Goodness the sheer audacity to assume so much from so little data.
This is NOT Fact-based science.
This is Science fantasy, fueled by the demand of scientifically ignorant reporters for something juicy to write about regarding this information.
Considering that we probably know less about the bottom of the ocean than we do about the surface of the moon, I really doubt that any scientist would stick his neck out regarding the info in this article being considered "factual." Fanciful yes, factual no.
Personally, I think the object is so far away, and the information so scant, that even if they have 1000 "hot jupiters" I doubt if that should be taken as confirmation, considering they accept as fact a few shreds of information.
A similar amount of information regarding a planet in this solar system wouldn't even be acknowledged as meaningful, but put it 100 light years away and suddenly it's good enough - what a joke. |