New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
51–60 of 111 posts
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#52I 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
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is literally the exact thing that I thought too. Its interesting that a sentence like this can be so easily misinterpreted by multiple people in the same way.
Isn't it the capitalization of the first characters of each word which causes the confusion? New evidence that all stars are born in pairs versus New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs I've never understood the rationale of capitalizing headlines this way anyway (is it the American way?)
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#54Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#55> Many stars have companions Most stars. Many years ago, i downloaded a copy of the Gliese star catalogue, and set about generating some star charts of nearby space in VRML (which should give you some idea of just how many years ago that was). Multiple stars are listed as multiple entries in the catalogue, and i realised that if i drew markers for each one, they'd overlap and look terrible. Never mind, i thought, the…
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#56Earlier 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.
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#57Earlier 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.
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
TFA? I'm getting "The Force Awakens". Or "Teach For America".
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#59If all stars are born in pairs where is our suns sister sun and earths sibling planet?
From the article: Based on this model, the Sun's sibling most likely escaped and mixed with all the other stars in our region of the Milky Way galaxy, never to be seen again.
Re: New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
#60> Many stars have companions Most stars. Many years ago, i downloaded a copy of the Gliese star catalogue, and set about generating some star charts of nearby space in VRML (which should give you some idea of just how many years ago that was). Multiple stars are listed as multiple entries in the catalogue, and i realised that if i drew markers for each one, they'd overlap and look terrible. Never mind, i thought, the…