Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

cfa.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#41

Post by roywiggins »

ngoldbaum wrote: post #18
jansho wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well what do you know, Jupiter doesn't actually orbit the sun! Not properly anyway http://www.iflscience.com/space/forget-wha-you-heard-jupiter...

This is silly semantics. Jupiter and the Sun both orbit the center of mass of the Jupiter-Sun system. The article is making the point that for Jupiter and the Sun this point happens to be just outside the surface of the Sun. It's much simpler to say "Jupiter orbits the Sun" than "Jupiter and the Sun both orbit the center of mass of the Jupiter-Sun system". You can think of the former as a shorthand for the latter.

And the Earth-Moon system orbits their common center, though that center happens to be inside the Earth.

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#44

Post by hanoz »

return0 wrote: post #21
gitpusher wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Me too, and i think we discovered a new phenomenon. OK i ll rationalize it, stars aren't "Born" , humans are. "A star is born" is a common phrase, and doesn't usually refer to stellar objects. Since i was tricked to believe it was talking about humans, it;s easier to understand how i might have confused pairs for Paris (which was also capitalized). Plus i dont wear my glasses.

Good analysis. I was disgusted at myself for taking the Parisian celebrity interpretation, then somewhat consoled but at the same time disturbed that on Hacker News of all places so many people did the very same. But I think you've hit the nail on the head with the title-case Pairs factor. The All Stars expression probably introduced some anchoring too.

Exercise to the reader - use the observed principals to concoct an equally misinterpretable headline.

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#47

Post by eternauta3k »

ngoldbaum wrote: post #18
jansho wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well what do you know, Jupiter doesn't actually orbit the sun! Not properly anyway http://www.iflscience.com/space/forget-wha-you-heard-jupiter...

This is silly semantics. Jupiter and the Sun both orbit the center of mass of the Jupiter-Sun system. The article is making the point that for Jupiter and the Sun this point happens to be just outside the surface of the Sun. It's much simpler to say "Jupiter orbits the Sun" than "Jupiter and the Sun both orbit the center of mass of the Jupiter-Sun system". You can think of the former as a shorthand for the latter.

If we are going to be pedantic, it's an N-body problem and we don't know if some planet will be eventually shot out of the solar system.

Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs

#50

Post by thaumaturgy »

jnordwick wrote: post #2

Could Jupiter have been a failed pair?

No: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gnq8t/is_it_tru...

The question itself is weird; planets don't really "fail" to become something else. They simply accumulate mass during accretion, and either that mass (and other factors) is sufficient for ignition and sustained fusion, or not.

It would be a little bit like asking if Neptune is a failed Jupiter or Mars was a failed Earth (hmm, perhaps a bad example).

Jupiter is far, far too small to have been a candidate for a brown dwarf.

Post reply on HN