This is how Atlantic wire scientific columnists roll

[DHF]

If anyone wants a good laugh please read this article. If you take a shot every time you find an error, you will likely be drunk before you are finished reading.

http://news.yahoo.com/heres-rare-closeup-planet-thats-300-million-light-220223737.html;_ylt=Ah6ZqTKb53fikMKpqfgW6PXQtDMD

 

[mfb]

Apart from the distance, the weird size estimate and the mixture of "image exists <-> discovered via directing imaging", what is so wrong?
I did not check the timescale of direct observations.

 

[Bobbywhy]

If anyone wants a good laugh please read this article. If you take a shot every time you find an error, you will likely be drunk before you are finished reading.

http://news.yahoo.com/heres-rare-closeup-planet-thats-300-million-light-220223737.html;_ylt=Ah6ZqTKb53fikMKpqfgW6PXQtDMD

DHF, I don't drink shots and am not a mind-reader. Will you please point out the error(s) you've discovered in the article? Thank you.

 

[marcus]

another report:
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/hd_95086_b_lightest_exoplanet_directly_imaged_so_far-113723

the technical paper announcing the discovery:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.7428

 

[bahamagreen]

Well, 300 billion light years...

That distance is 150 times further than the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, and since the observable universe has about a 45 billion light year radius, that distance is very well outside the observable universe.

At that distance, for them to have received the light now, the planet would have needed to emit light from a time older than the universe, but they estimate the planet's star is only 10-17 million years old.

 

[mfb]

Where does the number of 300 billion light years come from? The real value is 300 ly, and the first article has the wrong number of 300 million light years - way too far away for an image of a planet, but at least within the observable universe.
I wonder how such an error gets created.