Two Totally Unique Star Systems Discovered 141
esocid writes "Astronomers have spied a faraway star system that is so unusual, it was one of a kind — until its discovery helped them pinpoint a second one that was much closer to home. In a paper published in a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Ohio State University astronomers and their colleagues suggest that these star systems are the progenitors of a rare type of supernova. In research funded by the National Science Foundation, they found a star system that is unusual, because it's what the astronomers have called a 'yellow supergiant eclipsing binary' — it contains two very bright, massive yellow stars that are very closely orbiting each other. In fact, the stars are so close together that a large amount of stellar material is shared between them, so that the shape of the system resembles a peanut."
Interstellar Directions (Score:5, Funny)
"What do you mean you can't find me? Did you follow my directions?"
"I already flew by there five fucking times, I can't find you!"
"Jeezus Christ! It's the one that looks like a peanut you pendejo! How many of them look like a peanut? How could you miss that!?"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's an Internet thing ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickroll [wikipedia.org]Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Totally! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In common usage, "unique" can refer to all attributes, or only a single attribute or subset of them. Thus, you can have degrees of uniqueness based on the number of attributes that are unique. And in a more metaphorical way, uniqueness can also refer to the degree to which the differences that make the item unique set it apart. If the differences are large, then we would say "xyz is very
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You do realise that Nazi is a proper noun, not an acronym, and therefore should not be capitalised?
HTH. HAND.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
However, it's generally not capitalized, much like radar, laser, scuba, etc...
And now we return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
Re: (Score:2)
In this usage, isn't it about time we dropped the capitalisation entirely? Save Nazi (big N) for memebers of the Nazi Party. Use nazi (little n) for someone who is uptight, particular and pushes their views on others, but doesn't typically have the desire to commit genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ITYM "semantics nazi".
Re: (Score:2)
Why misuse a word when there are plenty of excellent alternatives in this rich language of ours? How about "rare", "uncommon", "exceptional", "unusual", "extraordinary"?
You can apply modifiers to any of these terms if they are not strong enough for you. You c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Astronomers tend to err on the side of caution in their terms. You find a solar system and go "wow, that is so far removed from our models it's gotta be a unique system". Then, seemingly invariably, we find a second one. I think you need to cut them some slack on "unique".
... however, over the last bunch of y
It would normally be bad science to say "we found one, so we infer there are many"
Obligatory Asimov Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
It would normally be bad science to say "we found one, so we infer there are many" ... however, over the last bunch of years in Astronomy has consistently re-affirmed exactly that.
The problem is, it was considered completely "unique" until they found a second one.
"The number 'two' is impossible." Isaac Asimov in The Gods Themselves. The point being that in cosmology there may be zero of something or one of something, but once you know there is more than one of something, you should assume that the number is infinite.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that the same kind of ignorance that comes from not knowing what a word means [merriam-webster.com], or were you trying to win some kind of award for creative use of the term irony?
Re: (Score:2)
What people are ignorant of is standard usage. These rules exist to provide writers with guidelines by means of which they can make their meaning clear the greatest number of readers.
Still, it is a silly charade to pretend that you do not understand phrases like "somewhat unique" and "totally unique", just because you want to prove somebody is ignorant. Because th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As measured in KG?
Are they the same?
I didn't think so.
Scrotal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Two? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
we get the word tunic. In the 13th century a French clothier invented a new
shirt style for himself which one of his friends borrowed.
It was originally called a tunique but was anglicized to tunic.
Belthize
Re:Two? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems for English speakers, uniqueness is not binary.
I suppose two instances of double rotating stars make them "somewhat unique in a certain way". Uniqueish, even.
Re:Two? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm puzzled by the thought that it should be.
Let's see what my old friends George and Charles Merriam and Noah Webster have to say on the subject [merriam-webster.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Indeed. It becomes 'duique'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It becomes 'duique'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose you could take that a few steps further saying that all apples are unique since none are 100% identical. So I suppose it's all about relativity of perception.
Ironic how you can have multiple unique objects but if you use "unique" as a catergory they all become the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are a clear example of partially unique, or quite unique, apples.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could take that a few steps further saying that all apples are unique since none are 100% identical. So I suppose it's all about relativity of perception. Ironic how you can have multiple unique objects but if you use "unique" as a catergory they all become the same.
Why is it ironic? Of course stars will always be unique because of differences in its mass (etc). But unique by category is not illogical at all. For example, if you have a 10 inches long tail, its length may be unique but the condition is not, since it is shared by others. However, if you were the only one to have a tail, your condition would be unique.
In other words, the world unique must not have anything to do with the mass, position or temperature of an object.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Waitaminute... (Score:3, Funny)
Space is big (Score:2)
Why does this video look familiar? (Score:1)
Aren't those configurations expected? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I supposed astrophysicist first studied the effects of an unobserved configuration and from the results they described what data to expect from such a configuration. Actually finding it was the last step, in my supposition created world.
The article, however, seems to describe the discovery as quite a surprise.
Re:Aren't those configurations expected? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yes, they'll occur. Obviously, since they have. However, they are probably some of the rarest of stellar phenomena. Unique, no. Staggeringly rare, definitely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
like two parts of any system of any size, they can exist in harmony, if there is balance. this balance is all part of the natural world, and it's ludicrous to think that us puny humans can even comprehend most of these things yet. there are entangled photons, entangled souls, and now we have entangled solar systems
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even... (Score:2)
peanut shaped universe (Score:2)
Oh, for cryin' out loud... (Score:1)
Lonely Rolling Star (Score:1)
Na na na na, na na na na na...
Katamari Damacy...
Re: (Score:1)
uh... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:uh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Are these the Type IIP supernovae? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad headline? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I guess that's somewhat overkill for a headline
Re: (Score:1)
So, yes, the headline is not optimal. Serviceable, yes.
Stability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the two stars not simply merge into a single star with a greater rotational speed
Presumably they're at a distance, and orbiting each other at a speed, that prevents that from happening (at least in the short term).
Some types of supernovae (like the IA's I mentioned earlier) do involve a small white dwarf accreting material from another larger star until it passes a critical mass, then blowing itself to bits. (Or, in so far rarely seen cases, the possibility of two white dwarves colliding.)
Re: (Score:2)
The angular velocity probably keeps the masses separated (centripetal acceleration and all that).
peanut shaped star system (Score:4, Funny)
found a peeeeeanut just now,
just now I found a peanut,
Found a peanut just now.
(feel free to share the rest of the lyrics with the class)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay [soundtrackslyrics.com]...
My nuts stand tall they never fall
Ripe and yes always on the ball
FDA fresh and they are the best
A winner of every damn taste test
Eat em for pleasure or at your leisure
a taste that all the girls do treasure
Never illin but chillin
Never stealin but dealin
my peanuts are what you're feelin
I take em to the beach, I take em to the park
I takem to your mothers house after dark
They ain't like no nuts from Jimmy Carter
I know my nuts rock
one thing leads to another (Score:4, Funny)
The DARE.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Article Correction (Score:2, Funny)
Ahem. That's THE Ohio State University. I have relatives who've graduated from there. Thank you.
Name them (Score:1)
I'm disappointed (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps they need to cover their left eye (Score:1)
Ob (almost) Simpsons quote (Score:2)
Two? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the fact is, it's actually semantically proper to modify the work "unique." The basic meaning "one of a kind" obviously can't be modified, but in today's world, Unique has other meanings, including "very unusual," which obviously can be modified.
so it's possible to say "very unique," and, in fact, saying it is a great way to provoke nutty folk.
Not to mention that "two unique" could also mean "two things that aren't similar to e
Re: (Score:1)
Damnit, now you got me thinking.
If I have a peanut in the shell, I refer to it in the singular, even though there are two kernels inside. And yet, when I have those two kernels removed from the shell, I refer to them as two shelled peanuts.
So should a peanut in the shell be called a "double-nut"? Or should peanuts outside the shell be called "half-nuts"?
I'm going to stop now before my brain implodes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, there's more. Why do we say that a peanut has been shelled when the shell has been removed? Is it not now unshelled?
Oops, Let me try that again.
Why do we say that a pair of half-nuts have been shelled when the shell has been removed? Is the double-half-nut not now unshelled?
Re: (Score:2)
Pea:
Subfamily: Faboideae Tribe: Vicieae Genus: Pisum Species: P. sativum
Peanut:
Subfamily: Faboideae Tribe: Aeschynomeneae Genus: Arachis Species: A. hypogaea
so now they're half-not-pea-not-nuts-not-shelled-but-deshelled
oh my... Everything is wrong about peanuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read this post [slashdot.org].
You can decide any word means anything but the purpose of language is to communicate ideas clearly, and the only reasons for muddying a definition seem to be ignorance, attention-seeking, or malice ("it is a great way to provoke nutty folk"). We already have other words that mean "very unusual", use them. And of course you can have two unique things if they are different, but the title is referring to two
"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions (Score:3, Informative)
Or evolution in the language, in which unique has come to mean "very unusual".
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of coun
Re: (Score:2)
"Get over it" implies that something has changed irrevocably, but if the language is evolving then the muddying of definitions can be resisted. Which is it?
Language is understood by consensus - meanings are implicitly agreed upon by whatever group is using it at any one time. It constantly changes, and equally that means changes can be redirected and resisted. There is nothing to get over, I understand what language is. In my o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because while the consensus is that unique can mean "very unusual", it is the 5th of 5 definitions, the other four of which still retain the original meaning of unique as "one of a kind". Both definitions are valid, and the language is enriched (in the opinion of some) or muddied (in the opinion of others). Eith
Re: (Score:2)
This habit of changing the established definition of words leads to confusion and ignorance. How can a word that means one of a kind be twisted to mean unusual but not one of a kind ? What word do we now use to fulfill the original purpose of the word "unique" ? By twisting the meaning we now have to use qualifiers which negate the whole meaning of the term.
I for one will continue to mock those who use the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if you are hacking on about scientific meanings of words then perhaps you meant to say similar.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my fault. I'm just the messenger. My dictionaries tell the same story, too. English is a language built on absorbing new words and repeatedly changing. That's why it's both the best and worst language in human history.
Fact is, words change. I would barely be able to communicate with an English speaker from 300 ye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)