Slashdot Mirror
Extra-Galactic Planet Discovered In Milky Way
astroengine writes "Between six to nine billion years ago, the Milky Way collided with another galaxy. As you'd expect, this caused quite a mess; stars, dust and gas being ripped from the intergalactic interloper. In fact, to this day, the dust hasn't quite settled and astronomers have spotted an odd-looking exoplanet orbiting a metal-poor star 2,000 light-years from Earth. Through a careful process of elimination, the extrasolar planet (known as HIP 13044b) actually works out to be an extragalactic planet, a surviving relic of the massive collision eons ago."
She said she was 18...
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
They actually address that hypothesis:
Finally, as a member of the Helmi stream, HIP 13044 most
probably has an extragalactic origin. This implies that its
history is likely different from those of the majority of known
planet-hosting stars. HIP 13044 was probably attracted to the
Milky Way several Ga ago. Before that, it could have had
belonged to a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way similar to
Fornax or the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (14).
Because of the long galactic relaxation timescale, it is
extremely unlikely that HIP 13044 b joined its host star
through exchange with some Milky Way star, after the former
had been tidally stripped. The planet HIP 13044 b could thus
have a non-Galactic origin.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Data: There's a planet orbiting a metal-poor star. ....wait what?
Conclusion: IT COMES FROM OUTSIDE OUR GALAXY.
Datum 1: The star comes from the Helmi Stream, a well understood remnant of a dwarf galaxy consumed by our own.
Datum 2: You've been modded insightful.
Conclusion 1: Neither you, nor the mod, read TFA.
Datum 3: TFA doesn't even mention this.
Conclusion 2: I hadn't read TFA either.
Recommendation: Read http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/11/18/exoplanet-found-from-another-galaxy/#more-24148 for a much better explanation.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I find it kind of hard to think of a star that's "in the Milky Way galaxy" as being extragalactic.
It's extragalactic because it came from another galaxy. If a space alien visited Earth, it would still be extraterrestrial even when it was on Earth.
Free Martian Whores!
Wrong! God creates the stars after creating the Earth (the latter is created in the Third Day, while the former are only created in the Fourth), and since a galaxy by definition includes stars, it must be six thousands years old or younger.
Dilbert RSS feed
The Bible makes no claims as to the age of the galaxy, only the age of the earth.
Actually, it's worse than that. The bible makes no claims about the age of the earth either, it simply says that in the beginning, whenever "the beginning" was, God created it. 6000 years comes by counting the ages listed from Adam down through his descendants. The problem with using this as the age of the earth, or anything listed as created before Adam for that point, is two-fold.
First of all, if Adam was immortal before sinning, then he also did not age before sinning, and therefor one can not infer from the text if his listed age is from the moment of his creation, or from the moment he became mortal. With this in mind he could have been 10 million years old when he sinned and became mortal, thus starting the aging process.
Second of all, There is no record of time before Adam was created. Sure, the Bible records everything that is as being created in 6 "days", but it also uses the word "day" arguably before the Sun is listed as being created, assuming the Sun was created not on "day" 1 when he said let there be light, but on "day" 4 when he created the lights in the heavens. Does "day" mean 24 hours? Or is it an arbitrary separation of an unknown amount of time? And regardless of the answer to that question, if a day is a cycle of light and darkness and/or 24 hours and/or whatever, light didn't exist until verse 3 of the first chapter. There is no record or indication of how much "time" occurred prior to verse 2, if "time" even means anything in that context.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that supports that any of that means light in general was created for the first time in verse 3, or simply light visible to the mass of ocean called "earth".
In a nutshell, if you (and by you I mean anyone, not AC parent) want to try to pick apart the historical accuracy of the bible, you should try to pick apart Exodus, or perhaps Kings/Chronicles. Mid Genesis at the latest. The account of creation is rather vague with time periods and meanings. Some people believe that millions if not billions of years of men and dinosaurs and all kinds of nifty things happened between the first and second half of genesis 1:1.