Rare Exoplanet Found In Star Cluster, Orbits Sun's 'Twin' 63
astroengine writes "Three new exoplanets have been discovered inside a star cluster, which is a rare find as only a handful of such exoplanets are known to exist. However, one of the three new finds is even more remarkable — it orbits a star that appears to be 'an almost perfect solar twin.' The discovery was made by astronomers using the European Southern Observatory's HARPS exoplanet-hunting instrument (PDF) attached to the 3.6-meter telescope at the La Silla Observatory in Chile and was confirmed by other collaborating observatories. The astronomers' attention was focused on the Messier 67 open star cluster, which is located approximately 2,600 light-years away in the constellation Cancer."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As this is only 2,600 light years away, it's well within the biblical-defined 6,000 year age of the universe.
Creationists rejoice!
2,600 light years is distance, not age. It could be much older.
Re: (Score:2)
2,600 light years is distance, not age. It could be much older.
...only 3,400 years older!
Re: (Score:2)
...only 3,400 years older!
Only if the star was formed 6,000 years ago - something no one has claimed to be true. The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created. What we know is that the star is at least 2,600 year old because we are observing its light. But it's likely older since we didn't just see it blink into existence.
Re: (Score:3)
The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created.
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
Um, no, the book of Genesis does not say that. Nor does it say anywhere the number of days between that event and any known history. The "6000 year" number is one person's theory. Someone who was perhaps taken a little too seriously by some.
But sure, it's fun to paint an entire belief system based on the theories of a small number of crackpots. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Any document can be interpreted incorrectly, just as any tool can be used to poke your eye out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But sure, it's fun to paint an entire belief system based on the theories of a small number of crackpots. Carry on.
You mean like the crackpots that think that a zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The time of the formation of the star does not necessarily correspond to the biblical timeframe for when the universe was created.
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
It also did not clearly stipulate how long a day was for an omnipotent being. Perhaps a day for god is one revolution of our galaxy If he created our solar system perhaps a "day" is how long it took to for gravity to make the sun coalesce, compress and ignite. Like the rest of us, I don't really know, but I try to keep an open mind.
Re: (Score:1)
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
Regardless of one's beliefs, I don't know how you're concluding that this particular star was created when the universe came into existence. Surely when astronomers talk about stellar nurseries, they've observed that stars are getting created even now.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone that holds the book of genesis as a literal telling of events, it has to. I forget which day it was, but the bible pretty clearly stipulated that on day X, God created light.
Well yes, but some dispute the meaning of the word "day". But it also contains an ancestry from Adam and Eve via Noah and Abraham down to Jesus - either you have a world only a few thousands of years old, or you have one where people lived to be many millions of years old. Here's the first part to Abraham:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 male and female created he them; Mt. 19.4 Â Mk. 10.6 and blessed them, Gen. 1.27, 28 and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 and Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Ca-i'nan:
10 and Enos lived after he begat Ca-i'nan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 and all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 And Ca-i'nan lived seventy years, and begat Mahal'aleel:
13 and Ca-i'nan lived after he begat Mahal'aleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 and all the days of Ca-i'nan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 And Mahal'aleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 and Mahal'aleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 and all the days of Mahal'aleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 and Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 and all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methu'selah:
22 and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methu'selah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 and Enoch Heb. 11.5 walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 And Methu'selah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
26 and Methu'selah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 and all the days of Methu'selah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 and he called his name Noah, 6 saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 and all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arphax'ad two years after the flood:
11 and Shem lived after he begat Arphax'ad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12 And Arphax'ad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13 And Arphax'ad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15 and Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17 and Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Re'u:
19 and Peleg lived after he begat Re'u two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
20 And Re'u lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
21 and Re'u lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
23 and Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
25 and Nahor lived after he begat Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram [ed: later called Abraham], Nahor, and Haran.
I'll spare you the rest of it, but it's another one of those cases where you have to either get really creative "interpreting" the Bible, or just ignore all of science and tale what the Bible says as fact.
Re:Possible! (Score:5, Interesting)
it's well within the biblical-defined 6,000 year age of the universe.
Creationists rejoice!
Actually the Bible doesn't define a 6,000 year old universe. The age is indeterminate for both the age of the universe, and the earth itself. If you read the relevant passage below it attributes creation of the heavens (universe) and the earth to God, but there is no timing involved. At some indefinite time after the universe and the earth were created God performed the seven days of creation noted after that. The Bible allows for both a universe and earth that are billions of years old.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. -- Genesis 1:1-3 [biblehub.com]
There is a further interesting point to make in this regard. When the "Big Bang" was proposed it was controversial. Some scientists found it highly disagreeable to contemplate that the universe wasn't infinite in time, but rather had an actual beginning, just as the Bible indicates.
Re: (Score:3)
I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth.
One of them tells me this is so because, mostly, our science is a lie. Any fool can go to the Grand Canyon and see that the layers are wrong. He'll eventually eventually shout PILTDOWN MAN! at you if you try to engage in any sort of critical discussion about the scientific process and our understanding of the age of the earth and our universe as a whole.
The other tells me that he believes what he believes because his faith tells him so.
While I disagre
Re: (Score:2)
Lighten up, Francis.
Not everything posted here is meant to bring us closer to enlightenment.
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: Click any thread to collapse it.
Re: (Score:3)
A fair enough question.
The answer is that I've got a diverse group of friends, and I find that life's more enjoyable when not everyone you surround yourself with agrees with you on everything lock, stock and barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
My friend is, I suppose, slightly less likely to vote against "The Gay Agenda" as a result of the conversations we've had -- but overall I suspect my impact on him voting one way or another one an issue divided along religious lines (gay marriage, abortion, whatever) is fairly negligible.
He is, in that moment in the voting booth, my opponent, my enemy, and hardly my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the hubris to believe that I've somehow stumbled upon the One True Way of Thinking, and that everyone who doesn't share my beliefs is somehow Wrong(tm).
As such, I expose myself, and offer my friendship to people who hold a number of opinions that I don't agree with.
If I broke associations with everyone I didn't agree with 100% across the board, I'd die alone. Sorry, dude, you drink Coca Cola, and they're destroying drinking water in 3rd world countries. What's that? You eat meat? Murderer!
Re: (Score:2)
My choice may not be the same as yours. As long as you're not gathering for treason or something, you're free to associate (or not associate) with whomever you want as far as I'm concerned. I make my choices of association with people I disagree with because I value diversity among my friends more than I value conformity to my idea. You may place a higher value on what you think is "right," but we all weigh these things.
"I'm sorry you believe in Zues or G-Zues, but as such we can't be friends.", ...just
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Other religions don't, but Christians who actually read their bibles know that they're supposed to love everyone, no matter how big an asshole they are.
The AC you responded to spoke of the klan as if that had anything whatever to do with religion. I know a card-carrying klan member, a man who spent ten years in prison for murdering a black man. He's an atheist who doesn't believe in the possibility of God.
Re: (Score:3)
The "your science is wrong" guy is a good friend of mine, and he's been (on and off over the years) a work and travel partner of mine. We've had numerous _l_o_n_g_ discussions about the basis of both of our philosophies of life -- good and evil versus form, function and necessity; the statistical unlikelihood that anyone picked the right faith system; the "point" of life -- and while they're often frustrating for me, they are, at least, an interesting look into what other people think. [I'm certain I frus
Re: (Score:3)
> I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth.
I've got a friend who believes that UFOs pick up rednecks on back roads and give them anal probes. Based on that one data point, I choose to believe that all the people participating in SETI are looking for skinny aliens with big heads and a taste for buggery.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the section of the bible you quoted originally refers to the battle between Tiamat and Marduk: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSMarduk.html [uga.edu]
That passage was pulled into the bible by the Jews who were living in Babylon at the time - hence the Babylonian gods.
And not to be contradictory, but the story restarts at Genesis 2.4, with a different retelling of the creation.
Interesting vs Exciting (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun II - Interesting
Earth II - Exciting
Re: (Score:2)
Sun II - Interesting
Well from what I've been told, the vast majority of stars in the observable universe are red dwarfs that radiate 1/1000 the amount of energy as our sun. This dramatically reduces the Goldilocks zone for these solar systems.
Re: (Score:1)
Found in the constellation Cancer - Ironic
Re:Interesting vs Exciting (Score:4, Funny)
I'd say that's on tropic.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be an "exciting" mod point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting that Messier 67-A's sun is 2600LY away from it?
The capital-S "Sun" only appears in the title...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is only ONE "Sun". If you are referring to another star, either use its given name, or say "star".
Um, "sun" is a type of object. Our sun has a name, too.
Hm (Score:4, Insightful)
An exoplanet orbiting a Sol-like star in a star cluster. I think I've read that story [wikipedia.org].
Rare blah blah blah found in blah blah (Score:3)
I don't think they know what that word means.
Every article starts off the same way, it's only rare because nobodies seen the other million + scattered through the universe.
Even the article alludes to this "distance of over 2,500 light-years, the challenge to detect the slight wobble in the faint starlight was formidable"
Mentioned in the video, "over a period of many years"
How about "A before unseen blah blah blah found in blah blah
Unusual was used in the video as was "that's a lot of stars" that are starting to pop up, while the narration again calls it rare.
At last! (Score:2)
Two? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still... (Score:1)
It's a boring trip even in a Very Fast Picket OU.
Two Suns (Score:1)
GNU/Sun! (Score:2)
An almost-perfect copy of Sun located in an "open" cluster? I didn't know the FSF was branching into stellar engineering :).