There are always alternate explanations. The planetary accretion theory explains the observation better than any other theory I've heard mentioned and, more importantly, the observations match the hypotheses of the theory; it's not a post hoc crowbarring of the observations to fit a theory.jlay wrote:Wow! This is amazing. Is it possible that there are alternate explanations? Is this even a fact, or a theory?From start to finish? Nope. In the process of forming? Yup.Then how can you be so certain regarding Fomalhaut B?My point is that it's a gray spectrum between no planet and a fully formed planet, not a black and white deliniation.
The planet is 25 light-years away. And suddenly we know how old it is, and that it is in this specific time of formation? The fact is that FB is like looking at a grain of sand in a sandbox. Even with hubble, it is a spec. I went ahead and did a little research (since its not top secret) and it is littered with "maybes" and "may haves." In other words speculation. An obvious sign of folks trying to apply their interpretations to the evidence.
ETA - We know, for example, that the "speck" is orbiting its star as it obeys Kepler's laws. We know it is probably accreting from a dust disk as the planet's existence was originally (i.e. before it was ever imaged) by the existence of an orbital-shaped gap in the dust disk.