New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

Not impossible, but rather unlikely. According to TFA, the partner star was much further out. Also, gas giant planets Jupiter's size are fairly common I thought (this knowledge may be outdated).

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#6

Post by jamiek88 » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 9:49 PM UTC

jnordwick wrote: post #2

Could Jupiter have been a failed pair?

It used to be thought that it was a 'failed star', but you’d need at least 75-85 Jupiter masses to get fusion started it turns out so no, it wasn't close to being a star.

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#7

Post by mee_too » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

jnordwick wrote: post #2

Could Jupiter have been a failed pair?

Don't think so, it's too small.

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#8

Post by exabrial » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

I read this initially as "paris" and the title took a strange turn when I clicked it

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#9

Post by sideshowb » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

I read that as Paris. On the plus side it makes more sense now. Should probably go to sleep...

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#10

Post by gitpusher » Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

sideshowb wrote: post #9

I read that as Paris. On the plus side it makes more sense now. Should probably go to sleep...

I also read Paris, and thought "stars" referred to celebrities. Oops