Slashdot Mirror


Tatooine's Double-Sunset a Common Sight

anthemaniac writes "Thirty years ago, Luke Skywalker beheld something that scientists are just now realizing is likely quite common in the universe: double sunsets. Astronomers have long known that binary star systems are common. And models suggested that planets could form in these systems, even though there's a double-tug of gravity on the material that would have to form a planet. Observations from NASA's Spitzer telescope, show that binary systems are just as likely to be surrounded by planet-forming debris disks are are lone stars."

132 comments

  1. This just in by Clever7Devil · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quantum systems also likely to be surrounded by debris.

    --
    "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  2. Force, not tug by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is the FORCE of gravity, not tug. Not when you are talkin' about the Pod Race Capital of the universe. At a stretch you could call the Millenium Falcon a tug, but not what gravity exerts.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Force, not tug by winkydink · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seems to me like somebody is feeling the tug of pedantry.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Force, not tug by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Gravity is the result of warping space/time. As such, could it really be called a "force"? To me, "force" = applied energy.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Force, not tug by edschurr · · Score: 1

      Isn't that conception of gravity only ("only") a model?

    4. Re:Force, not tug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A newsman once asked baseball star "Tug" McGraw's elderly mother how he got his nickname. She said, with him standing next to her, that he was a "vigorous nurser."

    5. Re:Force, not tug by Surt · · Score: 1

      Based on all the responses to your message so far, congrats, that was quite a WHOOSH!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Force, not tug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean the force of pedantry?

    7. Re:Force, not tug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the system of forces "only" a model?

      If a model fits well enough for a given purpose, use it. Gravity works pretty well as a force.

    8. Re:Force, not tug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, "force" = applied energy.
      To me, you don't know shit, so STFUA.
  3. double sunset? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool but hot!

  4. Two suns in the sunset? by OriginalArlen · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Two suns in the sunset? by Neeth · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, nice one. But the second sun on the PF album was manmade. "And as the windshield melts. My tears eveaporate"

      --
      Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
  5. Great by eviloverlordx · · Score: 4, Funny

    More places for hives of scum and villainy!

    --
    'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
  6. I love this movie! by blhack · · Score: 2, Funny

    Any k-paxian could have told you this.
    its common knowledge to them.

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
  7. Planetary Orbit? by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How would the planet orbit them though?

    Would it have to be far enough away so they appeared as one, or go into some crazy chaotic close orbit?

    1. Re:Planetary Orbit? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the classic 3 bodies problem?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Lars+T. · · Score: 5, Informative

      How would the planet orbit them though?

      Would it have to be far enough away so they appeared as one, or go into some crazy chaotic close orbit? Look at the image in TFA. Either the stars are closer than 3 AU, then the planet(s) circle around them both, or they are farther away than 50 AU, then the planet(s) circle one of them (it doesn't mention if there could be planets about both, but IMHO that's also possible). In between, no planets will form.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:Planetary Orbit? by cswiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are two stable possibilities: where the two stars orbit each other fairly closely (ie, 0-4 AU from the article, IIRC), and planets then orbit the common center of gravity formed by these two stars...or where one star has a very distant orbit, which is so far that it doesn't disrupt planets close in to the bigger primary.

      If the second binary star is in a medium-sized orbit (ie, somewhere between where Jupiter and Pluto are in our system), it seems to be the case that this disrupts the planet-forming disk of gas so much that no planets are likely to form.

      If you want to see a full list of all known exoplanets, go here: http://exoplanets.org/planets.shtml
      The column marked "a (AU)" is orbital radius, where 1 AU is the earth's distance from the sun.

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
    4. Re:Planetary Orbit? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      But assuming they're close together, would you really be able to see two distinct sunsets ( la Tatooine) or would it be one oddly shaped blob? I would think they'd need to be far enough apart to see the difference.

    5. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      4 AU is a pretty big distance.

    6. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. If the two stars were separated by 4 AU, then at the right time of the year it'd be 1 AU to the closer star and 3 AU to the farther. 3 times the distance is 1/9 the size in the sky. But obviously at that point only one would ever be in the sky at once. For both to set at about the same time one star would be 1 AU away, the other 5 AU away and 1/25 the size in the sky.

      So yea at times you could see both in one day, very clearly, but for both to set at the same time one would just be a bright star (and you probably wouldn't be able to see it over the closer star).

      Also note that 4 AU is the minimum distance, and that there probably wouldn't be anything at 1 AU in that case. So this is best case for a double sunset.

    7. Re:Planetary Orbit? by charlieman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The only thing i can imagine is the suns orbiting around the planet

    8. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Planets and stars technically orbit each other, strange as that may seem when you say it out loud. In the case of the earth and the sun, they both swing around a common center of gravity. Because of the huge difference in mass however, this center is still located within the body of the sun.

      Picture a long board with an anvil at one end and a small paperweight at the other. If you were to find the balance point between the two, it would certainly a lot closer to (perhaps underneath) the anvil. That stars revolve around this balance point produces a noticeable wobbling effect for each planet that circles it. In fact, this is one way in which scientists can guess if a star has planets in its system: by looking for this wobble.

      With regard to binary systems, it would of course (as other posters have noted) depend how far apart the stars are and how close the planet in question is to either of them. Picture a mobile for a decent analogy. If you get two stars close enough together and a planet far enough away, the planet would likely calmly orbit the center of gravity common to the two stars and the planet.

    9. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Surt · · Score: 1

      It would orbit them typically in the same sense that the earth orbits both the sun and mercury.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:Planetary Orbit? by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....In between, no planets will form.......

      Even if such planets did form, none of them would harboring any life, at least not any life based on carbon. The irregular orbits of all possible planets would preclude any with a stable temperature range. The minimum star spacing for an earth like planet is about 3.8 light years. This specification disqualifies about half of all stars in our galaxy. The mass of any planet harboring life could also not be much different than that of our earth.

      This means that the SETI program is a big waste of money. The likelihood of another planet like earth is very small.

      --
      All theory is gray
    11. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Chief+Wongoller · · Score: 1

      Remember Arthur C Clarke? He wrote 2001 A Space Oddesy which was later made into the classic sci fi movie of the same name. Few Sci fi authors have garnered as much interest in the "real' community as Clarke. Many of his ideas have been taken up for serious research. indeed, a scientific bresearch body exists in his name! (www.arthurcclarkefoundation.org). In his sequal to 2201: 2010 Odyssey Two, planet Earth inherits a second sun. What happens is that Jupiter is blown up (don't ask why) and spontaniously becomes a supernova and then a sun. however, it dosn't change orbit, so planet earth has the weird experience of obiting just one sun: the other pulling earth periodically further away from the original sun by its gravitational powers as its orbit (around the first sun) gets closer to earth's. The influence of the new sun is minimal when it is on the 'far' side of the original sun from the position of earth, but causes all manner of havoc as it moves closer to earth. Could this really happen? Does the existance of two suns elsewhere prove the 'meddling' of 'intelligent' lifeforms?

    12. Re:Planetary Orbit? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderestimate the size of the universe.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    13. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      .....In between, no planets will form.......

      Even if such planets did form, none of them would harboring any life, at least not any life based on carbon. The irregular orbits of all possible planets would preclude any with a stable temperature range. The minimum star spacing for an earth like planet is about 3.8 light years. This specification disqualifies about half of all stars in our galaxy. The mass of any planet harboring life could also not be much different than that of our earth.
      Wow, that's only 50 billion stars left. No chance of finding much there.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Mattsson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The bigger question would be:
      Is it possible to create an orbit around a binary system where a planet has a stable enough environment for harboring life?

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    15. Re:Planetary Orbit? by tsajeff · · Score: 1

      TFA shows examples of the planet orbiting one or both of them on the same plane as the stars, but could it occur that a planet would orbit around the axis through the stars? Do solar systems form with that pattern or are they typically coplanar? In both cases, both sunsets would be visible at least part of the year.

    16. Re:Planetary Orbit? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Picture a long board with an anvil at one end and a small paperweight at the other.

      Or put it in terms that the average slashdotter will understand, picture a long board with a Hummer at one end and a Smart car at the other.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    17. Re:Planetary Orbit? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Not how you're likely thinking. Unless one star was a LOT bigger than the other and there was only one planet involved.
            Earth, Moon, man-made object can make one such trio as can say Sun Jupiter and asteroid.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    18. Re:Planetary Orbit? by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      The Alpha Cen (medium separation) and 40 Eri (wide separation) articles are interesting introductions to this.

  8. It wasn't thirty years ago... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thirty years ago, Luke Skywalker beheld something that scientists are just now realizing is likely quite common in the universe: double sunsets.


    Luke didn't see the sunset thirty years ago - he saw it "A Long Long Time Ago (in a Galaxy Far Far Away)..."

    I can't believe I'm posting to a Star Wars item...feel like I need to take a shower now.
    1. Re:It wasn't thirty years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's one "long" and two "far"s...you sir are a disgrace!

    2. Re:It wasn't thirty years ago... by HerrEkberg · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ, for the majority of Slashdot readers the 70s were a long long time ago.

    3. Re:It wasn't thirty years ago... by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
      I can't believe I'm posting to a Star Wars item...feel like I need to take a shower now.

      Psst, I didn't wanna say anything man, but since you brought it up.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  9. Two is Better than One by AaxelB · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trilling and his team looked for disks in 69 binary systems between 50 and 200 light-years away from Earth. All the stars are more massive and younger than our middle-aged Sun.
    Better endowed and younger, eh? And you can have two at once? Maybe we'd better rethink our exclusive orbit with our Sun... After all, we just keep going in circles.
    1. Re:Two is Better than One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seconded

  10. anybody remember Risa? by thanasakis · · Score: 1
    1. Re:anybody remember Risa? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I stayed on Risa, and all I got was this lousy horga'hn!

  11. what about a double-sunset + life? by dmoen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Planets may be common in binary systems, but what about planets that support life?

    One of the reasons that Earth can support life is that the distance between the earth and the sun remains close to a constant for the duration of Earth's orbit around the sun, so the Earth receives a fairly constant amount of solar energy. This means, for example, that the temperature doesn't go down to -200 in the winter and up to +800 in the summer.

    But in a binary system, I would imagine that orbits that provide a constant amount of solar energy in the Earth-normal range would be less likely to occur. (What would such an orbit look like when there are 2 suns?) Are there any astrophysicists out there that can comment on this?

    Doug Moen

    --
    I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
    1. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAAP, but I'm guessing that the orbits wouldn't look much different from our own. With binary partners 3 AU apart, they'd effectively be a single star for any planet far enough away to actually orbit. With binary partners 50-500 AU apart, the gravitational pull of the second star would be fairly weak, so you'd still get something pretty close to our orbit around the sun, but might be more egg shaped.

    2. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "life" isn't as delicate as we've once thought, it can be supported in extreme environments, and doesnt even have to be carbon based - on this planet.

      Sure planets could support "life". What you're asking is, could they support you? Maybe not.

      Earths precarious orbit and presense of the water and the particular temperature make it suitable for our type of life - or is it the other way around, did life suit itself to the rock we happen to be stuck on?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Yeah I wondered about that too. But it shouldn't be too bad. F'rinstance, if both are suns like ours then the habitable zone would be wider and further out (~1.4 AU I guess). The only problem comes then from one sun occluding the other, so if the planet isn't inclined to the ecliptic too much then there will be brief, but nasty, periods when the light level drops to 50% of normal. If the suns are separated by 3 AU then half a 'cycle' (therefore one occlusion) would be about .... OK too long since I've done this stuff. Not sure what the orbital period would be for this double system, once you've got it you could work out the period of time for the dimming. I'm guessing it might be a few weeks. If the Earth abruptly went into arctic conditions for 2 or 3 weeks I'm sure life could survive. Would strongly promote some interesting adaptations. The weather might get very 'interesting' though.

      Maybe someone can supply some realistic numbers.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    4. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by aldheorte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it would be wrong to assume that the Sol and Earth arrangement is even the most suitable spot for our kind of life. Maybe, especially if you live in a Mediterranean environment, you think the planet is near perfect, but if you live at higher or lower latitudes or directly on the equator in desert or high humidity rainforest hothouse environments, you'll find extremes and seasonal differences brutal. Think of what an organism in even middle latitudes faces: 100 degree 100% humidity summers with ocassional -20 degree arid dips with bone-chilling wind-chill (although most organisms probably aren't as affected by this as us of the hairless ape variety). All this happening on a yearly basis. This suggests to me that life could readily take purchase on binary or trinary systems with large periodic differences in insolation (solar heating) at least at some latitudes of the planet they are on.

      So, the Earth is great, but probably only 5% (totally pulled off the top of my head, if someone wants to do an analysis of temperate high production areas, be my guest) of it or so is 'perfect' for our kind of life. Could the universe do better? Most likely. Also, stars all differ in size and temperature. 1AU might not be the optimal from even our sun (it is clearly not at optimal since its orbit is not perfectly circular and the sun goes through heating and warming cycles that result in measurable differences in energy output received on Earth, suggesting that orbit and distance could be improved for more constant energy transfer) and differences in suns could make planets at many distances quite habitable for our kind of life.

      Probably of importance to whether a planet can bear life is the stability of its periodic insolation and tidal changes. Fortunately, solar systems are generally paragons of stability (it's a delicate balance, if they were not, they would quickly come apart) and orbit a shared center in sum as well as engaging in complex checks and balances that lead to synchronization of phenomena (see tidal locking). Therefore, it's quite likely that many planets in the universe have stable periodic fluctuations and if they do, even if those fluctuations are severe, some life will be able to evolve to survive it.

    5. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by smackt4rd · · Score: 1

      IANAA but I'd think that since there are two stars, the habitable range would be much further out than for a single star system. Also, the further you get away from the binary system, the more it appears like a single gravitational source, so you're more likely to have stable orbits further out as well. Of course, this is all guessing. :)

    6. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      "life" isn't as delicate as we've once thought, it can be supported in extreme environments,

      What, you mean places like volcanoes? Or ocean trenches? Those may be "extreme" compared to where you live, but by cosmic standards they're positively bucolic. Which is why there's no evidence that the other planets in our solar system are anything but sterile. You could maybe introduce life on Mars by being careless with decontaminating your space probes, but it seems unlikely that life ever evolved there.

      And Mars is pretty hospitable compared to a planet that gets blasted by a companion star one a year. So double sunsets may be common, but there's nobody to see them.

      and doesnt even have to be carbon based - on this planet. I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the special Horta issue of Scientific American. When did it come out?
    7. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....What would such an orbit look like when there are 2 suns?......

      Such a stable orbit is impossible if the stars are any closer than about 3.8 light years. Half of the stars in our galaxy (and most likely other galaxies) are closer than this. The parameters for a life supporting planet are extremely narrow. The mass, chemical makeup, rotation rate and a number of other specs must be right also. The size of the parent star is also critical. Our earth is a very rare and special place.

      --
      All theory is gray
    8. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....and doesnt even have to be carbon based........

      You are wrong there. The complex proteins found in living cells cannot be made with any other element. Silicon is the closest, but its binding energies are too high for really large, complex molecules such as in all life forms. As far as we know, the same elements exist throughout the universe as we have here on earth. Of course if you are talking about non-physical life forms then anything can be conjectured.

      --
      All theory is gray
    9. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by arminw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      .....Therefore, it's quite likely that many planets in the universe have stable periodic fluctuations.......

      The mass and distance of the sun and earth are very critical and cannot be changed very much. Making a smaller sun means the earth would need to be closer. At some point, the earth could no longer rotate independently, but its rotation would be the same as its orbit, such as Mercury. That would preclude life, since one side would be very hot and the other extremely cold. Too massive of an earth would retain poisonous gases such as methane and ammonia. Venus is that way. A smaller planet would mean the loss of water into space. Mars is such a planet.

      Putting the earth farther away would necessitate a bigger sun. Large stars go through larger swings of energy output than living systems can tolerate. The spectrum of the sun and the chemical binding energies of photosynthesis are well matched to each other. A red giant would not make a very efficient energy source for living things. The mass, chemical composition, rotation rate and other factors have to be "just so" in order for a planet to have life. If you would factor all this together, you would realize that our planet is unique and very special, a very carefully designed spaceship indeed.

      --
      All theory is gray
    10. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by mrbiggenes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not an astrophysicist, but there is some good information at the following link regarding the Alpha Centauri system (which is basically a dual-star system if you discount the temporary incursion of the Proxima Centauri red dwarf star):

      http://www.solstation.com/stars/alp-cent3.htm

      Seems the most important factor is not the duration of energy that two stars give, but whether liquid water can exist. Even though Alpha Centauri A and B range between 11 and 35 AU from each other, habitable planets that have liquid water could exist within one or two AU of each star (both stars even have decent light for photosynthesis to occur), and planetary orbits would be stable within a few AU of each star. Granted, there might be long time periods when you don't get a "night" because there are stars on either side of you, but I think that would just be a matter of whatever life arose there adapting to conditions.

    11. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      This is assuming that the CHON system of biology has to be the only way that you can have life.

      Certainly something like a Von Neumann replicator (at the extreme like the replicators of Stargate SG-1) are a legitimate alternative, and other ideas with nano-technology can some up with some alterantives, but such machines do seem to be unlikely to have been created spontaneously from just raw matter.

      Of course even the machinery of life as we know it has not been completely explained through any theories, nor have any demonstrations ever been made to show how life could have been started beyond creating a few basic amino acids. Getting from there to an eukaryote is a huge step, and while some interesting hypothesis have been suggested, none are really verifiable. They certainly don't reach the stage of a solid scientific theory that can be reproduced in a laboratory.

    12. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Um, weren't methane and ammonia the critical components of Earth's atmosphere in the currently accepted theory of abiogenesis? Earth retained those chemicals, too, and they were critical for the rise of anaerobic life.

      Also, Venus is actually just slightly smaller than Earth, so if Venus's large size caused it to retain methane and ammonia...

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    13. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....in the currently accepted theory of abiogenesis......

      The biggest problem with that theory, as with evolution in general is that it doesn't tell us where the information stored in the DNA molecule cones from. It takes proteins to make DNA, but it takes the information stored in the DNA to build the proteins. It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem.

      It is the surface gravity that determines what gaseous elements are retained, as well as temperature. The core and temperature of Venus are also different. Even if early unicellular life could have developed in such a now poisonous atmosphere, it would preclude higher life forms.

      I could give you a short list of 15 critical parameters needed for any planetary system that could sustain physical, carbon based life, such as we have here. The chances of another planet that meets ALL of these is essentially zero. The fact alone that the spectrum of the sunlight that reaches the earth's surface is finely tuned to the process to photosynthesis is totally selective. The photon energy and the binding energies of the molecules are perfectly matched. These binding energies are intrinsic to the atoms themselves. Therefore the light has to match these exactly right. A red giant or a blue dwarf would not work, even if ALL the other parameters (orbit, gravity etc) were right on. The Ozone layer also shields out the parts of the solar radiation that is harmful to life. We and our planet are unique in the universe. That is the point of my post here. SETI is a total waste.

      --
      All theory is gray
    14. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      "The biggest problem with that theory, as with evolution in general is that it doesn't tell us where the information stored in the DNA molecule cones from. It takes proteins to make DNA, but it takes the information stored in the DNA to build the proteins. It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem."

      The chicken and egg problem was solved a while ago. The egg came first, borne by something that wasn't quite yet a chicken. Similarly, DNA ultimately evolved out of basic self-replicating amino acids - ones that easily form in high-energy situations like primorial earth - lots of lightning, lots of free elements; in that sort of situation, the formation of self-replicating aminos has been stitistically proven to happen in relatively high frequency.

      "I could give you a short list of 15 critical parameters needed for any planetary system that could sustain physical, carbon based life, such as we have here."

      If you can't determine the necessary compounds needed to initiate evolution of carbon-based life in the first place, how can you possibly know what the parameters are that are necessary to carbon-based life in general? If any of your parameters are off at an early stage (unicellular), and they still survive, it is not possible that multicellular life - evolved from colonies of single cells that survived long enough to thrive in such conditions - would emerge?

      Your problem is that you speak in absolutes, and not probabilities. Which, in the spirit of chatting ultimately about Tatooine, says something about the shade of the 'side' you reside on ^_^.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    15. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      The current theory of how current DNA+protein life came to be is the "RNA World" hypothesis. In this theory, originally all life was based on RNA wrapped in lipid "cell membranes". RNA acted both as the self-replicating genetic material, and as the enzymes that powered the cell. When proteins were first produced, they were produced by RNA enzymes, which is why to this today ribosomes are still made of RNA enzymes (ribozymes), even though the rest of the cellular machinery has been taken over by (more efficient) protein. Once protein-based life existed, it outcompeted the older RNA-based life, which went extinct.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    16. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....is the "RNA World" hypothesis.....

      The problem with this and all other scenarios is that none of them explain where the INFORMATION codes carried came from. It is akin to making educated guesses how a CD or floppy is made, but not addressing in any way the huge amount of information, programming if you will, that is stored on these carriers. DNA and RNA are only carriers of data, they do not generate or produce it, any more than a CD or floppy disks spontaneously come with code and data. These have to originate in a MIND and then be recorded on the media or device by other specific methods. Why should living things obey any other rules? If you are rational, you HAVE to come to the conclusion that the intense activity of a mind is needed to produce even a single cell. It takes both energy and mind to produce order. Energy alone acting without direction from a mind is insufficient to bring about order out of disorder. The molecules of life are highly ordered structures.

      --
      All theory is gray
    17. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      What is information? Shannon entropy, which is very closely related to thermodynamic entropy (the latter being a specific case of the former).

      Information is constantly being created, because entropy is constantly increasing. Mutation — random changes to genetic information — is the process by which information/entropy becomes inheritable. Natural selection is the process by which undesirable information/entropy is weeded out.

      In specific application to the RNA World hypothesis, the process of primitive nucleic acids spontaneously polymerizing into a new RNA chain created/stored information, and the fact that some of them could promote their duplication better than others caused those RNA chains to dominate the prebiotic environment.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    18. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....What is information?......

      Shannon only treats information at a statistical level. Information always and ONLY arises in a mind. Information is not a physical quantity and is not constrained by certain laws of physics. It is carried by physical matter or energy, but in and of itself is neither. Norbert Wiener, the originator of the term "cybernetics" said: "Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which ignores this will not survive one day."

      To reduce entropy, in the sense of creating order, two things are needed. 1) energy and 2) information. Energy alone is never enough.

      (....and the fact that some of them could promote their duplication....)

      Duplicating RNA also duplicates the information it carries. This says nothing however where the information of the original came from. Making a million or more copies of a disk or book doesn't increase the amount of information at all. The software designer or author created the program or book in their mind. Explaining the process of book printing or disk copying has nothing to do with their information content. Entropy can cause the loss of information (missing pages or damaged disk surfaces) but will never add new information. Natural mutations ALWAYS result in reduced, usually corrupted genetic data.

      Nobody can point to a source of information today, other than a mind driven by a will. All human activity and technology first form in some mind. It may be unpalatable to many that there should be a mind wherein the immense amount of information inherent in living systems originated, but this is certainly in keeping of what we know about information processing and engineering.

      --
      All theory is gray
    19. Re:what about a double-sunset + life? by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      ... Information always and ONLY arises in a mind ...

      Bullshit. Meaning always and only arises in a mind. Information, however, is not the same thing as meaning.

      Information is what it is because it is surprising, i.e. you cannot predict it in advance. Order is the complete absence of information; an orderly system is easily predicted. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that you need "1) energy and 2) information" to reduce entropy. Why would you need information, only to remove it moments later? It's like saying you need matches and water to create fire.

      You're correct that entropy/information is not mass/energy. It is a property that arises from mass/energy — in particular, it's a property of aggregates of mass/energy. You're also absolutely correct that exactly duplicating something doesn't add any information.

      However, you're equally, absolutely incorrect about mutation. Mutations do induce novel functionality, because they do increase information. Our DNA is filled with genes upon genes that are near-duplicates of one another — where one gene was duplicated into two copies (a transposition), then the extra copy was free to mutate for generations down the line without disrupting life. Eventually, many such genes become useful, precisely because of the new information added by mutation. It requires a selection process, Natural Selection in this case, to sort through that information and determine how much of it is useful. This is because, although information is inherently surprising, it is not inherently useful.

      I could tell you that I'm wearing a navy blue shirt. I've just increased your information, since you could not have predicted that fact in advance. However, this information is quite likely useless to you. Odds are that you won't remember it five minutes from now, much less will you pass on the story of the navy blue shirt to your grandchildren. But switch out the story of the navy blue shirt for the story of Jesus (or Siddhartha Gautama, or whoever) and watch how the results change!

      Likewise, mutation increases the information in the shared gene pool of a species. However, most of this information is useless to the species. Odds are that the individual organism which carries this mutation won't last five minutes, much less pass it on to its grandchildren. But switch out one mutation for another — one that lets the organism have slightly more children on average — and watch how the results change!

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  12. Ooh. Debris fields. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

    So they have debris disks. That doesn't mean that planets are likely to coalesce. I'd guess the opposite, really, that proto-planets would tend to disintegrate under such conditions.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    1. Re:Ooh. Debris fields. by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Star Trek ,Star Wars, the list goes on buddy.

      Can that many science fiction shows be wrong?

      (not that 'two suns' has just become a cliche "this is an alien world, not new mexico, really" sort of backdrop)

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  13. Why do we have to drag Republicans into this? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    hives of scum and villainy

    Why do we have to drag the White House into every science discussion we have on SlashDot?
    1. Re:Why do we have to drag Republicans into this? by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

      Those spice smuggling hutts threaten our freedom... The empire needs to get their act together and give 'em hell!

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
  14. Old news on slashdot.... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    Solar dupe!

  15. Alaska - already on a planet with two suns by Lockjaw · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Re:Alaska - already on a planet with two suns by DjRenigade · · Score: 1

      Very sweet pic....I like it. Neat visual effect.

    2. Re:Alaska - already on a planet with two suns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So the "bridge to nowhere" really leads to another solar system!

      Ted Stevens is just an alien who is trying to go home.

  16. Stereo Sun(s) Tan FTW by R-2-RO · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    --
    Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
  17. Sundog by XanC · · Score: 3, Informative

    Neat picture! Doesn't have anything to do with latitude, though; it's the ice crystals in the clouds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundog

    1. Re:Sundog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, it has a little to do with latitude -- you don't see dual or triple suns lighting up Rio de Janeiro's sky.

      We got 'em in Fargo, though -- moon dogs, too!:

      http://fargoing.blogspot.com/2007/02/sun-dog-caugh t-on-camera.html

      http://fargoing.blogspot.com/2007/01/sun-dogs-moon -dogs.html

  18. Have a nice diurnal anomoly by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1

    In Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, one of the planets had two suns & people would say, "Have a nice diurnal anomaly."

  19. 500 A.U. only _relatively_ tight by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    500 A.U. is more than 10 times the orbital radius of Pluto.

    Remember the inverse square rule:

    A companion star even 40 A.U. far out would be just an especially bright star. If it had the same luminosity as the Sun, it would appear 1/1600 as bright (.0625%).

    The Tatooine scenario is still romantic fiction: Stars close enough to appear in the sky together as visible disks would probably be close enough that planets in orbit around them to have strange orbits.

    1. Re:500 A.U. only _relatively_ tight by fireylord · · Score: 0

      unless the planet was orbiting the suns at a ludicrously fast speed

    2. Re:500 A.U. only _relatively_ tight by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      The planet wouldnt have to much choice about it's preferred speed, if it does orbit a sun at some radius

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    3. Re:500 A.U. only _relatively_ tight by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      500 A.U. is more than 10 times the orbital radius of Pluto.

      Brings to mind the time when I was about 12 or so and I got my hands on a 40 power telescope. With Alpha Centauri in the field changing to the higher magnification resolved the binary pair for the first time, and they are only 80 AU apart, IIRC. Doing that gives a fantastic feeling of depth. You can feel how far away it is.

    4. Re:500 A.U. only _relatively_ tight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so that makes it only 300 times as bright as the full moon.

      Seriously, I wouldn't recommend looking at it with bare eyes.

  20. Lagrangian by vlad_petric · · Score: 1

    IANAAP either, but a planet could perhaps stay in a Lagrangian point. That would ensure the stability of the trajectory and distance.

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:Lagrangian by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      So you mean like right between the two suns? Wouldn't that be a bit hot?

    2. Re:Lagrangian by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but only during the day.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Lagrangian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For an orbit at the Lagrange point to be stable, the two larger bodies must have a mass ratio of at least 25:1, and this is uncommon for stars.

    4. Re:Lagrangian by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Fortunately since solar power would be feasible on such a planet they wouldn't have to worry about global warming.

  21. In other space news... by bluemonq · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...scientists have come to the conclusion that *that's* no moon.

    1. Re:In other space news... by Ravear · · Score: 0

      It looks a lot like Uranus (the black hole).

      (Jeez, guys. Can we dial down the power-nerd a bit? At least no more star wars ok?)

    2. Re:In other space news... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Do you mean this moon?

      Just don't ask Richard Hogland.... he'll give you an interesting response on this one.

  22. Helliconia got it right... by kale77in · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if a binary system had two stars the size of our sun, then being far enough away for gravitational and seasonal stability would also mean being too far away for liquid water to exist. At least one star would have to be very large in a binary system for this to work.

    Helliconia by Brian Aldiss had a striking ternary system with a small star (with an inhabited planet) orbiting a binary system, giving a 1,500-year long mega-season that gave it regularly-occuring ice-ages.

    That seems quite viable, but it illustrates some of the extra threats to life in that situation. I would suspect that extra stars would lead to more planetary comet/asteroid collisions, owing to more variable gravity effects on outer-system objects like their Oort cloud.

    1. Re:Helliconia got it right... by arminw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ....like their Oort cloud.....

      What Oort cloud? There is no such thing. It is a mathematical fiction that has never been observed, even with the most powerful telescopes. The reason that such a fiction even exists is because comets should long ago have evaporated into space, having a lifetime of a maximum of about 15,000 years. That of course contradicts the accepted religious evolutionary dogma of the billions and millions of years for the age of the Universe. Hence the proposed fiction of the Oort cloud. True science is observation and experimentation, not conjecturing even in mathematical terms, about things that don't exist. Doing such conjecturing belongs to religion, not science.

      --
      All theory is gray
    2. Re:Helliconia got it right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you lived for 15000 years? So what do you base that figure on? Math? Uh oh....

  23. It's my thinking by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    that the additional gravitational pull of a second or third sun could contribute to a more vigorous tectonic activity level than would be present in a single star system, perhaps keeping the core of the planet(s) hot and this might keep the magnetic core active enough to preserve an atmosphere.
    Maybe this would be more conducive to a life sustaining environment, even for planets further out from their sun than ours is. It's an old concept that a planet has to be just the right size, it's sun has to be just the right size and it must be a certain distance from that sun for life to rise and evolve.
    I think there may be many exceptions to this rule. We are already beginning to seriously rethink our very own little solar system. I think we will soon conclude that life is VERY COMMON in the universe and maybe even in our own back yard.

    At least I hope so.

    1. Re:It's my thinking by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      perhaps keeping the core of the planet(s) hot and this might keep the magnetic core active enough to preserve an atmosphere.

      We will know more about this once we get landers on Europa and Io. Both are models for this type of planet because Juipiter is (really) the second sun we almost got.

    2. Re:It's my thinking by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....I think we will soon conclude that life is VERY COMMON in the universe and maybe even in our own back yard.........

      There are many specifications of the earth and sun that must be just right. The orbit is only one. The mass of the planet is also critical. Making a smaller sun means the earth would need to be closer. At some point, the earth could no longer rotate independently, but its rotation would be the same as its orbit, such as Mercury. That would preclude life. Too massive of an earth would retain poisonous gases such as methane and ammonia. Venus is that way. A smaller planet would mean the loss of water into space. Mars is an example.

      The spectrum of the sun and the chemical binding energies of photosynthesis are well matched to each other. A red giant or blue dwarf would not make a very efficient energy source for living things. The mass, chemical composition, rotation rate and other factors have to be "just so" in order for a planet to have life. If you would factor all this together, you would realize that our planet is unique and very special, a very carefully crafted spaceship.

      --
      All theory is gray
    3. Re:It's my thinking by Teancum · · Score: 1

      One of the interesting "additions" to the Drake Equation (that you allude to here for the probability of life taking root on a particular planet in the universe), is the issue of the orbit of the star around the galactic core.

      It appears as though our sun is unique enough to have a nearly circular orbit around the galactic core... and this is indeed something unusual for most stars that we see in the sky. Most stars have highly elliptical orbits relative to the galactic center.

      The advantage of this is that the rate of mutation due to radiological effects has been more or less constant over the full history of our planet, and we are far enough away from the galactic center that the intense radiation that exists there is only noted by astronomical research and does not affect us here on substantial basis.

      This also has given us a rather stable planetary system, where our sun hasn't passed that close to too many other stars, which would also tend to disrupt planetary systems. Again, drifting into the center of the galaxy would make disruptive effects from other stars much more likely.

      Stars further from the galatic core in similar stable orbits would not have as much in terms of the heavy elements needed to create a silicate crust and iron core like we enjoy on the Earth as well, so I would say the number of eligible stars with terrestrial planets (Earth/Mars/Venus) is considerably less than is often presumed... and those which don't get sterilized each time they get into the galatic core is less still.

      Some food for thought here at least.

    4. Re:It's my thinking by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Europa is going to be especially interesting because it has a liquid ocean (under ice, admittedly, but it is there).

      Long experience on the Earth is that life can be found nearly everywhere you can find an energy gradient and water, with a few other trace minerals, with the other elements mainly being carbon and nitrogen that are highly critical.

      The dynamics of the Jovian moons, however, are a little different than what causes the molten core of the Earth and Venus, and active geological changes on these two planets as well. If you could move Europa to an orbit in the Asteroid belt, its ocean would have frozen solid completely.

  24. Shadows of the Empire by dark_panda · · Score: 1

    One incredibly nerdish thing that always bugs me about Tatooine... how come you never see two shadows being cast on anything? Two suns == two shadows, right? I don't think that's ever been addressed in any of the re-releases.

    Whatever, none of the "improvements" have done it for me anyways. In my day, Han shot first. And we liked it that way.

    J

    1. Re:Shadows of the Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a double sunset, one of the suns was setting, and the other was rising. Tatooine is so hot because there's no nighttime, just dim periods when both suns are low in the sky. Only during those times would there be a double shadow.

    2. Re:Shadows of the Empire by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. Sunset isn't the sun moving, it's the planet turning.
            The only scenario I can think of would require the planet to be inside the orbit of the less massive star about it's companion and be orbiting in the opposite direction and I don't even think that would work without eventually tossing the planet away, probably long before it cooled.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    3. Re:Shadows of the Empire by Teancum · · Score: 1

      And you expect Star Wars (with the screaming sound effects and explosion sound effects in space) to be scientifically accurate?

      Besides, the technical problems of trying to cast daylight shadows of two G-class stars is both beyond the experience of most people that it would detract from the film, as well as the fact that the cost would have been perceived as prohibitive as well for everything but the CGI shots. Certainly not something to really have to bother with.

  25. Old news by Sigma+7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mercury has a double sunset - with the same sun setting twice without going over the sky: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8 36746,00.html.

    This was discovered sometime in 1967.

    1. Re:Old news by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Happens on Earth, too. Just not as common.

      Lucas says in the intro to the Special Edition version of the film that the double sunset wasn't a special effect, it was an optical illusion caused by the atmospheric conditions in the desert where they filmed it.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:Old news by julesh · · Score: 1

      Why is it that when something new is described on slashdot, a load of people frequently start talking about it as if it was something old that happens to have a similar (or identical) name?

    3. Re:Old news by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, you can't really believe that.

      The Star Wars (A New Hope) novelization by Alan Dean Foster mentions not only the twin suns, but even gives them names and a bit of a mythology behind them by "natives" of Tatooine.

      Luke clearly lived in a binary star system, although it should be noted that these "twin suns" were in relatively close proximity to each other, and they were of similar masses. The number of times that this was referenced in movies and other places is too numerous to mention.

      If Mr. Lucas has a self-delusion that this was just an optical illusion caused by atmospheric distortion, I'll let him keep that opinion. But he certainly didn't go out of his way to try and refute this rumor of the twin suns of Tatooine as found in the novelization, press releases (at the time Star Wars originally came out in 1977), fan fiction, and more over the years. And Mr. Lucas certainly has done much to encourage this sort of Star Wars mythology.

      It also seems to be something very surprising that it wasn't mentioned during critical reviews and interviews of the movie back in 1977.... that would have been something remarkable to mention and would have been something worthy of note during the various talk show tours that also happened at the time. In short, I don't believe it for a second that this wasn't a double exposure of film stock or some other "special effect".

    4. Re:Old news by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      First off this is just 'devil's advocate' pulling stuff out of thin air, but I do have a possible explanation.
          It could be it wasn't sfx, but a valid weather phenomenon that Lucas took advantage of, either intentionally knowing it to be common or by accident and he decided to 'keep' it and add to the mythology of his fictional universe.
          If that were the case he might not have bothered to explain it back then and and let the proto ILM get credited for it (makes him and them look better).

            Not that I believe that's what happened. If I were a betting man I'd say it was fx of some sort or other.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    5. Re:Old news by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I guess my main argument here is that if it really were a natural phenomena that was merely photographed, that it also would have been witnessed by the entire crew at the time Lucas was filming in Tunisia, and certainly would have been a "Wow! That is damn cool!" with other independent snapshots of that same sunset being done. It isn't like Lucas had the only camera in the world or even on the set at the time.

      And due to the popularity of Star Wars in 1977, all of the crew members were interviewed, including relatively obscure ones like the lead gaffer and production assistants on national television. It also seems as though if this were a natural event merely being photographed, the P.R. value of mentioning this fact would have been something very much worthy of mentioning during all of these interviews... at least during George Lucas' 60 Minutes interview, and others as well. I would imagine that LucasFilm would have been contacted by National Geographic to reproduce the image if it were authentic and not just fx.

      Besides, it isn't like this is something that would be particularly hard to accomplish by even an amature filmmaker.... even by some kid with an 8mm camera back in 1977. I certainly did similar kind of sfx back then when I was playing around with that stuff. In a film that had so many other much more elaborate composite sfx, to argue that this one is the real deal seems to be really trying to B.S. here. Or more important, the grandparent post here is B.S.'ing and I'm merely trying to call him on the carpet.

    6. Re:Old news by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Like I said, I don't buy it myself.
          At best I figure Lucas saw such and optical illusion once and it influenced him to make it a double star system.
          I just like to figure out improbable explanations to explain what didn't really happen sometimes.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  26. doubles common by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

    right, binary star systems no big deal and they could have planets. But those trinary systems, that's a whole different matter, every 22 years the habitable planets around them really, really suck. Unless you're a darkness loving carnivorous boogey-creature, then it's happy hour.

  27. Defenders of the Indefensible by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 1

    > Tatooine's Double-Sunset a Common Sight

    Now all the fan boys need do is tell us why it took 20 years to build the Deathstar and why Luke found Leia such a "Turn-me-on Hot Chicky Mamma ooooh yeah", and their work will be complete.

    http://www.chefelf.com/starwars/

    1. Re:Defenders of the Indefensible by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...20 years to build the Deathstar ..."
      Haliburton.

      "Luke found Leia such a "Turn-me-on Hot Chicky Mamma ooooh yeah""

      Let's see:
      Teenager, in a small confined space with 2 droids, a wookie, and old man, a pirate and a princess.

      It was either the princess or the pirate.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Defenders of the Indefensible by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 1

      ROFL!

    3. Re:Defenders of the Indefensible by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      20 years to secretly build a space station so huge that a well traveled and experienced space hound is shocked and doesn't believe it at first isn't all that freaky, especially when you're also taking over a galactic government by political means.

            Now as far as Luke being attracted to Lea at first I will present two datum about humans that one may assume applies to Luke and Lea (on the presumption that looks like and behaves like human in other ways is indicative).
            One fact is that there has been work done that shows when in human development various behaviors are 'locked in' up till about six any language can be learned as native and our brains 'learn' who family is so we don't interbreed (this is why guys Don't marry the girl next door they grew up with as often as some seem to expect). As a minor addendum it's around eight the part that starts deciding who's 'cute' and not starts warming up.
            The other fact is that humans tend to 'go' for people who look like their opposite gender parent.
          IIRC there have been reported cases of siblings adopted out at birth or near enough and later getting married and then even later finding out they have the same biological parents.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  28. Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Weird Al, it's two "longs" and one "far".

  29. Well, sure - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what NASA's Spitzer telescope found, okay...

    But what about its Schwarzwenegger telescope - what'd it find?

  30. "...models suggested that planets could form..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when do models hang around with scientists, making up hypotheses left and right?

  31. Thar she blows... by the_real_zippo138 · · Score: 1

    "...debris disks are are lone stars."


    All is possible with the touch of his noodly appendage.

  32. first reference for two suns by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    The first "sci-fi" reference for two suns that I can think of comes from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (keep in mind, I really don't know my sci-fi at all, so I expect there are others.)

    Does anyone have an earlier reference? I suspect that Tatooine is a fairly recent reference, though popularly known it may be.

    1. Re:first reference for two suns by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Tatooine also predates HHGTTG.

      I seem to remember Jules Vernes mentioning the possibility in Off on a Comet, a Journey through the Stars, but I could be misremembering. But considering that he was writing about people traveling to the moon in the 19th century, using 19th century technology, it wouldn't surprise me if he or someone else long before came up with the idea.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    2. Re:first reference for two suns by drapeau06 · · Score: 1

      For starters, Star Wars itself predates HHGTTG.

      Star Wars film release: 1977

      Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on BBC Radio 4: 1978
      (Book first published: 1979)

    3. Re:first reference for two suns by uncadonna · · Score: 1

      Isaac Asimov's Nightfall (1941) (later expanded into a full length novel) was about a planet in a system with five suns where "night" was so rare that it was believed to be a myth.

      One of the greatest early SF stories. Look for it.

      --
      mt
    4. Re:first reference for two suns by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      Star Wars film release: 1977

      Did the first movie discuss the two suns of Tatooine?

      (I actually can't remember.)

  33. One drawback by mrbluze · · Score: 1

    On those planets if you say to someone "shove it where the sun don't shine!", you will simply be met with looks of bewilderment.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  34. Re:growing up in a dual-sun world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone would be bisexual.

  35. 30 years ? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    "Thirty years ago, Luke Skywalker ... "

    It was not thirty years ago, it was "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away ..."

  36. Pfff! Old news! by corpsmoderne · · Score: 1

    Anybody having played Elite and/or one of its sequel knows that for years...

  37. pre-Quantum viewpoint by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Gravity is the result of warping space/time.

    Most modern models have a particle, the graviton, exchanged between objects interacting gravitationally. In the Quantum and String Theory models, gravity is a real force, just much weaker (probably because space is warped in the fifth dimension, with gravity only being strong near its brane, and weak out in the bulk).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)