Strange New 'Twin' Worlds Found

toomanyairmiles writes "The BBC reports on the the discovery of 'twin worlds' which orbit each other, successfully blurring the line between planets and stars. 'Their existence challenges current theories about the formation of planets and stars.' according to the Journal of Science article which reports their existence. 'The pair belongs to what some astronomers believe is a new class of planet-like objects floating through space; so-called planetary mass objects, or "planemos", which are not bound to stars.'"

Comments

Just goes to show...

[nebaz]

However insular we want to be, the universe has all sorts of stuff in it that we would never expect. Sure with CGI, we can 'visit' anything we can imagine.
It's just great that there is more than that out there. Gives me hope for the future.

Re:Just goes to show...

[diersing]

It also shows that no scientific theory can be trusted to be valid past lunch, we just never know when we'll find something new that blows the standing knowledge out of the water.

Can it all really be random?

http://www.venganza.org/

Re:Just goes to show...

[mattcasters]

I strongly believe (pun intended) that the randomness is vital to the development and existance of life.
Imagine if everything would be strictly ordered, what a boring place would the universe be.
Even in society, I think that diversity is good. Different opinions make us stronger, not weaker.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong : if you think you found something, you didn't look hard enough.

Matt

Re:Just goes to show...

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

No, you may not start a debate. The fact is that science is supposed to change with observation and understanding. Religious belief is usually "concrete" and a matter of faith. Sure, you can mix the two, but be aware of the conflicts that arise.

Should religion be taught in schools? I don't mind. Just don't teach it in a science class. It's bad enough that science is treated like religion in most US classrooms.

I personally would have enjoyed a philosophy class in high school, btw.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you don't need randomness, just a good update algorithm which produces a universe on the edge of chaos. In other words, random enough to try a bunch of different configurations, yet stable enough that if that configuration should be 'alive', it won't immediatly be obliterated.

It has been shown that you can produce such environments with simple substitution rules and a single point as a beginning. No real randomness at all.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this give you hope for the future? What significance does this have for our future?

Re:Just goes to show...

[timeOday]

The idea of planets orbiting each other doesn't seem so surprising. Even to say that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice-versa, is slightly ill-defined. The earth and sun exert equal but opposite forces on each other, so they both accelerate, but the sun is much heavier so it accelerates the earth much more. The sun's orbit of the earth is so small, it's just a wobble. But what is the precise ratio of mass where we say one body "orbits" the other?

Re:Just goes to show...

[soft_guy]

It is more fair to say that the two bodies orbit their collective center of gravity.

Re:Just goes to show...

[IAmTheDave]

And the moon orbits the earth, etc - it makes sense that a larger body orbits a smaller body, and as the difference in size approaches zero, the two bodies will orbit a virtual "center" of gravity between them (assuming their mass and density is close as well).

With the universe being stupidly big, it's quite possible that both planets were thrown off of their orbits around larger bodies, and wandered the universe until coming into proximity with eachother getting stuck in a shared gravitational pull.

Re:Just goes to show...

[XenoRyet]

I think you need your humor detector checked, along with others in this thread. The GP was clearly a FSM reference, just follow the link.

Just goes to show how up-tight people are on the whole issue. Can't even see a joke when it slaps them in the face.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, back in the day, people knew that planets had only ever been observed to be X, Y, and Z. Now, they've been observed to be W as well.

Science is always, always rooted in observable evidence. Never forget that.

Re:Just goes to show...

[renoX]

>Should religion be taught in schools? I don't mind.

I don't mind either if religionS are taught in school, explained, compared (especially if the atheism, agnoticism are also explained) , I do mind quite a lot when a specific religion is taught in school as if it was *the truth*, talk about brainwashing.

Re:Just goes to show...

[andrewman327]

I know the reference. Afte all, GGP pasted a link to the FSM site on the comment. I was making a joke as well about how uptight people are. The second paragraph was completely in relation to TFA.

Re:Just goes to show...

[sumdumass]

I think you hit the nail on the head with that comment. It ilistrates the whole reason so many people feel the need to push religion into science classes. It apears to some that science is being used to asault religions (wich in itself isn't bad except the freedom of religion thing and students being compelled to attend these classes)

Science is being treated as a religion in some classrooms and it is being taunted as facts to why religious theory or dictomies are incorect. In some situations, it is even being told that religion is a colection of fairytales were scientific explanation are a matter fact proving the previous statment.

I guess it is a tricky subject for both sides.

Re:Just goes to show...

[andrewman327]

Religion also changes with observation and understanding. After all, Martin Luther was a monk before he started observing and understanding. As a Lutheran I have learned to question everything, including my own beliefs. I was making an FSM vs. fundementalist reference, but I guess it was lost.

Getting back on topic, does anyone know the latest update to the status of 2003UB313?

Re:Just goes to show...

[avirrey]

Quite impossible with regard to your "it's quite possible" comment. Read the article, the orgins had to be near each other. Also, if they were both "thrown off" their 'original' suns, they would probably have too high an escape velocity to hook onto each other later on.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this blow the standing knowledge out of the water? Modern planetary formation theories all focussed on our own little corner of the universe. Since about the last 13 years all these extrasolar objects are being detected, which means there is now new observational data from which theories regarding these objects can now be derieved. These objects may form via some other method, or they might form in a conventional method and are flung out of their parent systems at some point. I fail to see how the detection of these objects in any way affects the theories or concepts of planet formation around stars via accretion disks.

I find your first sentence incredibly obtuse or ignorant, given the track record and history of science over the last 500 years or so. Unless the "lunch time" is in a biblical figurative sense inspired by 2 Peter 3:8, as some would interpret it.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Frightening]

Science is dealt with as a religion on slashdot too, if you haven't noticed. GPL and Piracy are the other two main ones.

I'm just trying to say that normally they would mod you down for being so honest, but apparently somebody has had too much pizza tonight!

Re:Just goes to show...

[diersing]

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

Re:Just goes to show...

[cyber0ne]

Dare I start an evolution debate?

On that note, all this is really doing is teaching astronomers the same lesson that biologists have been grappling with for years. When you insist on categorizing things, you'll always find stuff that fits into an "Other" category. Nature doesn't care about defining things into distinct groups, it just goes with what works.

Re:Just goes to show...

[The Spoonman]

Should religion be taught in schools?

Religious-based schools, yes. Public schools funded by taxpayers and frequented by people of all faiths (and non-faiths)? Never. Well, maybe a comparative religions class where the fundamental beliefs of each are discussed. Like it or not, religion and other superstitions rule our world still, and it's good to know who you're dealing with. This comparative religions class should be OPTIONAL, though, not mandatory.

I think this is what pisses me off most about the whole "intelligent" design idea. You want your kids to learn that as hard, scientific fact? Send them to your church's school. That's what they're for! You want them to learn secular sciences, send them to public school, but understand they'll get NO religious stuff at all. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religion. And, no matter what way you slice it, "intelligent" design is religion pure and simple. You want to send your kids to school on the tax payers dime (I don't care if you're also a tax payer, that doesn't entitle you to change the fundamentals of the Constitution), then teach them your voodoo at home where it belongs.

Re:Just goes to show...

[DougLorenz]

No kidding... They need a Slashdot mod category: (-1, Accurate, but unpopular)

Re:Just goes to show...

[Jugalator]

Hehe, this comment alone shows why you may have a problem with accepting certain sciences. :-p

As a big fan of nature science, I don't even see the problem.

I would if a priest claimed christianity told a radically different story than many were tought though.

Maybe you're just confusing religion with science...

Re:Just goes to show...

[tyme]

Unfortunately, you seem to be confused about the use of the term planet: we didn't think that a planet could only by X, Y or Z, we had defined a planet to only be X, Y or Z and are now finding things that are technically outside of that definition but which, otherwise, fit our intuitive understanding of what a planet is (or should be). The problem is, of course, that a planet is a made-up thing, a category entirely of human devising. There is no objective reality that segregates things into "planet" and "non-planet" groups. This is the the same problem that bedevils the demarcation between planets, moons and planetoids.

Re:Just goes to show...

[indifferent children]

I don't mind either if religionS are taught in school, explained

I would not trust this material to be taught properly in public schools. I doubt that any born-again teacher could possibly present the material in an even-handed and objective fashion. And I know quite a few atheists who would not be able to keep from sneering as they presented what they considered to be ridiculous fairytales.

There are people who could discuss various religions in a dispassionate and balanced way, but how do the schools find, test, and recruit these teachers? How do we trust that the schoolboards (Dover, Kansas) will try to find impartial teachers to cover this material? No, it's better if we keep this out of the public schools.

Re:Just goes to show...

[ajs]

It also shows that no scientific theory can be trusted to be valid past lunch, we just never know when we'll find something new that blows the standing knowledge out of the water.

Hurm... well, yes and no. Theory gives us an excellent start in almost all areas, but theory is only (as a maximum) as valuable as the data on which it is based. We have very little data about the composition of our galaxy (less, even, than we do about the earth, millions of years ago), so it is not shocking that we would find major gaps in our understanding (we only just recently discovered the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy (and most or all others).

Can it all really be random?

First off, that's a non-sequitor. Second, "random" isn't the word you want there. When you are talking about large-scale processes, you can use ranomness as a tool to understand, but as we probe the nature of the universe we have consistently found that things that appear to have no order, are in fact very ordered. When you see two planetary objects orbiting one another, that's not random, it's the result of the gravitational forces exerted by those two bodies and, to increasingly lesser degrees, everything else in the universe. If it appears random, that's just becuase you had too little information about the forces involved.

Re:Just goes to show...

[andrewman327]

I actually do not have a problem accepting certain sciences. Ever since the discovery of 2003UB313, I have known that the standard definition of "planet" was not one size fits all. I accept that there are things out there that we have yet to fathom, whether talking about outer space or the depths of the oceans. The things we discover will change our points of view ("A planet must orbit a star!") to help us live better and longer lives (new pharmaceuticals based on deep sea lifeforms and more importantly Tang!).

"I would if a priest claimed christianity told a radically different story than many were tought though."

You mean like Jesus did? A big part of the New Testement is Jesus trying to get people to look at religion differently. In a much smaller way, Martin Luther changed people's perceptions of religion.

Re:Just goes to show...

[andrewman327]

I think that Wolfram is the only published and highly regarded scientist really trying hard to think outside of the box now days. If you study the last iterations of the theories of the Universe revolving around the earth, you will see what complexity in trying to make everything fit perfectly.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Lijemo]

The fact that scientific theories will change when new evidence is presented is a STRENGTH, not a weakness. It's evidence of the system WORKING. A philosophy based on empirical knowlege THRIVES on revision just as much as a philosophy based on divinely revealed knowlege resists revision. Scientists LOVE it when there is a credible challenge to existing theories, because it means there is an oppertunity to learn a lot more. This doesn't "blow what we knew out of the water." Yes, our idea of what exists in the universw has been revised, thus our theories of how it all formed need to be revised as well. However, it doesn't change our ideas about how gravity functions, or how electro-magintism works, or what the speed of light is, or what causes rain to fall. Our theories of "how things work" are robust enough that one part can take some serious shaking without disturbing the rest. Science is not threatened by taking a good hard look at what it assumed to be true and re-evaluating it. I don't understand when people try to teach religion as science, because the debate isn't about what is scientifically true. The debate is "when strong empirical evidence conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible, which should be given more wieght?". Science (and the vast majority of religious people, who are non-literalists) say the empirical evidence, Bible-literalists say the Bible. It doesn't make sense for Bible-literalists to argue that empirical evidence supports their case, because they are ideologically bound to reject all empirical evidence EXCEPT when it agrees with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, they are not able (and have no desire ) to look at empirical evidence empirically. Which means what they are doing is NOT science. They are not making a scientific argument, they are making an episthemological one. Scientific and empirical evidence supports the scientific and empirical point of view. A literal interpretation of the Bible supports a Bible iteralist view. Thus, when literalists try to support a "revealed knowlege" episthemological world-view using the language and evidence of an empirical/scientific episthemological world-view, they only reveal their ignorance of the latter. The debate is an episthemological one. Empirical evidence clearly supports the scientits' view. The debate is as to whether empirical evidence is a valid way of determining what is true.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

Both science and religion are methods of knowing. Religion starts with "the truth" and there are so many commonalities between popular world religions and philosophies, and often the subtle differences are due to geographical and historical differences from where said religion or philosophy started. In other words, the differences are very understandable when put in context, and the similarities are astounding. Science is opposite where it tries to asymptote towards "the truth" via a series of hypotheses that are accepted as true until refuted.

AFAIK, science cannot adequately quantify, measure and predict things that are not quantifiable, measurable, or predicted. Things like karma, "deadly sins", the beginning of the universe or even humans, the end of the universe and humans, and tons of other stuff simply does not fit into the realm of science.

Now, if a time machine is built, all of this crap will be cleared up with a quick fast forward to the end and a quick rewind to the beginning and infinite numbers of stops between, but then we would be just like God, eh?

Re:Just goes to show...

[Platina86]

We just need to find our Stargate:p Look in the Antartica. we havent discovered all there:p

Re:Just goes to show...

[IAmTheDave]

Quite impossible with regard to your "it's quite possible" comment.

While my physics may not be perfect, it is indeed the very point of the GP post and the article that the impossible, improbable, or unthought of consistently show up in the far reaches of the universe. What is though implausable is constantly discovered, and so my comment should not be considered impossible.

Further, the moons of many planets in this solar system (and perhaps even an outer planet or two) are thought to have been exactly that - space junk floating thorugh space that got caught in something else's gravitational pull.

You can bet that those objects were also moving a quite a significant velocity, but nonetheless ended up in orbit around another body.

Re:Just goes to show...

[orac2]

I would say that when the barycenter is below the surface of body A, body B can be considered to be orbiting body A. When the barycenter is above the surface of both bodies, they are orbiting each other. So it's not just a question of mass, but, crudely speaking, of density too.

Re:Just goes to show...

[avirrey]

Floating space junk is not the same as 'thrown objects', but I see your point... May the impossiblities actually be 99.99999999% unlikely. Woohoo!

Re:Just goes to show...

[IAmTheDave]

May the impossiblities actually be 99.99999999% unlikely.

You mean like the same odds as... life? ;)

Re:Just goes to show...

[woxingma]

And the fact is no real astronomer really cares what you categorize the suckers to be. We just wanna figure out how these low-mass bodies came about. Honestly, I'd bet less astronomers are disturbed or surprised by this discovery than they were when "hot jupiters" were discovered. That REALLY threw a wrench in the works! This is just icing on that delicious cake of discovery!
1

Re:Just goes to show...

[mdwh2]

Religious-based schools, yes.

Although if we're talking about teaching Intelligent Design as science (as opposed to having religious lessons were people learn about religion), then actually I'd even oppose that in "religious-based schools".

Think about it - school is compulsory, so it is already the case that children are forced to attend a particular sort of establishment that fulfils the criterion of correctly educating the child, according to the Government's desire. With this in mind, whilst it might be okay to have optional after-school lessons for religion, I do not see justification for teaching religion as science. At least in the UK, parents can be sent to prison if their child doesn't go to school - it seems odd that at the same time, people think it's perfectly okay to send their child not to a state school, but instead somewhere where they learn evolution isn't true and the earth is only 6,000 years old, and so on...

More generally, there are other arguments against the whole idea of "religion-based schools" in the first place. Why should children be segregated by religion; is that really a good idea for society? In my opinion, if an institution wants to qualify as a school (i.e., that can fulfil the legal requirement of educating a child), it should be open to all, and any religion should be strictly optional and out-of-school-hours for the pupils.

And to take the flip side - I have nothing against teaching about religion in state schools, as long as it's "Here's what some religions believe", and does not focus on only one religion.

Re:Just goes to show...

[cheater512]

Exactly. Teaching Religion is fine. Teaching A Religion is stupid and is illegal in the US.

Re:Just goes to show...

[davidsyes]

Well, **I** hope there are new discoveries (and SOON) that turn the bible UP_SIDE_DOWN! It would do this planet some good. Maybe make the sheeple start tearing heads of the corrupt, demanding MORE of their governments.

But, I suppose if there was life that could come here and do the bidding of the PUBLIC, we would be hanged for treason. I for would would CERTAINLY welcome nice compassionate ETs who would distribute food and taker power from those em-effers in every corrupt state/nation capitol.

There is ****NO***** doubt in my righteous mind that given an alien pistol and a shield of imperviousness I would start cleaning out corruption. No warnings for the incumbents, ONE warning (the example just made) for the incoming shopkeepers. If that is treason, then FUCK the ones in power, because I am right, and they are worng. I mean, WRONG...

I would undo those daily supertankers worth of oil plundered from the city-sized oil pumping stations in Iraq and wipe out the corrupt leadership that undersold their national treasures and cheapened the futures of their citizens who do NOT have much voice. (Maybe I would ask my new ET friends to give them some equivalents of dilithium and some power cells.)

(Chases UFO to escape being hanged.)

Slash image word: aggrieve....

slash is so funny sometimes...

Re:Just goes to show...

[lightning_queen]

I don't know about the school(s) you went to, but mine taught about "world religions" like Buddhism and Hinduism. Granted, there wasn't much detail in it, but it was there. So religions are already in at least some schools. I think, though, more different religions should be taught in school (and if more religions are taught, it could be its own class), assuming districts can find unbiased teachers...

Re:Just goes to show...

[Ohreally_factor]

People are taunting science? Will these fiends stop at nothing?

Re:Just goes to show...

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

So what you're saying is keep religion out, period. The reason I say this is all religions, with a few notable exceptions can be summarized as: "Most people, more or less, believe essentially the same thing, but they all hate each other and are waiting for the day that their god (or gods) come down from the heavens and kill all the unbelievers."

Ignorance is the greatest weapon of governments and religion, and what we now see is that the governments of the world are using religious division to cause fear. While I care about the ends, I am powerless to stop it. My opinion can change nothing, but I can at least make others aware.

There will, therefore, never be religion in school, but my point is that I don't care if they want to teach it. My goal was to point out the reason why religious fanatics attack science. To them, science is the great satan, just as christianity is to islam.

Re:Just goes to show...

[amRadioHed]

I think what's surprising is that two large planets were able to form by themselves outside of a large solar system. I'm guessing they didn't expect it was possible for two bodies of that size to have had the gravity required to form based on our current models of planet formation.

Re:Just goes to show...

[mdecarle]

Wait, why have 1 teacher do them all?

Have a teacher for each religion, and move them around from school to school to teach. Who better to explain islam but a muslim? Who better to explain atheism than an atheist?

Or have a set of 2: a hindu with a christian. So they can "control" each other. There's a system to be found.

Re:Just goes to show...

[indifferent children]

Way too many of our children don't read at grade-level for such an effort to be worthwhile. And hey, lawsuits ain't cheap. The children who will most benefit from learning the finer points of Hinduism are the ones who will research it on their own, and they will do a better job than some school teacher trying to teach testable bullet points to the masses.

If schools were to try this, I suspect that this class would be lumped-in with oddball fluff classes such as "Health", and will be taught by a football coach to justify that they are 'teachers' and thus their salary is part of the education budget. At least that's how they usually do it in the South (USA).

What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Orbit each what?! The suspense is killing me!

That's no planemos.

[Lord Ender]

It's a space station!

Re:That's no planemos.

[BecomingLumberg]

'A slashdotter who did not build his own computer is like a jedi who did not build his own lightsaber.' Does that make the Linux / MS debate the lightside vs. darkside thing?

Re:That's no planemos.

[forkazoo]

Well, considering the definition of planemo as anything with planetary mass not orbiting a star... A sufficiently large space station / space ship would qualify as a planemo. So, unfortunately, that joke doesn't really apply here. It is, however, still "no moon." :)

Re:That's no planemos.

[suggsjc]

Even then, did you actually build it? Maybe not you specifically, but I would bet that *most* of the linux users haven't actually "built" their system any more than a windows user. Popping in a Ubuntu or Red Hat install cd and following the prompts doesn't mean you "built" it.

The whole "we" built it thing to...what do you think actually happens behind the closed doors in Redmond? There is a whole other culture of "we" on the inside that probably thinks the same as you about Linux and its surrounding products/projects.

Re:That's no planemos.

[LurkerXXX]

Actually it's just a small colony of Pierson's Puppeteers fleeing the explosion at the center of the galaxy.

Re:That's no planemos.

[LunaticTippy]

Nobody builds their own computer.

Some people assemble the pre-manufactured parts.

Re:That's no planemos.

[BecomingLumberg]

I think he was referring to building your computer in the sense of assembling the hardware over buying a dell - even if 'building' a computer is about as hard as putting together legos now a days.

I think you were talking about building an operating system, which is an entirely different ball of wax. You can build a computer and never put an OS on it... even though it would be silly.

Plus, it was in his sig, and I was trying to make a somewhat lame joke.

Re:That's no planemos.

[soft_guy]

Are you saying that they form a Kepler's Rosette?

Re:That's no planemos.

[LurkerXXX]

Of course not. Then it would be obvious it was a colony of Puppeteers. Unless of course they are trying to disguise the fact it's their homeworld by ejecting the other worlds from the Rosette. Puppeteers are sneaky!

Re:That's no planemos.

[BecomingLumberg]

Very few. Dale, the alpha-geek of my office, definitely took a blank pci board and made an interface so his computer could control the thermostat in his house.

I'm pretty sure he could beat my Kung Fu with just his Feng Shui.

Re:That's no planemos.

[suggsjc]

Ok, wasn't trying to flame. But since it would be "just silly" to build a computer and not put an OS on it, I inferred the building of the entire thing, OS included. Hey, and don't be joking on legos. Have you tried some of the Technix(?) models? It was a lot harder than I expected.

Re:That's no planemos.

[BecomingLumberg]

Hey, you can go about building your OS into the new NXTs! : p

Re:That's no planemos.

[LunaticTippy]

That's a bit excessive for a thermostat. I use the parallel port. Still, I would hesitate to build a pci board from components. So kudos to Dale, although I am suspicious of why he'd do so much work for such a simple application.

Re:That's no planemos.

[BecomingLumberg]

Same reason we geeks do half the things we do....

Because we can.

Re:That's no planemos.

[Lord Ender]

Think of someone of "average" intelligence. Then think... half the world is dumber than that.

Think of someone of "median" understanding of statistics. Then think... half the world is dumber about statistics than that.

Re:That's no planemos.

[Lord Ender]

Nobody builds their own birdhouse, either. Unless they genetically engineered the wood and chewed iron ore into the shape of nails. And started the Big Bang to create the iron ore... Your criticism is loony.

Re:That's no planemos.

[suggsjc]

Think of someone who scrunanizes /. signatures and then think...all the world (or at least should) has less time on their hands.

I got that from somewhere else, and I don't know the source. If it really bothers you that much track them down...

Re:That's no planemos.

[Lord Ender]

I was merely pointing out the irony of the statement. It is meant to make the person saying it seem smarter than most people, but this very act points out the lack of education/intelligence of that person. That's irony.

Don't feel too bad, though. I remember chuckeling and feeling smart when encountring that very statement. But when I finally took stats in college, I realized the joke is on me.

Re:That's no planemos.

[Shadowin]

When I see "planemo" I immediately think of a planet that appears black, gets no sunlight, and is eternally depress.

Stars...

[Kaenneth]

Stars can only 'ignite' when enough mass accumulates. It would make sense that often there would be chunks of smaller mass just floating around until they scoop up enough matter into their gravity well to start fusion.

Re:Stars...

[truthsearch]

I know almost nothing of astrophysics but that's exactly what I was thinking. We generally only aim our telescopes at stars since it helps to have a set of targets. But out there in between the bright lights I imagine there's plenty we simply don't see, either from lack of light or lack of looking. I'm probably being overly simplistic, but...

Re:Stars...

[Anonymous Coward]

These planemos are probably Brown Dwarfs, which means that they are powered by the poor-efficiency fusion of heavier elements. They shine a little bit.

Re:Stars...

[edunbar93]

It would make sense that often there would be chunks of smaller mass just floating around until they scoop up enough matter into their gravity well to start fusion.

Sure, but those chunks of smaller mass just waiting around to scoop up more matter are generally floating around in large clouds of dust and gas, doing exactly that. And because of that, we can't see them. What happens is that other nearby stars that were formed alongside each other in such a cloud, generally boil away the cloud and starve the runts of new material. That's where these bodies come from.

Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[russ1337]

FTFA:

They go under the official name Oph 162225-240515, or Oph 1622 for short.

I think we can just stick to "The twins"...

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I think we can just stick to "The twins"...

AKA "Mary Kate" and "Ashley"?

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[SheeEttin]

Swedish, or mammary?

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[kfg]

I think we can just stick to "The twins"...

I like Planemo and Planelarry, implying, of course, the future discovery of Planecurly and a receding Planeshemp.

KFG

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[Ana10g]

Okay, come on mods... how often can we work a 3 stooges joke into a planemo discussion? (and how often do we have planemo discussions, anyway?). Mod KFG through the roof! That was funny!

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[TubeSteak]

Unfortunately, Planemo has been going through a series of upheavels and started cutting itself as a result of Planecurly and Planeshemp abandoning him.

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the Roman goddesses of mild annoyance and unhealthy fantasy.

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[Null537]

You mean Jenna Jameson's breasts?

Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump....

[airship]

I forget: is the bigger one Mary Kate or Ashley?

Challenging views?

[SheeEttin]

I'm sorry, but what exactly does this challenge? A planet doesn't need a star to form.

If a nebula is the right size, it may form a planet--and it doesn't care if there's any stars nearby. It is then affected by something's gravity, and goes careening off into space.

Additionally, to make twin planets, you'd need only a nebula that's peanut-shaped, so it collapses into two bodies.

Re:Challenging views?

[Burlap]

technically they do... a planetary object by definition needs something to orbit.

What i think you meen is that a nebula of the right size can form a stelar object that doesnt have the mass for fusion.

Re:Challenging views?

[Anonymous Coward]

successfully blurring the line between planets and stars

Obviously the enemy has challenged us to clearly define, nay, defend forcefully, that sharp line.

Re:Challenging views?

[gral]

I agree. It's possible that in the vast amounts of space, variations on themes we already know to take place, occured on a larger scale.

Everytime I hear about new scentific discovery I am reminded of Bill Engval, the comedian. He had probably the best scientific theory, that is best applied FIRST. What if it's a Dork Fish? You know just a very very warped specimen of the species and not a good representation of the whole. Yet, we base or WHOLE of knowledge off this one FREAK. Definately something to think about... ;-)

Re:Challenging views?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is collapsing the nebula to form the planemo. The prevailing logic is that this collapse mainly occurs in large gas clouds (like the Orion Nebula) and produces loose clusters of stars (like the Pleiades). The paradigm is that clumps of gas collapse under self-gravity, but these planemos would not have been sufficiently massive to have formed in this manner.

btw, kudos to RayJay.

Re:Challenging views?

[Roody Blashes]

It doesn't really challenge anything meaningful, the popularized stance in the article just makes it seem that way. There's always been a simmering debate over what, exactly, a "planet" is. Other than contributing to that relatively innocuous argument over terminology, there's nothing here that was previously thought to be impossible. There's absolutely no reason a stellar object MUST form in the area of a star, nor is there any reason it can't form in the area of a star and then be ejected by some stellar event.

This is a farely rare phenomena, but not new, nor does it challenge any fundamental understanding of how objects form in space. It's just fuel for the "what is a planet" bickering that is constantly going on.

Re:Challenging views?

[kevco46]

This discovery does have some implications about how these very small objects form. The two theories are essentially (1) they form from very small clumps of dust and gas, just like our sun did but the initial clump is much smaller or (2) they started out as a larger clump, but while they are still trying to accrete much of their mass, a gravitational interaction with a larger star flings them away from the molecular cloud they were born in. Away from the main molecular cloud their is less material for them to accrete and they do not build up as much mass.

Now, if there was a gravitational interaction most binaries (like this one) would have been broken apart. Astronomers also see evidence for dusty disks around some of these small objects, which would be mostly destroyed if there was an interaction. I'm sure the theorists supporting 2 have some clever idea to explain all this but the evidence right now seem to point towards theory 1.

Re:Challenging views?

[deoxyribonucleose]

Really? A cloud of substellar mass can coalesce and overcome frictional heating counteracting the collapse through radiation pressure? I'd guess it would depend on its composition, which might be the surprise here.

As I recall (simplifying a lot from memory), the very first stars after the Big Bang were supermassive (100 solar masses or larger, like Eta Carinae today) since the primordial hydrogen/helium 75/25 (or thereabouts) mixture could not absorbe or radiate the heat away, unlike modern star formation, where there are not only heavier elements but also interstellar dust grains from earlier generations.

Gravity ain't that strong a force, cosmically speaking...

Re:Challenging views?

[kevco46]

If you have a cool enough and dense enough cloud it will collapse regardless of size. The difficulty is getting rid of the heat generated from the gravitational energy. If this heat does not escape then the collapse can stop. Nowadays there is dust in these clumps that are very good at radiating away the heat. The first stars didn't have any dust, and how these stars formed is still a mysetry. There are plenty of theories about how they form but the theories are easy when there aren't any observations to constrain them :)

Re:Challenging views?

[Burlap]

all gas clouds wil collapse under their own gravity unless pushed out by some force, no matter how small the cloud. Even a "cloud" of two molicules will eventually join together given enough time. Smaller clouds just take longer to collapse as the mutual gravity of the cloud is less.

there is no reason a planemo cant, or doesnt, form in this manner.

How did they discover them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other extra-solar planets were dicovered when the astronomers saw the doppler shift in their stars. These planets do not orbit stars (as far as I can tell from the article) so there's no light to see them and there isn't a star to see any "shifts". So how were these stars discovered? X-Rays? What?

Re:How did they discover them?

[MMatessa]

From http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-2 9-06.html:

The researchers discovered the companion candidate in an optical image taken with ESO's 3.5-m New Technology Telescope at La Silla, Chile. They decided to take optical spectra and infrared images of the pair with ESO's 8.2-m Very Large Telescope to make sure that it is a true companion, instead of a foreground or background star that happens to be in the same line of sight. These follow up observations indeed confirmed that both objects are young, at the same distance, and much too cool to be stars. This suggests the two are physically associated.

Re:How did they discover them?

[kfg]

While they are not sufficiently massive to spark fusion, they do, in fact radiate in the infrared range, due to gravitational contraction heating.

KFG

Re:How did they discover them?

[vain023]

Infrared-rays.

As i understand it the wobble technique is used because directly imaging low intensity light sources like these is extremely difficult when you have a giant hot star in the immediate vicinity. it would be like to distinguish a single LED attached to the side of a searchlight. so they use the indirect method of measuring the position of the star as it is moved by the orbiting body.

for more details on the telescope and other tools used here's the paper published in Science that likely spawned TFA

everything that has temperature > 0 emits light at some wavelength, we just have a bias for calling the human visible spectrum "Light", the infrared spectrum "Heat", and the shorter wavelength emissions names like "x-rays" and "ultraviolet rays". it's all the same phenomenon.

while i was looking for the paper referenced above I also found an earlier paper that probably drew attention to this particular pair of planemos. it doesn't appear they were aware of the binary configuration at the time. it can be found here

Not dark matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Anticipating a possible question: no, a previously-unknown population of "planemos" can't be the dark matter astronomers are searching for. First, there were enough of them to account for the huge mass of dark matter (some 95 percent of the mass of the universe), we would have seen a lot more of them by now. "Massive compact halo objects", or basically planetoids, brown dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. have been detected (via gravitational lensing), but they are known not to comprise the majority of dark matter due to such bounds on their total mass. Furthermore, from the effects of dark matter on structure formation in the early universe, the cosmic background radiation, and other factors, it is known that "normal" matter can't account for most of the mass of dark matter, either: most of it needs to be in the form of "weakly interactive massive particles" (sort of analogous to neutrinos, except much heavier).

Re:Not dark matter

[SheeEttin]

"Massive compact Halo objects"

Must... resist... urge...

Re:Not dark matter

[jtwronski]

On the somewhat off-topic of dark matter, what is the big deal with scientists searching for all this matter that we can't see? Perhaps I'm missing something really important here, but why is it so important that there might be all this matter in the universe that we can't currently detect? So what if it doesn't glow, or emit x-rays, etc. Aren't we dark matter? It stands to reason to me that the majority of mass in the universe probably isn't glowing or burning, or emitting some cosmic ray that we can detect here on earth. Can somebody with a real clue on this subject chime in, tell me i'm an idiot, and why?

Re:Not dark matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't we dark matter? Nope. From Wikipedia:

In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (light) to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Dark matter explains several anomalous astronomical observations, such as anomalies in the rotational speed of galaxies (the galaxy rotation problem). Estimates of the amount of matter present in galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. The existence of dark matter also resolves a number of seeming inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory, and is crucial for structure formation.

We as people are pretty easy to detect directly, and are great reflectors of light. While alive we even manage to produce alot (infrared, that is).

The search for dark matter stems from the uncomfortable facts that:
1. Observationaly the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. This leads to an open universe in which everything keeps expanding for ever. Closed loops seem more in line with the law of thermodynamics, simply because the net energy/mass/matter of the universe would be 0 over the (very) long run, and all the energy of the universe could be treated as a vaccum flucuation.
2. The bits of the observable universe dont' move anything like they should given what we can see.
3. It really requires a significant rehash of the creation and evolution of the universe to abandon it.
4. It works out soooo well on paper.
5. No one to my knowledge has simply tweaked with extra-dimensional strings to create energy/matter/mass that exists out side of the observable dimensions, but still affecting them indirectly. Then again, stings are a conveniant mathamatical method with no direct method of detection yet.

Re:Not dark matter

[TheBig1]

Well of course - we all know that the dark matter in the universe is actually the styrofoam from packing crates!

Re:Not dark matter

[$RANDOMLUSER]

If you're resisting the urge to call them MACHO, don't bother - that's what they're called.

Re:Not dark matter

[vmcto]

You might want to look into this:

http://modified-newtonian-dynamics.mindbit.com/

MOND is interesting.

Re:Not dark matter

[jtwronski]

Thats some good info, and clears up some of what confuses me. However, it still seems likely that with today's technology, we're not going to be able to detect anything that doesn't glow (infrared, xray, gamma ray, or otherwise) unless its a body of some appreciable mass. Definitely something bigger than my reflective, infrared emitting rear end :). Here, in our own solar system, there are tons of things that we have a hard time detecting, even with today's powerful telescopes, i.e. small asteroids.
   

I would blindly submit that there are things like that, and other things not-so-like-that all over the universe. Whether or not 95% of our universe is made up of this stuff sounds like its up for quite a bit of debate.

Re:Not dark matter

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

We as people are pretty easy to detect directly, and are great reflectors of light.

Only if we are measured here on earth. If the universe was 90% human corpses, that would be dark matter. We don't reflect/generate enough light to be seen if we're scattered uniformly in the dark spaces between galaxies.

Re:Not dark matter

[technococcus]

Heavy neutrinos, you say?

Neutrons?

Or did you mean that they would have the same low-interactivity of the smaller particle?

Re:Not dark matter

[ajs]

most of it needs to be in the form of "weakly interactive massive particles" (sort of analogous to neutrinos, except much heavier

Not quite. That's one scenario, and one that has significant theoretical momentum. However, there's no "need" involved. Some other possibilities include:

• Something with very little mass which exists even more pervasively than neutrinos
  
• Something which has mass and yet exibits none of the properties of a particle
  
• >4 dimensional gravitational interaction from normal matter outside of our 4-dimensional universe (string/M theorists are fond of this one)
  
• Non-gravitational space-time curvature
  

I'm not an astrophysicist, so my memory on the list of available options may be flakey. Feel free to fill in the gaps if I'm forgetting some or mis-described any.

Re:Not dark matter

[hackstraw]

On the somewhat off-topic of dark matter, what is the big deal with scientists searching for all this matter that we can't see? Perhaps I'm missing something really important here, but why is it so important that there might be all this matter in the universe that we can't currently detect?

Well, being that it is currently believed that 90% of the universe is made up of the stuff, it seems like a great place to start looking...

Re:Not dark matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Something with very little mass which exists even more pervasively than neutrino

No, that's ruled out. The dark matter can't be too light or it messes up things like structure formation.

Something which has mass and yet exibits none of the properties of a particle

I think you will find it hard to define the concept of "mass" outside of the particle/field framework.

>4 dimensional gravitational interaction from normal matter outside of our 4-dimensional universe (string/M theorists are fond of this one)

There are such theories, but it is rather difficult to get them to work, compared to WIMPs, at least as of now.

Non-gravitational space-time curvature

There's no such thing; gravity is defined by the curvature of spacetime. Perhaps you meant a non-standard coupling of matter to curvature.

On a related note, there is also the MOND option that someone else mentioned; modifications of the laws of gravity. However, MOND has not been as successful at dark matter at explaining the full spectrum of observed phenomena.

Re:Not dark matter

[ajs]

First off, please mod up the parent.

Second, a little nit:

Something with very little mass which exists even more pervasively than neutrino

No, that's ruled out. The dark matter can't be too light or it messes up things like structure formation.

I thought that was only true if the distribution were uniform? If the distribution of a particle that, say, were more pervasive than neutrinos, but even less interacting were in "clumps", then it could easily have aided structure formation, no?

Of course, that would introduce a whole new set of questions, but so does a massive particle with weak interaction.

Re:Not dark matter

[Hurricane78]

There is no "dark matter" or "dark energy" dhat can't be found.
There are only wrong calculations, theories and poeple that can't admit that the could possibly be wrong, so they make "dark" (ooo-hooo) stuff up.

Re:Not dark matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Light particles ("hot" dark matter) don't tend to clump. That's why "colder" (more massive) dark matter is needed.

Re:Not dark matter

[andrewman327]

Saw this while MetaModding and I had to chime in. This is significant because it may represent the vast majority of the Universe. It is not as simple as you seem to think: there are ways of detecting most everything, but evidence indicates that this may be an entirely new form of matter, and that makes astronomers extremely excited.

Pic

[JesseL]

Isn't it amazing how well the artist's impression clearly and realisticly show that the these objects are separated by "six times the distance between the Sun and Pluto"?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41960000/jpg /_41960898_planemos_203_eso.jpg

Re:Pic

[JesseL]

Wow I really hosed that link.

Let's try again.

Re:Pic

[wealthychef]

So you'd prefer a black image with two dots so small that they are smaller than a single pixel? Come on.

Re:Pic

[JesseL]

I'd rather have no picture than a stupid one. Ignorance is easier to cure than wrongness.

Re:Pic

[Anonymous Coward]

The perspective of the two planets can, in theory, appear as the artist drew them. As you get further away from two objects, their relative size difference decreases. Photographers use this to their advantage all the time. Consider those pictures you may have seen of an airplane in front of a setting sun, like this one. Everyone knows that the plane's length isn't a quarter of the diameter of the sun... it's all a matter of perspective. Move the plane closer, and it appears larger compared to the sun, move it further, and it shrinks. Using a similar technique (with a big telescope used from a location in space that probably isn't on the earth) it should be possible to re-create the same picture with the real planemos. Whether or not they actually look like that (colouring, ring of gas around them) is another debate entirely.

Re:Pic

[gaspar ilom]

Think: *prespective*!

Imagine two people, walking a hundered meters apart, on the horizon, seen though a powerful telephoto lense ten miles away.

If their positions form a line pointing at the telescope, then they could appear to be nearly the same size, like they were right "next" to each other.

At a distance of 400 light years, the planet that is "behind" should actually be rendered *larger.* (if one is not nearly, directly behind the other, then there is a problem. OTOH, there is *some* perspective where that view could be valid.)

The disks should be rendered as more "flat," I'll give you that.

Re:Pic

[gaspar ilom]

err... perspective!

Re:Pic

[bohemian72]

I take it you don't watch too many baseball games on TV. The scale makes it look like the pitcher could reach out and hold the ball over the plate.

Re:Pic

[JesseL]

The lack of 'flatness' is exactly what makes the picture misleading. It makes it seem as though the POV for the image is exceptionally close to both bodies.

Once Again Proving...

[vjmurphy]

"The pair belongs to what some astronomers believe is a new class of planet-like objects floating through space; so-called planetary mass objects, or "planemos", which are not bound to stars.'"

Once again proving that astronomers should not be naming things while drunk. Here's a handy reminder: "Remember the Planemos!"

Re:Once Again Proving...

[TragicHeroBC]

It just makes me think of going to a Mexican restaurant and saying, "I would like a number three. Yes, the two planemos, tacos, and rice. Oh, oh! And an empinada." Mmm... Planetary body... Tragic

Re:Once Again Proving...

[russ1337]

Once again proving that astronomers should not be naming things while drunk. Here's a handy reminder: "Remember the Planemos!"

The only question unanswered is: Is it pronounced "plane-mos" or "plan-e-mos"?

Re:Once Again Proving...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, the paleo-archaeologists named lucy while getting smashed and look how far that's gone!

Dahak, is that you?

[kunakida]

Maybe they're a couple of Fourth Imperium battle planetoids in parking orbit.
Now we just need to figure out how to get over there and hotwire those babies.

Makes me wonder about some things.

[The Living Fractal]

Ok so our Solar System is mostly flat. I mean, the orbits of the planets tend to follow the same orbital plane, with a notable exception of course.

The reason the planets orbit in the same plane is the same reason rings around celestial bodies like Saturn eventually fall into a common orbital plane: gravity. As the mass collects there is something like a gyroscopic effect, causing a general influence towards the common plane.

But.. if that's the case, why do we have a planet that doesn't follow the plane? And, also, is it slowly falling into line with the rest? (I think the answer is yes, it is, but I don't know for sure.. at least I think it should be).

Which leads me to ask.. Was Pluto originally extra-solar? Could it have developed in this eccentric orbit if it were originally part of the solar system when it formed? Is it possible that Pluto somehow, amongst the billions of years our system has been around, floated into orbit here for good, from Out There?

And if so, if there are enough of these free-floating masses out there, what kind of percentage of the unobservable 'dark matter' might this account for?

Just a few of my questions,

TLF

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[iknowcss]

Which leads me to ask.. Was Pluto originally extra-solar?

In school I was always taught that that was the case. It explains the fact that the orbit is in the wrong plane and the fact that it effectively "switches" places with Neptune as the orbit swings closer to the sun.

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[tpjunkie]

pluto is thought to be a captured kuiper belt object,, meaning that some collision or gravitational interaction with a massive body brought it in towards the inner solar system, which explains its eccentric orbit which is also at a very high inclination to the plane of the ecliptic.

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[diogenesx]

The reason the planets orbit in the same plane is the same reason rings around celestial bodies like Saturn eventually fall into a common orbital plane: gravity. As the mass collects there is something like a gyroscopic effect, causing a general influence towards the common plane. The reason the planets orbit in the same plane is the same reason rings around celestial bodies like Saturn eventually fall into a common orbital plane: gravity. As the mass collects there is something like a gyroscopic effect, causing a general influence towards the common plane. But.. if that's the case, why do we have a planet that doesn't follow the plane? And, also, is it slowly falling into line with the rest? (I think the answer is yes, it is, but I don't know for sure.. at least I think it should be).

The reason that the planets generally roate on a single plane is because all the planets and the sun formed out of a spiraling mass of dust. Think of the milky way on a much smaller scale. The dust formed clumps which became planets. that's why, not some magical gyroscopic effect.

Which leads me to ask.. Was Pluto originally extra-solar? Could it have developed in this eccentric orbit if it were originally part of the solar system when it formed? Is it possible that Pluto somehow, amongst the billions of years our system has been around, floated into orbit here for good, from Out There?

Didn't you take science in High School. I was taught the prevalent theory is that Pluto *is* and extra-solar mass caught by the graviational pull of the sun. That's why it has such an erratic orbit.

And if so, if there are enough of these free-floating masses out there, what kind of percentage of the unobservable 'dark matter' might this account for?

No. If these are you're "intelligent" questions, go read a high school science book.

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[The Living Fractal]

. . .pair belongs to what some astronomers believe is a new class of planet-like objects floating through space; so-called planetary mass objects, or "planemos", which are not bound to stars.

So I guess the only new thing about this is that someone is calling them planemos now?

But about their abundance, any ideas on the dark matter question? And if they were really abundant that might pose a problem for interstellar travel. Could suck to slowly accelerate up to 90% of c and then collide with Pluto or something similar... ok, no, it would suck real bad. At least you'd never know what happened I guess.

TLF

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[suggsjc]

You've got questions...I've got answers

why do we have a planet that doesn't follow the plane?

It marches to the beat of a different drummer. Its the "alternative" planet.

is it slowly falling into line with the rest?

Yes, they always do.

Was Pluto originally extra-solar?

We were all "extra-solar" at one point or another...know what I mean.

Could it have developed in this eccentric orbit if it were originally part of the solar system when it formed?

If it were originally a part of the "system" then it wouldn't seem so eccentic now would it?

Is it possible that Pluto somehow, amongst the billions of years our system has been around, floated into orbit here for good, from Out There?

Yeah, it got bored and had nothing better to do the next few billion years or so.

And if so, if there are enough of these free-floating masses out there, what kind of percentage of the unobservable 'dark matter' might this account for?

Obviouslly, 42

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all day.

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[The Living Fractal]

No. If these are you're "intelligent" questions, go read a high school science book.

Hey, I never said they were intelligent questions. Step back a minute would ya?

The reason that the planets generally roate on a single plane is because all the planets and the sun formed out of a spiraling mass of dust. Think of the milky way on a much smaller scale. The dust formed clumps which became planets. that's why, not some magical gyroscopic effect.

First, why would this 'spiraling mass of dust' form as a flat plane? I think the answer is gravity. As the accretion disk forms the mass falls towards a common center of gravity. While orbiting around that common center the mass falls into another common, a shape that eventually forms a ring. I think of it like this: If there's a common center spinning around another common center, eventually a ring will form as the most natural state. And I never claimed it WAS gyroscopic, I said it was LIKE gyroscopics. What causes a gyroscope effect? Intertia, I believe. And there's no reason to not relate that to gravitation and orbits IMHO.

But sorry if my not "intelligent" questions were so hard for you to read.

TLF

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[phoenix.bam!]

You are incorrect as to why the planets are on the same elliptical plane.

http://www.nineplanets.org/origin.html
#3 on that page is the step which explains why the solar system is on the same plane. Pluto being outside that plane is most likely it is actually a kupier belt object and was far enough out from the formation of our sun to not have fully fallen into the accretion disc.

More information is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disc

The reason your explanation doesn't work for why the planetary bodies are on the same plane is because they are all in stable orbits. To plane out into a disc they would need to still be falling towards the sun.

Planetary rings are in the ring pattern because they follow the orbit of the object from which they were created, they are not collected and built up from smaller particles but probably the result of the destruction of a large object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_rings

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, these planemos are large, gaseous bodies. They aren't solid bodies of rock and ice as is the case with Pluto. Instead, Pluto is more likely a low-orbit comet.

And, planets form in planes because nebuli are also planar.

As for the dark matter question, it was already answered above. There is absolutely no way that gaseous bodies can account for 95% of the universe--else we'd live inside of one (not exactly live but you get the point).

It's more efficient to bend space-time and travel in that form than "accelerate up to 90% of c"

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[The Living Fractal]

Ahh hmm. It was my understanding that the accretion disk of our solar system (the planets) formed due to the combination of gravity and inertia/velocity. I.E. that's why they're all in the same orbital plane.

The reason your explanation doesn't work for why the planetary bodies are on the same plane is because they are all in stable orbits. To plane out into a disc they would need to still be falling towards the sun.

But aren't they getting close to the sun all the time? In effect still falling towards it? Seems like it would be perpetual motion were they not?

TLF

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[iknowcss]

Anticipating a possible question: no, a previously-unknown population of "planemos" can't be the dark matter astronomers are searching for.

From This comment

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[joshetc]

"No. If these are you're "intelligent" questions, go read a high school science book."

While were dissecting posts, these are you are "intelligent" questions?

Sorry, bored.

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If these are you're "intelligent" questions, go read a high school science book.

Just as you should go and read an elementary school book on contractions in the English language.

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[sholden]

But aren't they getting close to the sun all the time? In effect still falling towards it? Seems like it would be perpetual motion were they not?

They will be getting closer due to friction, however, there isn't a lot of friction on a planet moving through space.

Also the solar wind will be providing a force to push them away - though F=ma, and F is tiny, and m is large...

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[MikeTheC]

I was (and still am) a proponent of the probe we're sending to Pluto carrying a robotic aparatus with two flags. When it gets there and a final determination is made, it plants either the "This Is A Planet" or the "This Is Not A Planet" flag at it's north pole. Just because...

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[MikeTheC]

TLF -

Don't take it personally, some people enjoy being stuck up about their own education. For my part, when I graduated in 1990, there had been no discussion at my HS one way or the other about Pluto (certainly not in any kind of detail). I don't believe I'd heard the name "Kupier" until well after I'd gone out into the working world to make my own way.

Of course, maybe I didn't go to the "right" high school. Or maybe I wasn't in the "right" state. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to suffer with post-HS-truth-about-Pluto blues. C 'est la vie.

Mike

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[cswiger2005]

Things moving in empty space come as close to perpetual motion as you're likely to get. However, the orbits of the planets are probably decreasing slightly over time due to the minor friction of the solar wind and mutual gravitational interactions with the other planets (especially Jupiter).

Also, tidal distortions have an effect which slows the rotation of planets down, especially if they have a relatively big moon orbitting them, until the rotational period and the orbital period match. For example, the moon always presents the same side towards the Earth because of tidal locking, and the Earth probably had about an 18-hour day some billion years ago, and will probably have a 30+ hour day in another billion years

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[The Living Fractal]

Yea you're right. I guess one of my weaknesses is an intolerance of people who hypocritically insult the intelligence of others.

I shall endeavour to be more thick-skinned in regards to this topic henceforth.

TLF

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[bzipitidoo]

This is what I've heard about the formation of a solar system:

1. A solar system starts as a big shapeless dust cloud. The cloud has some angular momentum.
2. Gravity makes the cloud contract.
3. Conservation of angular momentum makes the cloud spin faster.
4. As the spin increases, the cloud develops an equatorial bulge which expands into a disk.
5. The particles of the disk aggregate into large bodies

Re:Makes me wonder about some things.

[ceoyoyo]

That's not quite true. Pluto is not hypothesized to be an extra-solar body, but rather one that was captured from the Kuiper belt. The Kuiper belt is gravitationally bound to the sun so is part of the solar system.

By the way, if you're going to insinuate that someone or their questions aren't intelligent you might not want to make an error that would get you sent to remedial junior high English.

Visible?

[escay]

if the 'planemos' are not part of any stellar system, how are they visible in an optical telescope? they can't generate light of their own, they can only reflect...

Re:Visible?

[vindimy]

there's many ways to search for objects in the universe besides optical telescopes. there is electromagnetic radiation, neutrino detectors, radio waves of varying wavelenghts, infrared radiation, etc... well, just take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy#By_methods_ of_data_collection

Re:Visible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, part of the blackbody curve falls into the optical, even if the object is significantly cooler than the Sun. Still you would expect to find them in the infrared rather than in optical images.

blurred?

[Anonymous Coward]

'twin worlds' which orbit each other, successfully blurring the line between planets and stars.

Let me unblur that for you. If it's on fire, it's not a planet.

Re:blurred?

[warith]

I'm going to coat the earth in gasoline and light a match to prove you wrong.

news?

[Burlap]

how exactly does this streach the ideas of how objects are formed in space? These "planemos" were therorized in my highschool astronomy book (and no, im not going to tell you how many years ago that was).

To form a star: Take a whole LOT of hydrogen gas in open space... maybe add a little helium for good measure. Wait for a few million years untill the gravatational pull of the gas concentrates in in the center of the cloud. As the gas condences it gets hotter due to the collisions of the gas molicuels/atoms. If there is enough presure then the temperature will reach the point needed for hydrogen fusion, at which point the new solar wind will stop any more gas from condencing into the new star.

now, if you DONT have enough gas to get the presure high enough to get the temperature high enough, then fusion WONT occur, the gas will all condence into the failed star and.... thats it. The condenced gasses will simply float away from the star forming reagon and voila.... planemos.

not exactly a streach.

Re:news?

[deoxyribonucleose]

Nope. With insufficient mass, the gas cloud won't collapse due to thermal heat radiation. Gas clouds aren't really sticky, and gravity is ridiculously weak. But I repeat myself: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193144 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=1584757 7#15849243

Ben Affleck again

[krell]

"Yes, it's really easy to confuse a ball of rock with a star. I mean, the similarities are so obvious."

In terms of such stars as Ben Affleck, the similarities do start to build up.

Re:Ben Affleck again

[blindd0t]

"Yes, it's really easy to confuse a ball of rock with a star. I mean, the similarities are so obvious."

What's even easier to confuse is a cerebral ganglia with a mixture of gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc...

Important question relevant to the issue

[JamesP]

Which one is the evil twin?

Thank you , I'll be here all evening!

Re:Important question relevant to the issue

[ScrewMaster]

More importantly, in which brand of chewing gum's TV ads will they appear?

Re:Important question relevant to the issue

[fudgefactor7]

Which one is the evil twin?
 
"Skippy." The evil twin is always named "Skippy."

Re:Important question relevant to the issue

[bwcarty]

It's the one with the goatee.

Re:Important question relevant to the issue

[SirBruce]

Which one is the evil twin?

The one with the goatee, of course!

Bruce

Re:Important question relevant to the issue

[shawnce]

the one on the left

Re:Important question relevant to the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one is the evil twin?
 
Mary-Kate

it's pretty easy.

[krell]

"if the 'planemos' are not part of any stellar system, how are they visible in an optical telescope? they can't generate light of their own, they can only reflect..."

It's pretty easy if you duct-tape a Maglite to the side of the telescope, with the light end aimed in the same direction as the telescope sight.

Re:it's pretty easy.

[teh kurisu]

They are separated by about six times the distance between the Sun and Pluto, and can be found in the Ophiuchus star-forming region some 400 light years away.

So, 400 years for the light to reach the objects, and another 400 to get back to us... I'm pretty sure it's fairly easy to mount a torch on the side of an orbital telescope now, but it might not have been so easy 800 years ago.

Re:it's pretty easy.

[krell]

Why, yes, if you have those really REALLY good Everready batteries.

But you need warp drive first ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The current news article and the prior news article (about the new Japanese moon base) are just wishful thinking until we develop warp drive. As the prior article (about the moon base) suggests, due to the very slow means of space travel, there is basically no way to deal with a debilitating injury. On Mars, you would die right away because sending a space ship to the planet takes months. The article is more optimistic about the moon since it is only 3 days away. However, the rescue mission must be perfect: there is no backup if the rescue rocket malfunctions.

The only way to make space travel and colonization viable is to develop warp drive. Indeed, an obscure Germany scientist has already developed the basic theory supporting warp drive. Slashdot reported on a heavily funded air-force project to build a warp-drive engine based on that theory. Unfortunately, I cannot locate the Slashdot article at the moment.

Re:But you need warp drive first ...

[skarphace]

As the prior article (about the moon base) suggests, due to the very slow means of space travel, there is basically no way to deal with a debilitating injury. On Mars, you would die right away because sending a space ship to the planet takes months.

How is this any different then when Europeans started to explore the Americas? Seriously, death happens. Not everything we do can, or should be 100% safe. Especially when you're doing work in such groundbreaking discovery. Every astronaut knows and accepts the possibility that they may die to further man-kind.

Re:Blurring what?

[Potor]

Yes, it's really easy to confuse a ball of rock ...

... like jupiter?

poor name

[Burlap]

I dont like the name one bit... they have NOTHING to do with planets... they are stelar objects whos mass is simply to low to get their internal temperature high enough for hydrogen fusion.

IMHO better names would be: stellar dwarfs, non-fusion stars or something along those lines... they arnt planets.

Re:poor name

[kfg]

How about starlet?

Then we could name heavely bodies after heavenly bodies.

KFG

Re:poor name

[Burlap]

i like it :)

Re:poor name

[kfg]

Associated pairs would, of course, then simply be named with the convention: Jessica "Left" and Jessica "Right."

KFG

Re:poor name

[Seraphim1982]

I dont like the name one bit... they have NOTHING to do with planets... they are stelar objects whos mass is simply to low to get their internal temperature high enough for hydrogen fusion.

How would that would differentiate them from very large gas giant planets?

Re:poor name

[Burlap]

very large gas planets orbit a star. Planets need a central object to orbit, or they arnt planets.

Just like "Old Maids" in the popcorn

[enjar]

one would expect to find things that didn't quite make it in the universe.

Snakes????

[krell]

Snakes, on a PLANEMO????

Just as long as they're not a Klemperer Rosette...

[zentinal]

Otherwise we should think about evacuating. Well, evetually.

planemos

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they name the Planet Mass System "planemos" because they didn't want to call it PMS?

Emeril Stellar Engineer

[krell]

" Take a whole LOT of hydrogen gas in open space... maybe add a little helium for good measure"

And then you add this bowl of chopped onions. BAM!!!

Pizza Pizza

[krell]

No need to get all excited because Galactus phoned in to Magrathea for the two-for-one special. Different toppings on each planemo, no less.

Re:Pizza Pizza

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, but you oughta see 'em soon, because as soon as he locates a six-pack of Mountain Dew, he's gonna snarf 'em both.

You are really scaring me, dude.

[krell]

"Just like "Old Maids" in the popcorn one would expect to find things that didn't quite make it in the universe."

Now THIS is getting me to take the global warming threat the the earth REAL seriously!

Hey I saw this movie!

[XJHardware]

The first planemo will make a very close approach to Earth. The second will smack right into earth. But by then the spaceships we cobble together with nifty 50's retro-tech will have blasted off with the lucky few colonists to build a new civilization. Too bad with such a small gene pool they'll devolve into slack jawed mouth breathers in a few generations. Looks like the future of reality TV is assured.

Psh...

[HaloZero]

Any Star Wars CCG fan can tell you that Kiffex did this long, long ago.

Re:Psh...

[Screwy1138]

Kiffex! Pshaw... Talus and Tralus are far more popular Star Wars binary planets... and it shows that the centerpoint of gravity is a great place for a space station :)

Re:Psh...

[guabah]

Any Star Wars CCG fan can tell you that Kiffex did this long, long ago.

in a galaxy far far away.

They have it all wrong...

[monoqlith]

PlanemO's are actually God's cereal.

Re:They have it all wrong...

[A Brand of Fire]

Now filled with even MORE dark-matter goodness!(tm)

hurry!

[Connie_Lingus]

someone grab www.planemos.org quick!

dont they already have a name for those.. rogues?

[plasmacutter]

so they found a binary rogue planet system... now theyre just trying to create a new jargonistic name for them so they can be in the history books.. just call a spade a spade already.. "binary rogues"... that's it..

Well

[ShooterNeo]

If there were a ridiculous number of these 'unexpected' objects, that could explain the 'dark matter' problem, right? I mean, we can't see a bunch of rocks out in space, only stars. Perhaps there are way more rocks than burning stars.

Re:Well

[zenwrench]

A good observation ... however the measured inertia of a common galaxy would seem to indicate that there should be so much non-luminous "rock" that we should see these rocky structures much more commonly. Or to be more specific, that space should be much ... much ... more dense with solid debris ... and not just galactic space, but all space.

But I digress ... the dark matter "problem" doesn't absolutely require that there is some exotic substance permeating all known space ... it also suggests that our observations and/or conclusions regarding the known universe are grossly false.

My money is on grossly false :)

Re:Blurring what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me. Jupiter is a gas giant planet, not a rocky one. The planemos referred to in the article seem to be similar composition. Not quite brown drawf stars..bigger than planets we are familiar with.

How do they detect them?

[Vadim Makarov]

I wonder what sort of light this twin object radiates that is visible through the ground telescopes.

And, how do they know it is a twin? We can't resolve two separate points at such a distance, can't we?

Re:How do they detect them?

[durnurd]

If they are being observed only through the light bouncing off of them through an optic telescope, then depending upon their distance, size, and seperation, it is entirely possible that they would be indistinguishable... however I imagine more than "swinging a telescope at a random point and looking" was involved in this. More, I would conjecture, than an optic telescope altogether.

Re:How do they detect them?

[jgoemat]

We should be able to resolve two points at that distance (400 light-years) without any problem, if they are briht enough to see. Hubble has imaged the star Betelgeuse, a red giant that is about 10 au in diameter and 600 light-years away. These "planemos" would be closer (400 light-years) and further apart (240 au). The main problem with looking for planets around stars is the glare from the star washing out the planet, which by comparison is very, VERY dim.

Re:How do they detect them?

[Vadim Makarov]

If I understand properly, these twin bodies are not near any star. At what wavelength range were they imaged? Are they hot enough to emit visible or near IR light? Anyone has a picture or a reference to some more detailed writeup/paper?

RTFA?

[Dieppe]

For people who didn't RTFA, the two planets are about 6x the distance from the Sun to Pluto. The image in the article shows two large happy planets practically next to each other.

Six times the distance from the Sun to Pluto. If you're on one planet you might be lucky to see the tiny dot of the other planet in the night's sky... I don't recall if it said they were orbiting a star (for light) or not. So even the picture is misleading.

Re:RTFA?

[smellsofbikes]

As I recall, you need a pretty good telescope to see Pluto when you know where it is. 6x as far means it'll be 200 times dimmer (roughly?) *and* you don't have a nice convenient nearby source of light to illuminate it since they're both swinging around out on their own. I think you'd have to be lucky indeed.

Re:RTFA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall if it said they were orbiting a star (for light) or not. So even the picture is misleading.

What's the point of RTFA if you then can't recall it's main point that "they circle each other rather than orbiting a star".

Your answer is a non-answer

[blueZ3]

the "magical gyroscopic effect" the GP suggested is no more nonsensical than your "magical spiraling mass of dust"

An actual answer involves the fact that the pre-solar mass was likely spinning (not "spiraling") on the same plane the elliptic. The formation of planets occurred on this same plane for obvious reasons, leaving our current system (minus Pluto) of planets with similar planes.

As for the dark matter question, my understanding is that the theory claims that most dark matter is comprised of WIMPs, particles which don't interact in the same way as the "normal" matter which makes up stars and planets.

How about climbing off your high horse and answering the questions, if you can... or don't you get enough of an ego boost giving an answer as opposed to a put-down?

The idea at least is old

[snuf23]

The idea of wandering sunless planets is old enough at least in fiction. The book "When Worlds Collide" is about a pair of rogue sunless planets which orbit each other entering the solar system and colliding with Earth. It was written in 1932. The movie made in 1951 is not half bad either.

Two planets that are great together!

[Anonymous Coward]

>[...]to make twin planets, you'd need only a nebula that's peanut-shaped, so it collapses into two bodies.

You got a planet in my peanut-shaped nebula!
Hey - YOU got a planet in my peanut-shaped nebula!

Beards?

[tashanna]

Quick, check and see if Spock has a beard.

- Tash
Yippie! Hybrids!

Re:Beards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok...are you referring to Spock's Beard (the band), or Spock's goatee (Mirror Mirror...)?

The Planemos

[seriouswind]

I have being always fascinated with the stars and new theories, The question is How two planets could be so similar? When would be possible to explore them? If the planemos defy the theories about the creation of the stars, what other theories are out there that support the possibility of the existence of the twin planets?

They found the Bizarro World

[jagdish]

My first thoughts. But it turns out its just a bunch of planets.

X-Men 4

[krell]

"Binary Rogues... "

Something tells me that the next X Men movie might earn an R rating. Hope Halle stays around!

Do not resist the urge!

[mangu]

Must... resist... urge...

Please, don't! As someone already mentioned, astrophysicists already call them MACHOs. As opposed to WIMPs, of course, which is another possible explanation for the "missing mass" problem.

Circle each other????

[n2art2]

Help me out here. . . .

If planet A is circling planet B, then planet B cannot circle Planet A, right?

Can someone explain to me how they can orbit each other at the same time???? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that they are polarized like 2 oppositly charged magnets?

Ok nevermind.

Re:Circle each other????

[Ullteppe]

At risk to "not get it":

The two planets would orbit their common center of gravity.

Re:Circle each other????

[JesseL]

They both orbit around their common center of mass, as do all pairs of orbiting bodies. The moon and earth actually orbit around a point 4700km from the earths center.

Re:Circle each other????

[n2art2]

ok, thanks. . . . So they don't circle each other as much as they both circle the same center of mass.

Very informative.

Who cares?

[mangu]

Which one is the evil twin?

Good. Bad. Which one is the guy with the gun?.

when compared to what? Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

With science, we can trust it enough to build aircraft, computers, (and bombs I guess).

With religion, not many would have faith enough to hope that a god will carry you in the air or in space. And noone is foolish enough to believe that new-moses could go to a mountain and get stone-tablet computers. But religion does give us people crazy enough to use the bombs created by science.

swingin' evil Twin

[LunaticTippy]

named Chad?

Obligatory quote of Haldane's Law

[Captain Sarcastic]

Haldane's law:

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

Re:Stars... Schmars.

[Coyote65]

I'm not the least bit surprised by this article. My question would be could these planemos explain at least a portion of the dark matter in the universe?

Stray planets

[Pedrito]

While it appears they believe these two planet-like objects formed together outside of a proper solar system, stray planets floating through space along are probably not all that rare, particularly smaller single ones. The current thinking in solar system development is that Jupiter+ sized planets sometimes move inward towards their host star as the planets develop. When they do this, planets whose orbits they come near will generally either get flung into the host star or outside of the system completely from the gravity of the Jupiter+ sized planet. Since there appears to be no shortage of solar systems with large planets in close or highly elliptical orbits, it would seem to suggest that quite a few planets get flung from their systems. Unfortunately they'd generally be too small and dark for us to see (unless they happened to pass through our solar system).

Are you on crack?

[mangu]

we just never know when we'll find something new that blows the standing knowledge out of the water

Well, religious people often blow up things. They also kill, torture, or commit other atrocities.

But science doesn't work like that. With the scientific method you may find sometimes that you weren't absolutely right, but each step gets you closer to the truth.

Re:Are you on crack?

[Aadomm]

Much though I agree with your point wholeheartedly I do now find some dark part of me wanting to kill and torture in the name of science.

Re:Are you on crack?

[Sarisar]

I'm sure someone could come back and point out various people that have abused science to kill / murder.

Lets face it, some people are just assholes and like to hurt people, whether they are religious or scientific or whatever.

Brown dwarves?

[BenSchuarmer]

so, why can't we just say that this is a pair of brown dwarves?

What's wrong with SUMO?

[Ira Sponsible]

The question of what to call such very massive substellar object was raised years ago by a science type mag (Omni or Discover or somesuch, I don't recall specifically). Many votes were cast, many suggestions were made, and ALL of them were much better and more intelligible than "Planemo". My personal favorite remains SUMO, for SUbstellar Massive Object or SUper Massive Object. Seems to be just about right for these things.

Space: 1999

[scoobrs]

You mean Space: 1999 was real? Omigod, WTF! Quick, someone bomb the Russians to keep the moon safe from terrorists.

Finding Planemo

[Joebert]

Smell that ?
It's the smell of rendering farms heating up at Pixar.

Re: Redundancy

[Millenniumman]

Your post is redundant: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=192866 &cid=15835640

Truce

[suggsjc]

Ok, I'll put an end to this pointless slash-war. I've updated the sig. Maybe this will be thwart future sig attacks.

Re:Truce

[Lord Ender]

or, you could safely say "about half"

Streach Armstrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

not exactly a streach.

Ah but then, what is?

easy

[commodoresloat]

just check which one has the evil bit set.

see...

[kaddeh]

this is what happens when the moon gets a bulge :/

can only observe the "freaks" now

[peter303]

Most of these objects discovered by doppler shifts which only see heavy and/or fast (close-in) objects. As more powerful techniques and instruments come on line, we may see more solar-sytem-like objects then. And maybe not.

Not so strange

[FridayBob]

Although it's interesting that we've now been able to observe such a pair of dim objects in this configuration, I see nothing strange about its existence. Astronomers have known about binary (and trinary) star systems for ages, but those were always easy to spot because they're so luminous. Brown dwarfs, on the other hand, are much harder to find, but thanks to modern technology we've found quite a few and astronomers now believe that they are in general quite numerous. So, what's so strange about two brown dwarfs orbiting one another? Nothing, really. It may be the first time we've found a binary system like this, sure -- great! -- but it's not strange at all; that's just an adjective thrown in by the media to spice the story.

Re:Not so strange

[whitman's ghost]

I think "normal" people need 'strange' in the article to make it more intresting for them. I do find that this article makes me think about the universe differently; less star bound really.

Fixed link

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant to go here, but didn't link properly.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41960000/jpg /_41960898_planemos_203_eso.jpg

Re: Redundancy

[Lord Ender]

It's good to know I am not the only person aware of the distionction between average and median.

You are religious, right?

[mangu]

various people that have abused science to kill / murder.

Scientists did that? Who? I mean, not people who use science, but people whose main objective in life is science itself?

some people are just assholes and like to hurt people, whether they are religious or scientific or whatever

Yeah, well, I suppose you are right. The only difference being that science asserts that one must always question authority and be ready for being questioned, while religions assert that one is right without any need to prove it and anybody who disagrees is a heretic. Assuming someone is an asshole and must choose between science and religion, which way he is most likely to go?

Re:You are religious, right?

[Mycroft_VIII]

There have unfortunately been evil scientist. The Medical experiments in Nazi Germany come to mind for one (though I don't know how well the conformed to scientific methods).
    It's just that with Religeon and it's basis in faith I see a greater potential for the extreems of human nature. A greater tendancy draw in the Mother Theresa and OBL's of humanity.
    Then again I had surgery a few days ago so maybe I'm just out of it from the meds. :)

Mycroft