Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newly Formed Solar System

Posted by Zonk on from the dubbed-mordor dept.

xPsi writes "An article in New Scientist reports that a team of astronomers from UC Berkeley and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center have used the Hubble space telescope to image a dust ring in orbit around Fomalhaut, a nearby star about 25 light years away. The ring 'offers the best evidence yet that a nearby star is circled by a newly formed solar system.' Oddly enough, from the Earth's vantage point, the ring also happens to resemble The Eye of Sauron. One Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them..."

117 comments

  1. Newly formed solar system my ass! by nokilli · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ours was invented first! We own the patent! You think inventing a solar system is easy? Trivial and non-obvious? Then why haven't you created one yourself?

    Prior art? I can't seeeeeeee you! Can you show that your solar system was invented before our solar system was?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    All your solar system are belong to us. Uh huh. Don't waste your time crying cause I can't hear the tears. All those heavenly bodies? Time for me to get jiggy with each and every one! I got my pulsar right here!

    My IP is bigger than your IP!

    (and to think Bozo patents the "click" and Jobs patents the "wheel". I mean, c'mon guys, keep up. I'm talking planets here! What do you got? A forest and a fruit? -1, I'm-Not-Interested-Anymore.)

    1. Re:Newly formed solar system my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Did you use your slashdot subscription to post this?

      If so, that's funny.

      Not funny haha mind you, funny as in "haha you suck".

      -tez

  2. "Newly" formed? by TCM · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd say it's at least 25 years old. Pfft.

    You need to speed up your R&D cycle to compete in today's market, Mr. astronomer guys.

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  3. That's quite a journey... by AtariEric · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good luck getting the ring to that Mount Doom...

    --
    Don't trust any concentration of power.
    1. Re:That's quite a journey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like we're going to need a bigger hobbit...

    2. Re:That's quite a journey... by bfizzle · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is the reason why THEY want to shut down the Hubble... the don't want us to realize that the great eye is watching us.

      In all honesty this is the kind of shit that bugs me that they are taking a perfectly decent satelite out of orbit that is relatively easy to repair now that it is actually working.

    3. Re:That's quite a journey... by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's simple. There's so little mass in a ring you could concevably accelerate it pretty goddamn quickly. Strap a few rockets on, aim it well, and fire, and you can lie back for a littel nap.

      Then again, you might have to wait awhile to see some results.

      --
      No comment.
    4. Re:That's quite a journey... by MaDeR · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Incorrect. Any mission to Hubble is more costly than making and firing into sky a new shiny telescope. Why?

      Space is counter-intutive. We assume that repairing is normally cheaper than buying new thing. But escaping from Earth's gravity well is COSTLY. DAMN HUGE COSTLY. And you pay that cost in both cases (repair vs new). If repair mission hinders progress of development of new telescopes, then i say TO HELL with Hubble. New 'scopes have superior capabilities and in month can make more discoveries than Hubble in whole life. Enough to say.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
  4. I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if that would be a good spot to post my flyer:

    **Missing!**

    One solar sail. Shiny silver, 10 stories tall, 5 microns wide. Lost near the Sol area, but may be near Formalhaut in about 500 years. Answers to "401.525 MHz". Very dear to our hearts; reward offered.If sighted, please contact the Planetary Society at 626-793-5100.

    --
    What a crazy random happenstance!
    1. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you are going for humor, but why not leave now?

      It's only 25 light years away. If solar sails can be asumed to go "a significant fraction" of light speed (at their best) we can assume that it would take no longer than a few minutes - to the passengers (assuming that a trip of 100,000 light years would take about 3 minutes "to the riders").

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_year
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

      This means a two-way trip to "snap photos" would mean that your loved ones may have passed, but you are theorically only about 50-100 years into the future. TFA mentions the amount of learning that could be had - if we left in the next 100 years we would learn even more, but this solar system is still young. Even sending instruments to beam back data would be worth it.

      Sure, there are a lot of things to work out - but it is something to shoot for. And a whole lot more worth it than going for Mars or the Moon again.

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
    2. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Alas, poor Cosmos 1.

      Incidentally, some folks over at Indymedia are apparently convinced that the solar sail was actually a plan to test a "DEATH RAY WEAPON PLATFORM IN SPACE." Um... yeah.

    3. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Im+Rick+James+Bitch! · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damnit, now you know I'm gonna have to go out and post that flyer all over my city! BASTARD! :) I might even use this photo:

      http://www.universetoday.com/am/uploads/2004-1110s ail-full.jpg

      Want me to email you some pics of the flyer, as well as the various locations I post it? I'm gonna post it either way, so we both might as well enjoy it :)

    4. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      I saw it as more of a slippery slope towards the insanity that it could be related to something that may (in the author's mind) be used as death ray. "um... yeah" indeed though

    5. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Rei · · Score: 1

      If you're serious, I would love that ;) And random space geeks would get a real kick out of it ;)

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    6. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Omnieiunium · · Score: 1

      If you do that, PLEASE post some pics SOMEWHERE.. or at least a link to them. That would be great.

    7. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      If you do, seriously, you need to document it and submit the story to slashdot, fark, or something along those lines. That's just too amusing to not share among the few who'd actually get it.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    8. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's only 25 light years away. If solar sails can be asumed to go "a significant fraction" of light speed (at their best) we can assume that it would take no longer than a few minutes - to the passengers (assuming that a trip of 100,000 light years would take about 3 minutes "to the riders").

      You've forgotten about acceleration. Accelerating to 99.9% of light speed (relative to the Sun) in 90 seconds would require an acceleration of about 340,000g. Solar sails don't have that kind of thrust, and you couldn't build a ship or crew to survive it anyway.

      (Note that I've done the math using newtonian equations. With relativistic effects the number is bound to be much worse).

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    9. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      Ok, right as I hit submit, I realized I've read the original post wrong, but my point still stands. There exists no means to safely accelerate a spacecraft to the speeds required to travel 100,000 ly in 3 minutes subjective time.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    10. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      There exists no means to safely accelerate a spacecraft to the speeds required to travel 100,000 ly in 3 minutes subjective time.

      I think you have to go FTL to achieve 100,000 ly in 3 minutes.

      Or did I miss something?

      --

      -- Sauer
    11. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      Or did I miss something?

      We're talking subjective time. As the craft accelerates, its perception of time slows down. If the craft can accelerate fast enough, it can travel 100,000 ly in 3 minutes as measured by an on-board clock. An outside observer, stationary relative to the origin and destination, will measure the time taken as somewhat over 100,000 years.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    12. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Phleg · · Score: 1

      How does this work? I've read a few books covering relativity (as well as the linked articles), but I still don't understand how one can travel 25 light years in three minutes at near light speed.

      The way I understand it, time dilates in a sense for everyone not traveling near light speed. When you approach the speed of light, from your vantage point, you are leaving your point of origin and approaching your destination at the speed of light. The origin and destination, however, will have time pass extraordinarily quickly from your perspective. A net result is that you make the trip in what feels like 25 years, and millions or billions of years have passed for your origin and destination.

      I can see how these effects might be reversed if you perceive yourself as being still with the origin and destination accelerating away from and towards you, respectively, since, while moving at near light speed, time would move extraordinarily slowly on the origin and destination. However, wouldn't it still feel to you like twenty-five years have passed? And doesn't your acceleration destroy this potential perspective?

      --
      No comment.
    13. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      A net result is that you make the trip in what feels like 25 years, and millions or billions of years have passed for your origin and destination.

      No, stationary observers in the frame of your origin and destination will measure 25 years for the trip (minus a little bit because your speed isn't quite c). Proper time on the ship approaches a limit of zero seconds as your speed approaches c. Remember, from your POV the origin and destination are moving and you are at rest. So you observe them moving at your speed in the opposite direction. You observe a length contraction of the line connecting them, and the length contraction determines how much proper time you experience.

      Of course you'll want to accelerate and decelerate near the endpoints of your journey and this screws things up a bit.

    14. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by coopex · · Score: 1

      He meant time as experience by those in the spacecraft - hence subjective time, since, according to SR, traveling at relativistic speeds means time slows down for the occupants.
      t_occupants = t_"rest"/gamma, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and t_"rest" = x/v.

      Solving the equations for t and v, you'd get t_"rest" = 3153600000000.0000000051369863012s or 100000.00000000000000016289276704 years, and v = 0.99999999999999999999837107232964c.

      The energy of a ship would then be E = sqrt(p^2*c^2+m_0^2*c^4), where p = the relativistic momentum p = gamma*m_0*v. The equation simplifies to E = sqrt(17519999997^2*m_0^2*c^4) = 17519999997*m_0*c^2, a somewhat large amount that might prove difficult for us to realistically achieve.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    15. Re:I wonder if they have any telephone poles by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      Pffft, Hey I was just kidding. Ofcourse I knew all that number mumbo jumbo. ;D

      --

      -- Sauer
  5. soooo old! by cryptoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on, even Slashdot is usually better at reporting news that's RECENT! I mean, how can you call something that formed 25 years ago _news_? Bah!

    1. Re:soooo old! by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      25 years ago...3 days ago...this is probably just another repost from some BBS Zonk was using as a kid; we should be used to this by now.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  6. Wow, Life Imitating...wait a minute!!! by Basehart · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if the Earth is some kind of Art Planet, and what we do here really is copied "out there", or at least observed and acted upon, in the same way as in Galaxy Quest.

    Lets face it, that sure does look like the Eye Of Sauron and it sure wasn't discovered before a couple of million beings on Planet Earth saw the movie and started dreaming about it or whatever.

    1. Re:Wow, Life Imitating...wait a minute!!! by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2, Funny
      What if the Earth is some kind of Art Planet, and what we do here really is copied "out there"

      I'd say we'd have one hell of an IP lawsuit brewing!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    2. Re:Wow, Life Imitating...wait a minute!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That may be geeks' only hope of finding anything remotely resembling a chick. But what a chick, with tentacles and sucking machinery and all.

      Geek in space: I'm giving you this one Ring to bind you in darkness. My preciousss...
      Chick: Beep Beep Beep

    3. Re:Wow, Life Imitating...wait a minute!!! by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1
      Of course the system doesn't really look like the Eye of Sauron. It is an artifact of the way they took the picture. From the article:
      This device blocks the glare of a star while gathering the faint reflected light from any surrounding ring.
      And from the caption of the image:
      The geometrical centre of the ring is offset to the left of the star's position, shown with a yellow dot.
      All that black space that looks like the iris is really just the part they covered up so that the star wouldn't saturate the camera (same thing as when they block out the sun to study the corona). And the little dot in the picture where the star is isn't really the star (unless they took it from another picture). So, very cool, but if you were able to look at it and still see it well despite the bright star in the middle, it wouldn't look quite like the picture.
      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
  7. How Long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does anyone know if this is something they were tracking, or did someone just chance upon it and determine it was "newly formed"?

    Yes, I did read the article.

    It would be rather interesting if they've been tracking it. Less interesting if they just chanced upon it.

    And FINALLY -- a *positive* story about the Hubble telescope.

    1. Re:How Long? by helioquake · · Score: 3, Informative

      The discoverers knew the ring-like object was there beforehand. It was observed in infrared light first. What is unprecedented is the clarity of the feature in visual light and accurate knowledge of its geometry (the center of the ring (ellipse) isn't exactly coincident with the central star, which implies some other gravitating object is present).

      If the presence of a planetary system weren't suspected, I doubt they would have gotten orbits to use the HST to observe this.

      As for the "newly formed" stuff, it has nothing to do with the Hubble picture. It merely is a speculation based on the fact that the star is A-type star (like Vega) that hadn't evolved too much (I don't remember how old, but it's nowhere near as old as the Sun...) Anyway, add the word "astronomically" in front of "newly formed" to make a better sense out of the phrase.

    2. Re:How Long? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well since the star has a name like Fomalhaut, rather than 3C247, or even P3567 means we've been aware of the star between 100 and 4 thousand years and this one is probably closer to 4000 years; and it's naked-eye visable. We've had a pretty good idea of what stuff localy is new and what is old more likely it's something that we've just gotten arround to looking at because theirs just some much to look at.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  8. Better the eye or Sauron... by EvilCabbage · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... than the brown eye of Goatse.

    1. Re:Better the eye or Sauron... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
      Brown eye? Have you even seen goatse?

      Outside of our solar system, that picture is commonly referred to as the "Gaping Red Giant"

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    2. Re:Better the eye or Sauron... by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no reference to Goatse can ever be funny. Whoever modded this obviously hasn't seen it.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    3. Re:Better the eye or Sauron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good luck hiding that from your boss, or better yet, get it off your mind..

  9. Re:WORST POST! by __aawfbm2023 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    EVER! (?)

  10. Definitely... by 8086ed · · Score: 1

    A midnight post.

  11. Looks like the eye of Sauron? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Funny

    IT'S A TRAP!

    1. Re:Looks like the eye of Sauron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not on Fark

  12. So now we have by urbster1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    a LOTR solar system? What's next, the Star Wars solar system? Oh wait, my bad, that was a long, long time ago.

    1. Re:So now we have by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, this is a place that no man has gone before. :P

    2. Re:So now we have by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, my bad, that was a long, long time ago.

      Which means the light could actually arrive here in our lifetime. Then we can send Mimas over there and have some fun.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:So now we have by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      We're eventually going to run out of gods to name things after, so why not LOTR-themed solar systems? (Looking forward to the TOS system with planets Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Khaaan...)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:So now we have by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      I do seem to remember seeing photos of a moon that looks a lot like the Death Star. Oh, wait, that's no moon!

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    5. Re:So now we have by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a solar system. It was a galaxy far away.

      -Peter

    6. Re:So now we have by pomakis · · Score: 1

      We already have a death star right here in our own solar system. All I can say is, be careful when you're travelling in the vicinity of Saturn!

    7. Re:So now we have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a galaxy far, far away...which means the light from the Star Wars galaxy should just be reaching us right around now.

      Given a few years, with powerful enough telescopes, we might even catch the death star in the middle of doing its thing.

  13. Re:WORST POST! by Laz7 · · Score: 1

    umm... I'm pretty sure that is spelled: EVAR!!

  14. Sigh: Move along, folks, nothing to see here by peakoil · · Score: 0, Troll

    Darn, after spending billions of dollars wasted they come up with this? For too long, Mom and Pop businesses in this country have been reduced to nothing more than little tax paying sheep who must feed Nasa.

    1. Re:Sigh: Move along, folks, nothing to see here by NanoGradStudent · · Score: 1

      I dunno if you're serious or not, so I'll bite.

      You may think this to be evidence of the waste that is NASA, but there are many more who would say that this is a shining example of the return reaped from the investment in NASA and in science as a whole. DISCLAIMER: I won't claim to be one since I'm not an american and don't directly contribute to funding either of these.

      This is probably what our own solar system looked like some 5 billion years ago, and probably how our own planet came to be. And now we can actually see it. That's powerful (to me anyways). I choose to believe that the fact that this is happening in our own backyard (galactically speaking), and around a star very much like our own may mean that we're not alone in this universe.

      Sure, there's a lot of taxpayers' money that's being wasted, but I don't think NASA is one of them.

      --
      Just a little guy, y'know?
    2. Re:Sigh: Move along, folks, nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well. Given your great concern for the rest of us, perhaps when NASA have single handedly driven us all bankrupt, we can all come and live under your rock...

  15. No pupil by ByteSlicer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oddly enough, from the Earth's vantage point, the ring also happens to resemble The Eye of Sauron.

    Actually, the black pupil isn't really there, it's just the Hubble's coronagraph (see TFA). So, while the picture indeed resembles the Eye of Sauron, the system doesn't really look like this seen from Earth.

    1. Re:No pupil by helioquake · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the black pupil isn't really there

      Nor those spoke-like features radiating out of the black eye. These patterns are due to the opitical system of the HST/ACS instrument.

    2. Re:No pupil by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Conclusion: that solar system was watched through Saurons eye. No sense in looking for Sauron on other planets, he's here!

    3. Re:No pupil by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Jesus, guys, thanks for ruining it for the rest of us =P

      --
      No comment.
  16. Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the title is just totally wrong.

    As others have pointed out, 25 years ago isn't exactly 'newly formed'.

    Strictly speaking, there is one and only one 'Solar System' and that's the system of our star, Sol.

    All other star systems should be referred to as 'Star System', 'Stellar System' or whatever other term you can derive from 'Star'. Calling them 'Solar System' is incorrect.

    Of course, most people would understand what he meant from the context and I'm just being nitpicky but then.. astronomy is a precision thingmajig. :p

    1. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm just being nitpicky but then...

      Why leave all the hairsplitting to the physicists? I'm sure astronomers would love to argue about something other than dark matter, black holes and the damn cat.

    2. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The condition of my cat is for me to know, and for you to find out. It's inside MY box, after all!

      And to the previous poster (since /. has that wonderful "you must wait at least..." bit going on):

      > but then.. astronomy is a precision thingmajig. :

      No, it's not. IAAA, and any science in which canceling terms from calculations willy-nilly because it's convenient doesn't qualify as a "precision" science.

      And finally, 25 years most definitely IS newly formed. Astronomically speaking.

    3. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Gondola · · Score: 1

      The AC is right. There's only one SOLar system. Another system would be the (Name of primary star)-(proper linguistic ending) System.

      Like, the star Regulus would be in the "Regulan System" or whatever.

    4. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always figured that Alpha Centauri and the like were stellar systems. Multiple stars in a direct relationship whose distance can be measured in AU or at the very least less than a light year. You're not being nitpicky, you're splitting hairs for your own ends. A star is a sun and a sun is a star.

    5. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but "Fomalhautan System" just isn't sexy.

    6. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWhy not simply call it a new stelar system.

      Sounds alot better than star system and much more general than Solar system

    7. Re:Should be 'Star', not 'Solar' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun/Sol is a star and a star does not necessarily mean the Sun.

      Alpha Centauri is a stellar system, but it most certainly is more than a light year from Earth. 4 if I remember right. A Centauri and Proxima Centauri.

      Measuring interstellar distances with AU will lead to astronomical numbers indeed. The average distance from the Sun to the earth is not very big.

  17. Wallpaper sized image? by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

    Anyone?

    --
    Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    1. Re:Wallpaper sized image? by helioquake · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go here:

      STScI Press Release

      Click on the top image, then scroll down to find unannotated version of images and click on it. Then you'll find a big TIFF file of this picture.

      Enjoy.

    2. Re:Wallpaper sized image? by sinner0423 · · Score: 1

      Direct link to image(s) from instructional parent post in case you can't follow instructions. .tiff is on the left hand side.

      Now I can see the eye of the galaxy jesii staring at me in HIGH RES!

    3. Re:Wallpaper sized image? by smart.id · · Score: 1

      Direct link to tiff from instructional grandparent post and from page linked to in parent post.

      Additional unnecessary comment with EXCLAMATION POINT!

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
  18. Eye of God? by Valcoramizer · · Score: 1

    This looks similar to the "Eye of God" the hubble space telescope hubble found. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0305/helix0 3_hst_big.jpg

    --
    We raise our slide-rules high.
    1. Re:Eye of God? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The helix nebulae is a well known astronomical object that has been noted well before the Hubble.

      The Hubble just has a better view.

      A decent amatuer telescope will allow you to see it.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  19. My favorite ring-related heavenly body: by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hoag's Object. So unusual they call it an object!

    --

    ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    1. Re:My favorite ring-related heavenly body: by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Don't look at it, you'll die in seven days!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:My favorite ring-related heavenly body: by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      Hoag's Object [hubblesite.org]. So unusual they call it an object!

      Okay, admit it, you hesitated before following that mysterious link about a ring-related object...

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  20. But do they have a flag? by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

    But does this new solar system have a flag? No so I claim this solar system the shobyeyelordyringy - *places flag and yells FLAG*

    1. Re:But do they have a flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then someone camping behind one of the planets picks you off and captures the flag. And your respawn point is light-years away.

  21. only one of them, right? by adrianmonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but I thought the Sun (proper noun) was a star (common noun), and that Sol (also proper noun) was another word for the Sun, and that therefore the Solar System (also proper noun) specifically refers to the Sun and the planets surrounding it, not to any other star systems.

    So, saying "Newly Formed Solar System" makes no sense, because there is only one Solar System, and we are in it right now, and it is not newly formed. It makes about as much sense to call something else a Solar System as it would if we discovered another continent and the headline were "New North America Found" instead of "New Continent Found".

    1. Re:only one of them, right? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 2, Informative

      When a planet orbits a star, that star is it's Sun. The Sun is not a singular entity.

    2. Re:only one of them, right? by truedfx · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I thought that star is then its sun, and that the Sun, when talking about stars, refers only to our own sun. Right or wrong? (Doesn't make your point less valid either way - I'm just curious.)

    3. Re:only one of them, right? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would make sense, although that's nick picking to the extreme!

    4. Re:only one of them, right? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are being picky. This is one that most languages (especially English in this case) simply don't have a reasonable general term for, mainly because until very recently there hasn't been a need for such a term.

      The use of the term "solar system" is, however, a very widely recognized term that most people in the general public are familiar with, and when it is suggested that another "solar system" was found around another star besides the Sun, most people hearing that phrase instantly understand exactly what is being said. Isn't that the purpose of language anyway? Did anybody reading the article get confused and misinterpret what was said?

      Sol is the Latin version of the word...hence adopted by Science Fiction writers to give a more exotic flavor to something most people here on Earth find ordinary...nothing more or less. And by being Latin, it is the root word for many terms relating to the Sun, as is the word Helios (the Greek version of the same word).

      To propose perhaps a more generic term, perhaps "star system" would be appropriate, and could be applied generically to the planets and other stuff around the Sun. Or perhaps a word like "furdiquorid" (something made up), but then again, would anybody recognize that word as meaning anything? Star system would at least be recognized by scientists and many SciFi fans (perhaps hardcore SF fans as well). By context it may also be recognized by literate people in general, although it would be considered an unusual term.

      Another word that needs to be standardized for a more generic version is perihelion (with related terms perigee, perijove, periares, etc.), although with this word at least you understand from the word roots what object you are orbiting.

    5. Re:only one of them, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "star system" has the connotation of multiple gravitationally interacting stars, whether or not there are planets.

      The term "solar system" has the connotation of a single star with one or more (proto-) planets gravitationally bound to it.

    6. Re:only one of them, right? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Regardess of which term is correct, the public will accept the most publicized version of the term. That's why it's so important to get the most appropriate term into circulation early enough for it to be publicized as the "Correct" version.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    7. Re:only one of them, right? by Phleg · · Score: 1

      However, as I understand it, our Sun's name is "Sol".

      --
      No comment.
    8. Re:only one of them, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were ALMOST correct.

      Our star is the Sun, but another star with an orbiting body is that body's sun (lowercase). Sol is the name of our sun (the Sun), making our solar system the Sol System (not "Solar System"). However, "solar" can just as easily refer to A sun as THE Sun. The term "astral system" might be more appropriate (although it would only imply orbiting bodies by virtue of the word "system"), but "solar system" is not being used incorrectly.

    9. Re:only one of them, right? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      No, our sun's name is "The Sun". In Latin langages (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian, etc.) it is "Sol". Science Fiction writers use the latin term simply to give some extra flavor, but it is just an adoption of the latin term in English. Helios is the greek version (aka Helium, Heliopause, Perihelion) of the same word, if you want to get even more exotic.

      Personally, I like simple Anglo-Saxon when talking in English, even if the words are "vulgar" due to ancient repression of aboriginal Englishmen still reflected in the language. Crap instead of Manure, for instance. Anglo-Saxon words are usually easier to spell as well.

  22. Not Sauron by Rational · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Cthugha, surely?

    http://www.afn.org/~cthugha/defines.html/

    --
    "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  23. As you might have heard.. by Akodo+Jed · · Score: 1

    Fomelhaut... is the 18th brightest star.. in the world... Or so said Danger Bob, anyway. Yeah... I got nothin'. --Jed

    1. Re:As you might have heard.. by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

      Ummm there are no stars in the "world", what you should have said is "Currently the 18th brightest star in the known universe as visible from planet Earth"

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    2. Re:As you might have heard.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "in the world" is a perfectly reasonable saying when considering the frame of reference.

      After all, we say "biggest toaster in the world" when, quite obviously the toaster isn't *in* the world at all, it's *on* it. "in the world" is a generic term that can refer to anything in, on, or above the planet Earth.

      I've seen better nit-picks at the veterinarian!

  24. More like the eye of the Great Old Ones by Black+Art · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lovecraft claimed that some of the Great Old Ones lived on or near Fomalhaut. Maybe it is not the eye of Sauron, but something far worse.

    And now that we can see it, it can see us. And it will come for us in our dreams. And lick the sweet icor from our brains.

    Enya! Enya! Cthulhu fthagan!

    --
    "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
    1. Re:More like the eye of the Great Old Ones by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're lucky you misspelled fthagn... oops.

    2. Re:More like the eye of the Great Old Ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be Cthuggua.

  25. More Info by kf6auf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This dust cloud was first published in 1989 in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society.

    According to "The Age of Gliese 879 and Fomalhaut" in APJ v.475, p.313 (1997) Fomalhaut is 200 +/- 100 million years old. While this is a large margin of error, this still confirms that circumstellar dust disks can persist in A stars for several hundred megayears, which it is believed can then form planets.

    According to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society v.334, p.589 (2002) it is estimated that the ring has the mass of 20-30 Earths.

    While not known for certain "Submillimeter Observations of an Asymmetric Dust Disk around Fomalhaut" in APJ v.582, p.1141-46 (2003) implies that the ring offset and the clump with 5% the mass of the ring is likely caused by a large planet close to the star, but I don't know what this no-visible-planet observation means for that theory. Dark matter?

    And I could not for the life of me find the distance that ring is from Fomalhaut. Anyone know?

    And thanks for that link to the Eye of Sauron, I had been wondering what that was.

    1. Re:More Info by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. If that planet has 5% of the mass of the ring, and the ring has 20-30 times the mass of earth, it means that planet has 1-1.5 times the mass of earth.

      And the Eye of Sauron is something that resembles the picture taken by the HST :-P

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  26. Re:Nothing to See Here! by babyblink · · Score: 1

    It probably see us 25 years ago and it should take another 25 years to see us now so may be next 50 year I may know what else it want to do beside peeping on us.

    --
    [self dealloc];
  27. Yeah, okay... by Zarf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oddly enough, from the Earth's vantage point, the ring also happens to resemble The Eye of Sauron. One Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them...

    Zonk, to you everything looks like "The Eye of Sauron" ... a latte with that swirly cream, a sundae with a cherry on top, a toilet seat, anything vaugely circular ...

    It's called Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder and you need to get help before you get on that white ship with Gandalf.

    --
    [signature]
  28. You can't just give it to Tolkien in 2005! by kulakovich · · Score: 1


    - because Lovecraft has got dibs!

    Kulakovich

  29. OMG - GOATSE IN SPACE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well.. somebody had to say it

  30. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG LOOK!! There are tie fighters coming out of it!! And Lord Vader spotted OUR galaxy and decided that he and the Emperor are going to control THIS galaxy too! Their plans are now to make an INTERGALACTIC EMPIRE and turn all of us into Sith Lords!! Either that or we die!! Shit I can't even use the force yet!!

  31. If the galaxy is far far away.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then it is ALSO a long time ago!! (DUHHH it takes time for the light to get here.) So, basically, if you had a powerful enough telescobe, you might be able to catch a glimpse of the Dearth Star, or Tattoine, or, with good enough optics, even Annakin himself!!!

  32. It watches us, precious. by MagikSlinger · · Score: 0, Redundant

    *gollum* *gollum*

    It sees everything, precious. It never closes! *gollum* *gollum*

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  33. 25 Light Years? by joshjoneswas · · Score: 1

    That's a little close, right? (Cosmically speaking, of course)

  34. Just watch out for Trelane by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    He's gonna be pissed when he finds out that Napoleon lost. Whatever you do, don't mention "Kirk" or "Wellington."

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  35. actually.... by goldberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to Wikipedia "A star system or stellar system is a group of stars (and possibly smaller bodies such as planets or asteroids) that orbit one another (systems with planetary bodies orbiting stars, are referred to as solar systems or planetary systems)." So really, if we want to get technical, "planetary system" would be the most appropriate. Not that it matters.

    --
    But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
  36. Why, you must be jok... oh - the same publish date by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    It's a similarly nice coincidence that the system formed right around the same date that J.R.R. Tolkien published the Silmarillion - which was the mytho/historical context for Middle Earth and Lord of the Ring.

    It's also the same time that the LOtR trilogy was re-published, and subsequently gained most of its popularity.

    I am.... quite comfortable with this coincidence.

    .
    -shpoffo
    kNOw Research

  37. MOD PARENT UP! Insightful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great discussion. Very enlightening. I'm out of mod points right now.

  38. View through the palantir is distorted by Urusai · · Score: 1

    Just don't let Sauron know about Frodo, m'kay?

  39. Re:Why, you must be jok... oh - the same publish d by Eric119 · · Score: 1

    Er, J. R. R. Tolkien never published "The Silmarilion". That was edited and published posthumously.

  40. The Dust of Fomalhaut by tripslash · · Score: 1

    I sought to snort of dust
    in orbit ringed 'round Fomalhaut
    Ah! a huff of Fomalhaut-dust!
    No dope have tried, nor reefer-fried
    by hash, so high igh i I
    smoked some coke(noTM), or did I crack
    back to the white li{,n}e, eh? no, no wine
    the windows broke so am I, no joke :(
    To airs above arose my nose
    to sniff a whiff of cosmic scent &&
    forget the meth ESC death ^D
    echo like Nan say no 2> blow

    exhale foul fume of pot

    pierce thy gaze b'yond Solar rayz
    to gaze | daze
    the ringing dust of Fomalhaut

  41. Astronomers staring into Saurons eye? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This clearly shows that they are not mere mortals.

  42. FTL Travel ? by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 1

    Okay ...
    If faster then light travel were possible ...
    And a solar system w/ intelligent life could form in less then 25 years ...
    The ppl from one of those planets ...
    Could visit earth ...
    To watch their solar system form?

  43. Re:Why, you must be jok... oh - the same publish d by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    Ok, sure. Seeing your modification, I'll let my initial point stand.