Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Strange New 'Twin' Worlds Found

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the galactic-misfits dept.

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.'"

4 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Just goes to show... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Just goes to show... by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    2. Re:Just goes to show... by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    3. Re:Just goes to show... by Lijemo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.