Slashdot Mirror
Rare Exoplanet Found In Star Cluster, Orbits Sun's 'Twin'
astroengine writes "Three new exoplanets have been discovered inside a star cluster, which is a rare find as only a handful of such exoplanets are known to exist. However, one of the three new finds is even more remarkable — it orbits a star that appears to be 'an almost perfect solar twin.' The discovery was made by astronomers using the European Southern Observatory's HARPS exoplanet-hunting instrument (PDF) attached to the 3.6-meter telescope at the La Silla Observatory in Chile and was confirmed by other collaborating observatories. The astronomers' attention was focused on the Messier 67 open star cluster, which is located approximately 2,600 light-years away in the constellation Cancer."
Sun II - Interesting
Earth II - Exciting
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
As this is only 2,600 light years away, it's well within the biblical-defined 6,000 year age of the universe.
Creationists rejoice!
2,600 light years is distance, not age. It could be much older.
Are you suggesting that Messier 67-A's sun is 2600LY away from it?
The capital-S "Sun" only appears in the title...
Er what? The title says "Rare Exoplanet Found In Star Cluster, Orbits Sun's 'Twin'". The "Sun" is referring to this solar system's main star which IS named the Sun. It means exactly what it says. There has been an exoplanet found orbiting a star in a remote galaxy. That star has many characteristics of the Sun as to be almost its twin. Reading comprehension fail.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
it's well within the biblical-defined 6,000 year age of the universe.
Creationists rejoice!
Actually the Bible doesn't define a 6,000 year old universe. The age is indeterminate for both the age of the universe, and the earth itself. If you read the relevant passage below it attributes creation of the heavens (universe) and the earth to God, but there is no timing involved. At some indefinite time after the universe and the earth were created God performed the seven days of creation noted after that. The Bible allows for both a universe and earth that are billions of years old.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. -- Genesis 1:1-3
There is a further interesting point to make in this regard. When the "Big Bang" was proposed it was controversial. Some scientists found it highly disagreeable to contemplate that the universe wasn't infinite in time, but rather had an actual beginning, just as the Bible indicates.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
An exoplanet orbiting a Sol-like star in a star cluster. I think I've read that story.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
...only 3,400 years older!
Only if the star was formed 6,000 years ago - something no one has claimed to be true. The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created. What we know is that the star is at least 2,600 year old because we are observing its light. But it's likely older since we didn't just see it blink into existence.
I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth.
One of them tells me this is so because, mostly, our science is a lie. Any fool can go to the Grand Canyon and see that the layers are wrong. He'll eventually eventually shout PILTDOWN MAN! at you if you try to engage in any sort of critical discussion about the scientific process and our understanding of the age of the earth and our universe as a whole.
The other tells me that he believes what he believes because his faith tells him so.
While I disagree with their view on the age of the universe, it's impossible for me to counter the second argument, and as such, your argument would fall on deaf ears as well.
Faith must, by definition, be taken by faith, and it tells you what it tells you.
I think they're both loons, but they find my "faith" in science to be just as soundly grounded as their faith in their faiths.
I don't think they know what that word means.
Every article starts off the same way, it's only rare because nobodies seen the other million + scattered through the universe.
Even the article alludes to this "distance of over 2,500 light-years, the challenge to detect the slight wobble in the faint starlight was formidable"
Mentioned in the video, "over a period of many years"
How about "A before unseen blah blah blah found in blah blah
Unusual was used in the video as was "that's a lot of stars" that are starting to pop up, while the narration again calls it rare.
In the Universe One is Unique, Two is Common. It's just the first to found, more will be found...
A fair enough question.
The answer is that I've got a diverse group of friends, and I find that life's more enjoyable when not everyone you surround yourself with agrees with you on everything lock, stock and barrel.
The "your science is wrong" guy is a good friend of mine, and he's been (on and off over the years) a work and travel partner of mine. We've had numerous _l_o_n_g_ discussions about the basis of both of our philosophies of life -- good and evil versus form, function and necessity; the statistical unlikelihood that anyone picked the right faith system; the "point" of life -- and while they're often frustrating for me, they are, at least, an interesting look into what other people think. [I'm certain I frustrate him as well, so, on that we're even.]
I believe that, subtracting the hokum, most of what my friend believes makes for good neighbors and good society. We just disagree on the "why" portion of those measures of good and bad. ...and the fundamental need to derive good and evil from faith.
The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created.
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
Um, no, the book of Genesis does not say that. Nor does it say anywhere the number of days between that event and any known history. The "6000 year" number is one person's theory. Someone who was perhaps taken a little too seriously by some.
But sure, it's fun to paint an entire belief system based on the theories of a small number of crackpots. Carry on.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
> I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth.
I've got a friend who believes that UFOs pick up rednecks on back roads and give them anal probes. Based on that one data point, I choose to believe that all the people participating in SETI are looking for skinny aliens with big heads and a taste for buggery.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created.
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
It also did not clearly stipulate how long a day was for an omnipotent being. Perhaps a day for god is one revolution of our galaxy If he created our solar system perhaps a "day" is how long it took to for gravity to make the sun coalesce, compress and ignite. Like the rest of us, I don't really know, but I try to keep an open mind.
But sure, it's fun to paint an entire belief system based on the theories of a small number of crackpots. Carry on.
You mean like the crackpots that think that a zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?