Slashdot Mirror
Sign Of "Embryonic Planets" Forming In Nearby Stellar Systems
Astronomers are pointing to three nearby stars they say may hold "embryonic planets" -- a missing link in planet-formation theories. As scientists try to piece together how our own planet came to be, they look to the forming planets of other star systems for clues. But astronomers have been unable to find evidence for one of the key stages of planet development, a period early in the planet's formation when it is only as large as tiny Pluto.
Bad jokes and flamewars in 3... 2... 1...
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Planned Planethood.
Yeah, its a sad sad joke. Sue me.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Is it possible that intelligent life could being viewing our planet as an embryonic planet, and we would see theirs as an embryonic planet? I don't know enough about how long ago that period was and how far away these planets are that we're looking at.
Gives new meaning to the term "Big Bang".
from "2001: A Space Odyssey"
But the wierd alien baby at the end... don't ask me about that.
if we terminate the planet and harvest it for stem cells, and then put the stem cells next to a denny's, we'll get a Planet Denny's?!?
Dear Friends it's time to act now to help overturn VOOR'RR vs SMEGMOORT and protect these young defenseless planetary bodies. We must save them from being infested by horrible disease such as Krittes, Brozoons or Humans. Won't you send a donation now?
Operation Planetary Rescue
c/o Society of the Great Prophet Zarquon,
Crab Nebular
Binary 6
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Doesn't it make more sense to consider the theories of the earlier universal structure (say, more independent gas and particle groups) that would bring the laws of gravity into the formation of both planetary masses and solar ones?
I imagine that the formation of planets (say, from those independent gas and particle groups attracting each other to collapse into planets/suns) would be easier to understand in an earlier universal structure, and may be less evident as the universe progressed to clumping into planets, etc?
Do we have a lot of evidence of areas of our own galaxy where there still might exist these independent gas and particle clouds, versus the chance that existing massive suns and planets are throwing off the chance for these clouds to exist?
Did anybody else look at the image in the article and think "That's the Eye of Sauron!".
http://images.google.com/images?q=eye+of+sauron&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.google:en-US:official&hs=8k7&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title
At what point in its development and/or what orifice does an "Embryonic Planet" have to pass through to be classified as "born" under this metaphor/anthropomorphism?
This article got me thinking that if we come across planets like this, should we seed the world with genetic information?
That makes me think of another question... Did some race who has been dead for 5 billion years seed are primordial planet with genetic information.. It had to come from somewhere....
I think what the parent means is that since light takes time to travel, and if someone were a billion light years away; they would be seeing light that's a billion years old and therefore, the Earth a billion years ago.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
...is only as large as tiny Plutoand I'm as smart as dumb Slashdotters.
everyone knows god created the heavens and the earth a few thousand years ago and finished it in 6 days so no new planets can be forming.... ;)
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
But did anyone else look at the images and see the Lidless Eye? Or am I alone here?
comparison
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
Breaking: Pluto has tired of the verbal abuse and has decided to stop orbiting the Sun.
This is my first Slashdot post, and I can't resist... I for one welcome our new Embryonic Planetary Overlords.
Do or do not. There is no try. --Jedi Master Yoda
The prime candidates being referenced in the study are only about 60 light years away (from space.com), and only between 10 and 200 million years old. In comparison, our sun is around 4.5 billion years old, so for an alien civillization to see our solar system in a similar stage of evolution, they'd be looking from about 75 million times as far away. Keep in mind we can't even see these nearby proto-planets ourselves...just evidence in the thickness of the star's accretion discs.
If they can see that far, they'd have already seen so much of this happening that our solar system wouldn't stand out as remotely interesting. And of course, they'd be seeing it 4.5 billion years before intelligent life arose, so they wouldn't get any thrill from spotting an extra-galactic neighbor, either.
Don't abuse the gulf between religion and science, let alone that between superstition and science. It is at least reasonable to wonder about the plausibility of panspermia, and it's a valid question that we can investigate with science.
We have already used science to discover that the spontaneous genesis of maggots in meat (and similar) are superficially compelling but not rigorous. The same cannot be said of the plausibility of panspermia. The conditions necessary are indeed very specific for both donor and recipient star systems, but it remains possible. For example, very few stars could even theoretically donate living particles to the planets of a G2 star such as the Sun. Only stars of class A0 through G5 can donate at all, which means that the vast majority of stars, without even considering that most undiscovered stars are probably later spectral types, cannot donate life at all (without spaceships!).
The physical laws and effects we use to analyze the plausibility of panspermia govern comet tails, interstellar dust, and the effects of different electromagnetic radiation on the possible biopolymers involved (e.g.: it's mostly bad news for DNA over the times and distances required).
The point is that this question is amenable to scientific analysis, and that scientific analysis demonstrates that it is difficult, but by no means impossible for microorganisms to survive at least some of the necessary journeys. It is thus quite correctly ascribed a low probability of solving the origin of life on Earth at least. It is not at all relegated to "religious" supporters who defy the evidence; it is science.
It's not enough that patent trolls are trying to scour up and grab all prior art on Earth?
First there was no earth, then earth was there. It's right there in genesis, there's no such thing as "embryotic planets". Even though we've observed pretty much every other stage from interstellar dust to planet, that missing link it proof God did it. Just like life didn't start with microbes and apes didn't evolve into men. Lalalalala I can't hear you...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2993
Looks kinda like the eye of Sauron...
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com