Sign Of "Embryonic Planets" Forming In Nearby Stellar Systems

Astronomers are pointing to three nearby stars they say may hold "embryonic planets" -- a missing link in planet-formation theories. As scientists try to piece together how our own planet came to be, they look to the forming planets of other star systems for clues. But astronomers have been unable to find evidence for one of the key stages of planet development, a period early in the planet's formation when it is only as large as tiny Pluto.

"embryonic planets"

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Bad jokes and flamewars in 3... 2... 1...

Re:"embryonic planets"

[Gregb05]

Finally, we can harvest these embryonic planets for stem cells to repair Earth's environment!

Re:

[edittard]

Yeah, I'm surprised the abortion troll hasn't posted yet:

Day 1.

I'm slowly taking on a circular shape.

Day 2.

I can feel the denser elements settling to my core.

Re:

[tchdab1]

>>a period early in the planet's formation when it is only as large as tiny Pluto.

We know now that Pluto is not a planet.
It merely embodies the concept of a planet, and embryonic planets do not begin at conception.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks that looks dead on like the eye of the dark lord?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/10/071001120430.jpg [sciencedaily.com]

Next up.....

[Samalie]

Planned Planethood.

Yeah, its a sad sad joke. Sue me.

Re:

[JeanPaulBob]

The Vogons could make a killing (hah!) with a simple change in branding!

Re:

[davidsyes]

They should look for the eyes or the umbilical "coords"...

Re:

[Kingrames]

That's one big baby.

Re:

[Pogue Mahone]

When I first read the headline my addled brain saw "embryonic patents" and thought "Oh no, more IP claims coming to invade us".

Re:

[Surlyboi]

Don't you mean, "Planet Parenthood"?

Yeah, it's a worse joke. No shame.

Question about viewing far away planets

[yincrash]

Is it possible that intelligent life could being viewing our planet as an embryonic planet, and we would see theirs as an embryonic planet? I don't know enough about how long ago that period was and how far away these planets are that we're looking at.

Re:

[MozeeToby]

No, the stars in question would have to be several billion light years away in order for what you're describing to happen. Theres no way that astronomers can see an accretion disk around a single star from those kind of distances.

Re:

[TheRealMindChild]

I doubt it. Our planet isn't in any kind of formation transition. The crust is cooled, the space debris is mostly gone. Our planet isn't going to go through any extraterrestrial influenced change, unless you cnsider something colliding with us and "breaking" the planet.

An Earth a billion years younger.

[iknownuttin]

I think what the parent means is that since light takes time to travel, and if someone were a billion light years away; they would be seeing light that's a billion years old and therefore, the Earth a billion years ago.

Re:An Earth a billion years younger.

[mangu]

The Earth a billion years ago was long past the stage of the stars mentioned in the article, the time scale would be closer to five billion years.

Unfortunately, TFA doesn't mention the distance to those stars, but I checked it and the one that's most distant is less than 70 light years away. So, the short answer is those three stars are from 70 million to 200 million times closer than the distance the sun should be to appear that young.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Maybe we could ask them to tell us what we look like, and that would patch up some of our theories about the earth's history!

First, we need to figure out how to send information faster than light ... and communicate that request without any knowledge of what stimuli are meaningful to them :-/

Not from these systems

[iamlucky13]

The prime candidates being referenced in the study are only about 60 light years away (from space.com [space.com]), and only between 10 and 200 million years old. In comparison, our sun is around 4.5 billion years old, so for an alien civillization to see our solar system in a similar stage of evolution, they'd be looking from about 75 million times as far away. Keep in mind we can't even see these nearby proto-planets ourselves...just evidence in the thickness of the star's accretion discs.

If they can see that far,

Re:

[rtb61]

Now of course if planetary core formation occurs prior to stellar ignition, there is nothing to see at any inter-stellar distance, as planetary formation would be completely obscured by the dust cloud.

Come now - all we need to know, we learned

[Rooked_One]

from "2001: A Space Odyssey"

But the wierd alien baby at the end... don't ask me about that.

So..

[Trails]

if we terminate the planet and harvest it for stem cells, and then put the stem cells next to a denny's, we'll get a Planet Denny's?!?

Re:

[domatic]

I think they've only gotten that to work for Shakey's Pizza. There is a team that claims it is very close to getting it working for Denny's though.

(Planetary) Life begines in the Womb.

[infonography]

Dear Friends it's time to act now to help overturn VOOR'RR vs SMEGMOORT and protect these young defenseless planetary bodies. We must save them from being infested by horrible disease such as Krittes, Brozoons or Humans. Won't you send a donation now?

Operation Planetary Rescue

c/o Society of the Great Prophet Zarquon,
Crab Nebular
Binary 6

Early universe stages matter?

[dada21]

Doesn't it make more sense to consider the theories of the earlier universal structure (say, more independent gas and particle groups) that would bring the laws of gravity into the formation of both planetary masses and solar ones?

I imagine that the formation of planets (say, from those independent gas and particle groups attracting each other to collapse into planets/suns) would be easier to understand in an earlier universal structure, and may be less evident as the universe progressed to clumping into planets, etc?

Do we have a lot of evidence of areas of our own galaxy where there still might exist these independent gas and particle clouds, versus the chance that existing massive suns and planets are throwing off the chance for these clouds to exist?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking since it seems already inline with the mainstream theory, but assuming I get the gist of your question, the answer is yes [nasa.gov].

The Eye?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anybody else look at the image in the article and think "That's the Eye of Sauron!".

http://images.google.com/images?q=eye+of+sauron&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.google:en-US:official&hs=8k7&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title [google.com]

Important Question?

[Zymergy]

At what point in its development and/or what orifice does an "Embryonic Planet" have to pass through to be classified as "born" under this metaphor/anthropomorphism?

Re:

[vegiVamp]

How did you think black holes got stretched so big ?

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I'm thinking it's time to classify panspermia along with the aquatic ape theory in the category of "Religions Masquerading as Science".

Re:

[Nazlfrag]

It's only 25 light years away, obviously this is what He was busy doing during the godforsaken eighties.

OT, I know

[andphi]

But did anyone else look at the images and see the Lidless Eye? Or am I alone here?

Sauron?

[the dark hero]

From TFA [sciencedaily.com]

comparison [focusmag.gr]

"Tiny Pluto"

[MeditationSensation]

Breaking: Pluto has tired of the verbal abuse and has decided to stop orbiting the Sun.

Re:

[jombeewoof]

who cares what Pluto thinks, they're not even a real planet.

Back of the bus Pluto, we're not taking your shit anymore.

I can't resist

[englishb]

This is my first Slashdot post, and I can't resist... I for one welcome our new Embryonic Planetary Overlords.

Re:

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

You forgot to imagine a beowulf cluster of embryonic planets, you insensitive clod!

Re:

[andphi]

Welcome to Slashdot.

Embryonic Patents from Outer Space

[OldeClegg]

It's not enough that patent trolls are trying to scour up and grab all prior art on Earth?

Heresy!

[Kjella]

First there was no earth, then earth was there. It's right there in genesis, there's no such thing as "embryotic planets". Even though we've observed pretty much every other stage from interstellar dust to planet, that missing link it proof God did it. Just like life didn't start with microbes and apes didn't evolve into men. Lalalalala I can't hear you...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion