Most Stars Are Single

An anonymous reader writes to tell us Space.com is reporting that 'for more than 200 years, astronomers thought that most of the stars in our galaxy had stellar companions. But a new study suggests the bulk of them are born alone and never have stellar company.' The key difference seems to come from the difference between the highly turbulent clouds that produce massive stars in groups and the less active smaller clouds that produce red dwarfs."

Myspace.com

[imoou]

I bet these lonely stars spend most of their time hanging around myspace.com.

Sure.

[IAAP]

With the divorce rate in Hollywood and everything who could blame them for being single! Sure, they're ...

What? RTFA? Huh, you're new here.

Anyway, where was I, oh yeah, Stars and their divorce rate...

It's disappointing...

[PFI_Optix]

...how often we have to unlearn what we've been taught for so long by scientists. This has been one of the more basic tenets of astronomy, something almost always mentioned when discussing extrasolar planets at any length. And now we're being told that two hundred years of teaching was wrong?

The longer I live, the less enamored I am with science. I was always taught that it's this great infallible thing, that science only knows fact. This is a prime example of just how wrong science can be. I suppose I'm just going to have to become a creationist now, at least they never change their stories.

(that last part was a joke)

Marketing fiasco!

[NiteShaed]

So does this mean that the big two-for-one sale at http://www.starregistry.com/ [starregistry.com] will have to be rethought?

Insert obligatory joke...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

"Most slashdot users as well..."

Sigh - fooled again

[maynard]

And here I thought I was going to learn how I might have a shot at Kate Beckinsale [imdb.com] or Lucy Liu [imdb.com], but instead it's only some lame story about astronomy. Thanks for getting my hopes up once again slashdot!!!

sheesh!

Re:Sigh - fooled again

[why-is-it]

And here I thought I was going to learn how I might have a shot at Kate Beckinsale or Lucy Liu, but instead it's only some lame story about astronomy. Thanks for getting my hopes up once again slashdot!!!

Oh dear, where to begin:

• No slashdotter will ever get a chance at women that hot
• With a id that low, you should know better than to get your hopes (or anything else!) up.
• You do however have excellent taste in unobtainable women.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sigh - fooled again

[afaik_ianal]

Depends - what did the judge have to say about it?

Re:Quality

[maxwell demon]

We all realized how far down in quality Slashdot has sunk when the first thought on everyone's mind when they saw this title was, "I can think of way more married stars than single ones."

Now, are you sure that for those stars, the same problem doesn't apply? So most of the easily visible stars are married. However you usually only see the stars produced in big clouds like Hollywood, but there are also e.g. porn stars which are not as easily observed (a regular cinema isn't sufficient for their observation). Now are you sure that most of them are married as well? I could well imagine the opposite.

SCNR :-)

For those Red Dwarf fans :-)

[astralbat]

Holly: Look, we're travelling faster than the speed of light. That means, by the time we see something, we've already passed through it. Even with an IQ of 6000, it's still brown trousers time.