Relativity is wrong...

1.) The Sun could also be smaller than the Earth. There is no reason why it wouldn't be. Nobody knows for sure.

What what what!? (Mrs Broflowski from Southpark)

Do you not think Earth is special? I didn't. But now I do. Just look at it, there is no other planet like ours. Nobody found any planet suitable for life. Not only that, but there has never, ever been found a planet that had any traces of life. Yet there are millions of life forms right here on Earth. From what we know today, yes, the Earth is special.

I think you mean to say "...there is no other planet like ours known to us at present".This entire comment reveals that you don't really appreciate the size of the known universe or how limited are our abilities to observe extra-solar planets. If this argument were limited to this solar system alone, it would be closer to the truth, though still not accurate (there is developing evidence of life on Mars, Titan and Europa, with the details still trickling in).With regard to extra-solar planets (planets around other stars), we are rapidly cataloguing a great many of them. See The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia for a collated index of confirmed discoveries along with details of ongoing searches.You are forgetting the weak anthropic principle, which says that we must consider that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. In other words if our planet wasn't teeming with millions of life forms, we wouldn't be here to comment on how amazing it is that it is teeming with millions of life forms. That does not presuppose the possibility that other islands of life exist throughout the universe.Edited by Briterican, : Changed "...compelling evidence of life on Mars..." to "developing evidence". Bad choice of words initially.

Like I said, there are no planets, outside the Solar system, that have ever been found. Not a single one.I find it amusing that you "talk the talk" on issues you find important, like all the supposed flaws in the theory of relativity, but piddle away an entire flourishing field of astrophysics as fantasy. The childish "black dots" reference you make doesn't change the fact that there are now over 300 confirmed exoplanets. Perhaps the following website is slightly more on your intellectual level:
Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System | SpaceOf course I'm sure you won't have any trouble belittling that evidence as well, since it doesn't fit your world view.(Here's a nice recent article from a respected source. I guess I'm just making this stuff up, eh?)First solid evidence for a rocky exoplanet | (e) Science NewsEdited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Regarding the fact that the 1990 exoplanet discovery was the first to be seen via visible light... Are you trying to tell me that you will only accept evidence from the portion of the spectrum visible to the human eye? There are a lot of breakthroughs you would deny yourself my friend if you expect the proof to be nicely presented as some sort of gift-wrapped china doll placed in your hand.I'll cease and desist now as I am being off-topic, but I think this exoplanet issue is an example of how you opt to simply ignore evidence that doesn't fit your personal world view.

You're just being ridiculous now Smooth... demanding that there are no exoplanets because I can't show you a picture of one. If you're unwilling to accept the peer-reviewed and now universally accepted evidence for exoplanets, why am I to think any particular "picture" (which it seems, according to your stringent demands for evidence, needs to encompass only the spectrum of light visible to the human eye) would make the difference?

quote:

---

Smooth Operator said:
"Radiowaves are not reliable enough tot ell us what us in the far out space. So we just don't know."

---

This is another blatant denial (or ignorance of) a prominent and well-established field of astronomy involving absorption spectroscopy. Most large telescopes have spectrometers, which are used to measure the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects. This process dates back to 1814 when Joseph Franuhaufer made the earliest visual observations of stellar spectra using a prism spectroscope. (History of Astronomy: an encyclopedia by John Lankford)But I suppose you'll suggest that this is all just rubbish?(Thank Theodoric for the excellent picture you linked of Fomalhaut and its planet)Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Smooth Operator said:
For something we have never seen, we first have to have real solid evidence. Later on you can extrapolate from other spectra of light. But for now, we have no real observational evidence.

---

Apart from direct observation, let me list the other ways that exoplanets are identified.* Astrometry: Astrometry consists of precisely measuring a star's position in the sky and observing the ways in which that position changes over time. If the star has a planet, then the gravitational influence of the planet will cause the star itself to move in a tiny circular or elliptical orbit about their common center of mass.* Radial velocity or Doppler method: Variations in the speed with which the star moves towards or away from Earth that is, variations in the radial velocity of the star with respect to Earth can be deduced from the displacement in the parent star's spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. This has been by far the most productive technique used.* Pulsar timing: A pulsar (the small, ultradense remnant of a star that has exploded as a supernova) emits radio waves extremely regularly as it rotates. Slight anomalies in the timing of its observed radio pulses can be used to track changes in the pulsar's motion caused by the presence of planets.* Transit method: If a planet crosses (or transits) in front of its parent star's disk, then the observed brightness of the star drops by a small amount. The amount by which the star dims depends on its size and on the size of the planet.* Gravitational microlensing: Microlensing occurs when the gravitational field of a star acts like a lens, magnifying the light of a distant background star. Possible planets orbiting the foreground star can cause detectable anomalies in the lensing event light curve.* Circumstellar disks: Disks of space dust surround many stars, and this dust can be detected because it absorbs ordinary starlight and re-emits it as infrared radiation. Features in dust disks may suggest the presence of planets.* Eclipsing binary: In an eclipsing double star system, the planet can be detected by finding variability in minima as it goes back and forth. It is the most reliable method for detecting planets in binary star systems.* Orbital phase: Like the phase of the Moon and Venus, extrasolar planets also have phases. Orbital phases depends on inclination of the orbit. By studying orbital phases scientists can calculate particle sizes in the atmospheres of planets.* Polarimetry: Stellar light becomes polarized when it interacts with atmospheric molecules, which could be detected with a polarimeter. So far, one planet has been studied by this method.(above list shamelessly ripped from wikipedia)For a more colourful exposition on these techniques, visit http://www.novacelestia.com/...etect_extrasolar_planets.htmlSo... let me get this straight... you are saying that all this stuff is "not real observational evidence" ?Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Nice picture. Plus it's a red dot, not black. Maybe he's ok with red dots.

Thanks for your detailed reply addressing the various methods of detecting exoplanets.You repeatedly say things like "How do you know it's caused by a planet? How do ou know it's not caused by somehting else?"Ok, what else then? Why does the most elegent, reasonable possibility (a planet) deserve such incredulous reaction? And why would you believe that our star would have planets while the others in our galaxy (estimated at 100 billion) should not?Edited by Briterican, : Sigh. Stupid 1:40am mistakes.

As Percy has adequately pointed out, this image of some "unknown white circles and dots" is not "computer generated" any more than every image you'll ever see is - i.e. they all have a degree of that. You say that all WFPC2 images are "transformed" - have you considered the fact that the light and its resultant image which is forming on your retina right now is being "transformed" by your brain into an understandable format?Your skepticism seems to stem from an inherent disbelief in what is seen in these images, i.e. you ask "...how do you know that those white dots are actually galaxies?".Is there some way each dot is absolutely, demonstrably shown to be a galaxy? Maybe... I don't know. But if you are putting forward the proposition that they are not galaxies, then what would you suggest they are?