaut moves across the sky at 0.425 arcseconds per year, which is the apparent width of 1 Euro coin as seen from 12 kilometres away.

The planet mysteriously dimmed by a factor 1.5 between the 2004 and 2006 observations. This might mean that it has a hot outer atmosphere heated by bubbling convection cells on the young planet – sort of a Jupiter on steroids. Or, it might come from hot gas at the inner boundary of a ring around the planet.

The planet may have formed at its location in a primordial circumstellar disk by gravitationally sweeping up remaining gas. Or it may have migrated outward through a game of gravitational billiards, where it exchanged momentum with smaller planetary bodies. It is commonly believed that the planets Uranus and Neptune migrated out to their present orbits after forming closer to the Sun and then gravitationally interacted with smaller bodies.

Fomalhaut is much hotter than our Sun, and 16 times as bright. This means a planetary system could scale up in size with a proportionally larger Kuiper belt feature and scaled-up planet orbits. For example, the "frost line" in our Solar System – the distance where ices and other volatile elements will not evaporate – is roughly at 800 million kilometres. But for hotter Fomalhaut, the frost line is at roughly 3 billion kilometres from the star.

Fomalhaut is burning hydrogen at such a furious rate through nuclear fusion that it will burn out in only one billion years, which is 1/10th the lifespan of our Sun. This means there is little opportunity for advanced life to evolve on any habitable worlds the star might possess.

Future observations will attempt to see the planet in infrared light and will look for evidence of water vapour clouds in the atmosphere. This would yield clues to the evolution of a comparatively newborn 100-million year-old planet. Astrometric measurement of the planet's orbit will provide enough precision to yield an accurate mass.

The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), scheduled to be launched by ESA in 2013, will be able to make coronagraphic observations of Fomalhaut in the near- and mid-infrared. JWST will be able to hunt for other planets in the system and probe the region interior to the dust ring for structures such as an inner asteroid belt.

Comments 1 - 50 of 53 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #283849 by Kit Finn on November 14, 2008 at 12:07 am

 avatarWow, beautiful, that's really brightened up my day!

Other Comments by Kit Finn

2. Comment #283857 by BlazingArrow74 on November 14, 2008 at 12:30 am

 avatar... Absolutely-Encouraging News ... Hopefully more discoveries of this kind will yield better funding for cosmic research worldwide ... It's just unfortunate that Fomalhaut will burn out too quickly to support life as we know it ...

Other Comments by BlazingArrow74

3. Comment #283860 by Dr Doctor on November 14, 2008 at 12:36 am

 avatarThe Hubble has proved its worth a million times over. Fomalhaut is a mere nipper, and if that nipper can carry planets then that says a lot about the probability of planets around other systems.

I'm looking forward to the JWST, and hopefully the better net based access to the public data from the get-go.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

4. Comment #283861 by Degsy on November 14, 2008 at 12:36 am

Jaw-dropping stuff. I was wondering if anyone would know where to, or how to get hold of a poster-sized image of this sort of thing?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Other Comments by Degsy

5. Comment #283865 by Dr Doctor on November 14, 2008 at 12:41 am

 avatarhttp://www.skyimagelab.com/

Although this is one of the few occassions where the artist impression (can't remember where I saw it) is more beautiful than the images produced so far.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

6. Comment #283866 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 12:41 am

 avatarAbsolutely bloody marvellous. Extremely cool. Splendid. And this is just the first planet to be directly observed- the next decade wil be very exciting!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #283870 by Dr Doctor on November 14, 2008 at 12:49 am

 avatarThis image here:

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/skyimage_2023_105781970

Having seen that, can anyone religous truly claim a monopoly on beauty and awe?

My biggest disappointment was even with my rather enormous telescope that will give me a hernia one of these days is that my eyes, even after several hours, are not good enough to take in the beauty of the night sky the way other amateur astronomers can. I've lost count of the times someone with a less capable telescope says "Can you see that [describes breathtaking effect]", when I look at it I don't see anything near what they describe.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

8. Comment #283875 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 1:00 am

 avatarDr Doctor-

I honestly don't get why people don't want to spend money on space research and science when it gives us things like this.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

9. Comment #283878 by GandalfGrey on November 14, 2008 at 1:08 am

 avatarIt's the Eye of Sauron !

Great picture indeed.

Other Comments by GandalfGrey

10. Comment #283882 by CaptainMandate on November 14, 2008 at 1:21 am

 avatar
Having seen that, can anyone religous truly claim a monopoly on beauty and awe'


If only!

Can't remember if it was New scientist or The Guardian but there was an online gallery of stunning pictures of distant galaxies etc (probably from Hubble). I was in awe looking through them and loved the comments made by readers, was about to make my own when I got to the bottom and read "how can anyone see such beauty and not believe in God"

that kinda spoiled the mood for me

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

11. Comment #283884 by Disbelief on November 14, 2008 at 1:30 am

 avatarAwesome! I just wonder how long it will be before we get to directly observe somewhere habitable. First contact can't be far away.

Other Comments by Disbelief

12. Comment #283885 by Laurie Fraser on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 am

 avatarWonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Suck on that, religoids!

Or should I say - explain that, religoids.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

13. Comment #283900 by Vaal on November 14, 2008 at 1:49 am

 avatarExcellent news. How can anyone not be awestruck and motivated by cutting-edge science. How paltry and absurd is the default "Goddit" position. What small minds and microscopic world views.

I always like it when religious dogma is given another kicking. Of course, the "head in the sand mentality" seems impervious to reason, blind to evidence. If it contradicts a fictional book written by desert nomads thousands of years ago, then it can't possibly be true can it?

When the religdroids quote biblical verse, they might as well be quoting Harry Potter, or Peter Pan. It doesn't mean anything. It is utter bollox.

Other Comments by Vaal

14. Comment #283901 by Laurie Fraser on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 am

 avatarVaal - right on, brother!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

15. Comment #283919 by Osmano on November 14, 2008 at 2:35 am

 avatar"I honestly don't get why people don't want to spend money on space research and science when it gives us things like this."

Because beyond curiosity these things don't have much value, their work is important but it somehow seems wasteful when the world is in recession.

Other Comments by Osmano

16. Comment #283920 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 2:37 am

 avatarOsmano-

The global recession is a very recent occurrence. People have been objecting for far longer than that. And I would question your definition of "not much value".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

17. Comment #283924 by Brian English on November 14, 2008 at 2:42 am

 avatarThe argument that money spent on research is of no value is wrong on many levels. It's not like Governments aren't pork-barreling, favoring lobbyists, repaying those who gave them the nod and all that anyway. Wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan, have cost probably a 100 years worth of research funding. If you want to be thrifty, look at the billions spent monthly on shelling a shit country further into shitdom, so that the mullahs end up in power over those poor folk.

Other Comments by Brian English

18. Comment #283934 by friendlypig on November 14, 2008 at 3:04 am

 avatar.. Jupiter on steroids.

Just so cool.

Other Comments by friendlypig

19. Comment #283938 by Geraint on November 14, 2008 at 3:08 am

I wonder if it's coincidence that this came out at the same time as the images of the planetary system round HR8799.

Other Comments by Geraint

20. Comment #283942 by Osmano on November 14, 2008 at 3:13 am

 avatarThe thirst for knowledge is of course what makes us human, this needs to be balanced with social responsibility.

Of course, observing things by telescope is relatively inexpensive. Manned spaceflight is extravagant.

Other Comments by Osmano

21. Comment #283944 by Vaal on November 14, 2008 at 3:14 am

 avatar15. Comment #283919 by Osmano
Because beyond curiosity these things don't have much value

Money spent on furthering mankind's knowledge is never a waste, just the opposite.

The money wasted on armaments, wars, supporting corrupt regimes is a completely different matter. How much richer a species, in every respect we would be, if we didn't devote such immense resources trying to murder each other. It is obscene.

Other Comments by Vaal

22. Comment #283952 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 3:21 am

 avatarSpaceflight is not extravagant. It is a vital step towards the colonisation of the solar system at large, and making use of the resources that are available out there. Resources which, if current population growth continues, the Earth will desperately need.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #283953 by Brian English on November 14, 2008 at 3:24 am

 avatar
The thirst for knowledge is of course what makes us human, this needs to be balanced with social responsibility.
False dichotomy. As I pointed out before, we are very irresponsible with spending on pork-barelling, welfare for the rich, wars, and whatever. The amount spent on science research is miniscule in comparison. But you'd like us to believe that we have to balance social responsibility on the back of science research. How about stop phony wars on drugs and awful wars on countries like Iraq? The money saved would easily fix social responsibility and leave plenty of change for science.

Other Comments by Brian English

24. Comment #283958 by Greyman on November 14, 2008 at 3:29 am

 avatar

19. Comment #283938 by Geraint on November 14, 2008 at 3:08 am

I wonder if it's coincidence that this came out at the same time as the images of the planetary system round HR8799.

Possibly not.  Once the instrumentation and techniques has reached the point of being able to detect these things if you look in the rigth place, it then becomes a question of: just how common is the right place to look?



Other Comments by Greyman

25. Comment #283960 by Osmano on November 14, 2008 at 3:33 am

 avatarWhere did I say that Iraq and the war on drugs were good ways to spend money? Just because we're being wasteful there doesn't count as an argument for Spaceflight.

Other Comments by Osmano

26. Comment #283961 by Vaal on November 14, 2008 at 3:35 am

 avatarQuetz

Hear hear. Imagine how much we could have done with the money wasted on recent wars, if dedicated to Space research. We would be opening up the solar system to mankind, with all those huge resources available instead of pillaging the finite Earth.

Space elevator research, more efficient faster drives, rocket technology. All of these would open up new technologies, new innovations, new employment opportunities, new goals, new incentives, new horizons, new wealth.

Other Comments by Vaal

27. Comment #283963 by Brian English on November 14, 2008 at 3:39 am

 avatar
Just because we're being wasteful there doesn't count as an argument for Spaceflight.
Doesn't count against spaceflight either. You were trying to equate spaceflight as being wasteful in comparison to social responsibility. That argument will only fly when we're being lean and mean in all other areas that aren't as useful as science. Which we are not.

Other Comments by Brian English

28. Comment #283967 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 3:44 am

 avatarEveryone-

After the idea was discussed at a recent RD.net meeting in Oxford as well as yesterday, I have put some preliminary ideas together for a children's book. The book is intended to showcase some of the more exciting and unusual creatures that have lived on our planet, with the aim of getting children interested and hopefully teaching them some things about evolution and the age of the Earth. Please read my post on the thread I have set up on the subject:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63668

All suggestions and criticism will be gratefully received. Thank you in advance.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #283971 by Osmano on November 14, 2008 at 3:48 am

 avatarAn example being India and China planning to send people to the moon. For what purpose? This is in a country where there's still grinding poverty for a lot of people. Of course they have enough money to try and combat both, but it's still extravagant to be undertaking missions at a cost of billions for minimal scientific value when your country still has so many problems?

Most of our knowledge about the Solar system comes from unmanned robotic space craft, which are cheaper, safer, and more scientifically valuable. Manned spaceflight is much more about national prestige then it is about science.

Other Comments by Osmano

30. Comment #283973 by Vaal on November 14, 2008 at 3:52 am

 avatarQuetz

Good idea. Have you thought of including ancient humans as well?

Make sure none of the creatures have fish-hooks in. :-)

Other Comments by Vaal

31. Comment #283974 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

 avatarOsmano-

Manned spaceflight is about more than just "national prestige". If we are ever going to truly colonise the solar system then we need to send people out into it. And the only way to learn and improve our knowledge of the technology needed to allow people to survive out there is, of course, to actually send them out there.

As for India, people questioned the purpose of its space programme when it started. It now has a large network of communications satellites as a direct result. The Chandrayaan probe is in orbit of the Moon even now, tomorrow it will release a probe to strike the lunar surface, providing us with reams of new data.

Sending people to the Moon is certainly worth doing, since it shows it can be done. If we have the will to do that, then we can expand. If we concentrate exclusively on robotic exploration, then we will never go anywhere, ultimately.

EDIT-

Vaal-

Another book idea I had was to show the progression of animals that eventually led to us.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

32. Comment #283978 by Osmano on November 14, 2008 at 4:02 am

 avatarObviously we need to develop Manned space flight at a later point if we need to colonize the solar system. For now, it's unnecessary, why should we be trying to work out how to make space habitable for people when a lot of people on earth are living in barely habitable conditions?

Other Comments by Osmano

33. Comment #283983 by Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2008 at 4:08 am

 avatarOsmano-

To put it bluntly, there will, at least for the foreseeable future, always be a lot of people living in poverty on Earth. Suspending manned space flight is not going to solve that.

It always bemuses me when the argument is made that we should stop looking to space and deal with Earth's problems first, as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not.

Firstly, as I have said earlier, failure to exploit space now means that we will only be seting ourselves up for more problems in the future.

Secondly, I am confused why people always seem to see the study and exploration of space as wasteful, when the global total spent on space is a fraction of what is spent on armaments and the military. Why should space travel be cut back when defence spending is running rampant? Let the cuts come from there.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

34. Comment #283985 by Geraint on November 14, 2008 at 4:16 am

Greyman:

19. Comment #283938 by Geraint on November 14, 2008 at 3:08 am

I wonder if it's coincidence that this came out at the same time as the images of the planetary system round HR8799.


Possibly not. Once the instrumentation and techniques has reached the point of being able to detect these things if you look in the rigth place, it then becomes a question of: just how common is the right place to look?


I was more thinking about the way they've come to light on the same day (and from different groups using different telescopes). Maybe they synchronised the press releases.

Other Comments by Geraint

35. Comment #283989 by The Schuermannator on November 14, 2008 at 4:23 am

 avatarThis wonderful image also made the APOD site today... What a coincidence, haha. Any of you who are fascinated by images like this I encourage to bookmark the APOD site as you can not only view breathtaking astropics, but learn a great deal snippet by snippet from reading it daily.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

36. Comment #284005 by neorenaissance on November 14, 2008 at 5:02 am

to Geraint,

They published them together in the journal Science, that is why they've come to light on the same day...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7725584.stm

Other Comments by neorenaissance

37. Comment #284007 by Geraint on November 14, 2008 at 5:08 am

Ah, OK. I guess there was an embargo until that issue came out.

Other Comments by Geraint

38. Comment #284032 by Lucas on November 14, 2008 at 6:43 am

 avatarWWJWSTD? (What would the James Webb Space Telescope do?)

No, Gandalf, THIS is the eye of Sauron.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_eye_of_god.htm

Osmano, you're crazy. This stuff has shit tons of value. Your comments highlight humanity's biggest problem - shortsightedness.

Other Comments by Lucas

39. Comment #284047 by Don_Quix on November 14, 2008 at 7:09 am

 avatarUm...one good reason to try to colonize at least the moon or some other body in the solar system as soon as possible is that it is extremely likely that an extinction-level asteroid or comet will hit the Earth at some point in the not too terribly distant future. Not to mention the fact that we're still at risk of nuclear war and several other types of catastrophic events which could lead to the extinction of the human race. Keeping all of your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

40. Comment #284077 by Lucas on November 14, 2008 at 8:52 am

 avatarDon - Mitchell and Webb (the British comedians who do Peep Show among other things) have a great skit where they are on the Moon watching Earth explode. It's on YouTube somewhere.

Other Comments by Lucas

41. Comment #284082 by astronomer24 on November 14, 2008 at 9:26 am

 avatarAbsolutely beautiful, if we could see if there were smaller rocky planets closer in that could sustain life. It is my hope that we will soon.

Other Comments by astronomer24

42. Comment #284087 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #284082 by astronomer24

These planets could be rich with life - at least their moons could be. There is little doubt that there is warm liquid water within the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. For all we know there could be more life there than on rocky Earth-like planets.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #284094 by j.mills on November 14, 2008 at 10:34 am

 avatarosmano - space exploration also has an aspirational value that is difficult to quantify. China getting into space will undoubtedly have an effect on 'national morale' - "Yes we can!" as a certain politician would say. The long-term impact of that is not readily measurable, but has there ever been a moment like the first Moon landing?

Add to that there's all the knock-on technologies that are developed in the process.

Suggesting that more money should be spent on one thing (poverty and deprivation) does not imply that less should be spent on EVERYTHING else.

Incidentally, you folks may be familiar with the International Star Registry (http://www.starregistry.co.uk/) - which is just a scam really, selling people the idea of naming a star. The astronomical community pays not the slightest attention to it. But I always wonder why the IAU or somesuch doesn't take this role on officially. There's no shortage of stars and they could make shedloads of money for astronomy. Obviously they'd need to filter for profanity, pronouncability, etc, but what's the downside? They can still call a star Tau Ceti G338 in the journals, and one day when space opera is real the stars will have curious and interesting names already.

EDIT: Just reading a discussion of this on the IAU website - should look before I post! :)

Other Comments by j.mills

44. Comment #284111 by weavehole on November 14, 2008 at 11:23 am

Skill!

Sometimes, we amaze me.

:)

Other Comments by weavehole

45. Comment #284248 by A on November 14, 2008 at 6:14 pm

I can't believe I am the first to notice that we have found the Eye of Sauron ! (from The Lord of The Rings)

: )

Clicky click >> http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8976/eyespa8.jpg

A

Other Comments by A

46. Comment #284251 by Dr Doctor on November 14, 2008 at 6:30 pm

 avatar

I can't believe I am the first to notice that we have found the Eye of Sauron ! (from The Lord of The Rings)


See comment 9.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

47. Comment #284511 by j.mills on November 15, 2008 at 11:08 am

 avatarFollowing up my own post, #43, I e-mailed the IAU suggesting that they could make money for astronomy by selling the right to name a star. I got this response from their General Secretary:
Selling names of celestial bodies would be both arrogant and immoral.
The IAU is not and will not be in this business.

"Arrogant and immoral"?! I was thinking more along the lines of harmless and lucrative! Weird.

Other Comments by j.mills

48. Comment #284517 by scottishgeologist on November 15, 2008 at 11:23 am

 avatarVaal said:

Excellent news. How can anyone not be awestruck and motivated by cutting-edge science. How paltry and absurd is the default "Goddit" position. What small minds and microscopic world views


Spot on, Vaal, consider a cyber-pint well and truly yours! :-)

This is a fantastic discovery, really. Good old Hubble strikes again.

Trouble is the faith-heads will come out with pish like "Isnt God amazing'" "Isnt the extent of his creation just so, like, awesome.... we have an AWESOME God (they like the word awesome)"

Or else they'll quote Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

Or Psalm 8:3 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained"

So, definitely Goddidit!!!

Just as an aside, there are a couple of Astrophotographers out there who produce stunning images from earth. Top banana is DEFINITELY Jerry Lodriguss www.astropix.com Have a look at his site - it is something else. Seriously. This guy's images RAWK!!!

Lodriguss is also an atheist I am certain. He made some VERY neat remarks regarding how the fact that during a total eclipse, the moon almost completey covers the sun (gosh wow, God at work there...) You can read it all here:

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/date/2008/03/page/3/

(Bay of Fundie LOL!!!)

There is also an EXTREMELY funny Venn diagram on that web page.... Go look for it! Deserves to be better known!

:-)))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

49. Comment #284747 by comet halley on November 15, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Looks like the 'Lonely star of Autumn' is not so lonely.

Other Comments by comet halley

50. Comment #284954 by bluebird on November 16, 2008 at 9:35 am

 avatarWow, lots of space news recently. Photos of four extrasolar planets, landing of the Indian moon probe, and successful launch of Endeavour-slated to dock with ISS today.

This article from Time magazine is, well, timely!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1858878,00.html

Other Comments by bluebird
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE