Slashdot Mirror
Kepler Discovers Solar System's Ancient 'Twin'
astroengine writes: Astronomers have found a star system that bears a striking resemblance to our inner solar system. It's a sun-like star that plays host to a system of five small exoplanets — from the size of Mercury to the size of Venus. But there's something very alien about this compact 'solar system'; it formed when the universe was only 20 percent the age it is now, making it the most ancient star system playing host to terrestrial sized worlds discovered to date.
The only problem with naming satellites after early astronomers is that when I read the headline, there is a moment where I think "wait -- isn't he dead?"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I thought that it took multiple generations of supernovas to produce enough heavy elements to accumulate into a rocky planet.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Then it should be named Vincent, and our own system should be renamed Julius. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Cue the Star Trek music as the Enterprise begins to circle yet another duplicate of the planet Earth. Spock turns to the Captain and says "It seems an exact duplicate of the Sol system, but formed billions of years earlier. Before even the creation of your solar system Captain. Most interesting."
I thought he died years ago!
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
And upon one of those rocky worlds is an ancient and advanced civilization. They will be able to give us the secrets of the universe; from interstellar travel and zero-point energy to a smoother, creamier peanut butter.
I for one welcome our ancient alien overlords.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
They calculated that there are 5 planets orbiting the star by the way the intensity of the star dips very, very slightly in a pattern. Are we sure there are no other mechanisms that can cause the star's intensity to vary in a pattern? We only know about our own star's sunspots, and the longer term cycle (11 years) in which the sunspots change the intensity at which it emits. How do we know that a smaller, much older star doesn't have a sunspot type cycle that is shorter or more complex, and that is what is causing this star's intensity to change?
Better known as 318230.
> Plays host to a system of five small exoplanets
No, it plays host to a system of five planets. Unless you think surgeons, after cutting open a patient, should talk about operating on that there exoliver.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Some people get annoyed thinking that electrical positive/negative charges should be reversed, or that pi would be more useful if we used a multiple of it. My pet peeve is star population labeling. Our current generation of stars (and all future ones) are Population I. The immediately previous one is Population II, and the very first stars are Population III.
I know there's history there... Pop I and II were labeled without regard to which ones actually came first, and Pop III wasn't visible by telescope when the others were discovered so we had to add them later, but come on. Have some dignity and reverse them, even if you need to create a new term instead of population to do it.
Never hurts to have a roadmap before you start out.
While this is really neat, it is yet more of the accumulating evidence that there are no substantial barriers to intelligent life arising or even arising in the early universe. This suggests that something is wiping out civilizations, possibly something the civilizations themselves all do. This problem is known as the Great Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter (Strictly speaking the Filter is whatever makes massive, interstellar, civilizations apparently rare, but it looks like most of the Filter really is at or beyond our rough tech level.) The Great Filter could be nuclear war, or epidemics, or biological warfare, or bad nanotech, or possibly something we haven't even thought of that comes completely out of left field. But the evidence for it is growing. This is scary.
it formed when the universe was only 20 percent the age it is now
Instead of obfuscating the actual age behind a percentage and making it more difficult for people to figure it out, why not just say, "it formed when the universe was roughly 2.8 billion years old." Uses less words (and fewer syllables) and conveys more meaning. Of course, this is what copy EDITORS are for!
Capital planet of the Empire.
for our first radio transmissions to pass it, but it will be another 117 years before we know if they noticed.
Our sun is roughly 4 billion years old. It will burn for roughly another 4 to 5 billion years. How the heck is Kepler 444 still burning after 11.2 years? Its not even as large as the sun.
could our big bang be just another super nova
or a new matter stream that started our universe
into an already existing space like it re used
or recycled and redistributed materials