| |
Main
Date: 24 Oct 2006 20:49:18
From: Klaatu
Subject: The Sun had Sisters
|
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
"The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
to thousands of them.
And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:18:05
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
On Tue, 24 2006 20:49:18 -0700, Klaatu
<mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net > wrote:
>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
>
>"The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
>to thousands of them.
>
>And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
>that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
>system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
Is it just me or is the growing number of discoveries of planets
around other stars just the expected result? Why should our solar
system be "special" in the galaxy?
The idea that there are gobs of planets out there doesn't especially
surprise me. I think the methods of finding them are interesting, but
the result is not unexpected. It would be more astounding if we were
not finding planets.
What will be much more thrilling to me personally is the eventual
discovery of a rocky planet covered with liquid water orbiting around
another star.
---
Michael McCulloch
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:46:49
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Michael McCulloch <michaelm@nospam.invalid.net > wrote:
>On Tue, 24 2006 20:49:18 -0700, Klaatu
><mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
>>
>>"The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
>>to thousands of them.
>>
>>And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
>>that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
>>system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
>
>Is it just me or is the growing number of discoveries of planets
>around other stars just the expected result? Why should our solar
>system be "special" in the galaxy?
Well, for 1600 years the Catholic church burned enyone who disputed
the fact that we were at the center of the universe and over 40% or
the population of the US believes in intelligent design or
creationism. Factor that in with the fact that half the US population
thinks we are living in the "end times" and it is not surprising that
what is logical to the more intelligent among us seems like magic to
the half with a 2 digit IQ.
>
>The idea that there are gobs of planets out there doesn't especially
>surprise me. I think the methods of finding them are interesting, but
>the result is not unexpected. It would be more astounding if we were
>not finding planets.
>
>What will be much more thrilling to me personally is the eventual
>discovery of a rocky planet covered with liquid water orbiting around
>another star.
That will be cool.
The one thing that all the ET science shows forget is that there may
be other tool making creatures in the galaxy, but it does not take
much to miss eachother in "time".
Imagine that the most ideal mate for you exists but you were just out
of sych by 40 years. Might as well be a million.
It will be a major coincidence that there are more than a very few
space traveling creatures in existence at any one time in a Galaxy
such that they can encounter and interact with each other.
Our best bet at meeting ET is to become ET and spread ourselves across
the Galaxy, like a VIRUS.
We could be the original Space Balls. :-)
Jim Klein
I
>
>---
>Michael McCulloch
James E. Klein
jameseklein@earthlink.net
Engineering Calculations
http://www.ecalculations.com
ecalculations@ecalculations.com
Engineering Calculations is the home of
the KDP-2 Optical Design Program
for Windows.
1-818-507-5706 (Voice and Fax)
1-818-823-4121
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 10:55:29
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Michael McCulloch wrote:
> On Tue, 24 2006 20:49:18 -0700, Klaatu
> <mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
>>
>> "The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
>> to thousands of them.
>>
>> And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
>> that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
>> system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
>
> Is it just me or is the growing number of discoveries of planets
> around other stars just the expected result? Why should our solar
> system be "special" in the galaxy?
You have to remember the context: just 20 years ago the question of
whether or not there were extra-solar planets and how common they were
was pure speculation.
Sure, lots of people assumed that planets were common, but without any
evidence such speculation wasn't any more compelling, in a scientific
sense, than the idea that planets were unique to our solar system.
It's very exciting that we can now take the question of extra-solar
planets away from the realm of speculation and put it in the realm of
science fact.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:10:25
From:
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Jim Klein wrote:
> The one thing that all the ET science shows forget is that there may
> be other tool making creatures in the galaxy, but it does not take
> much to miss each other in "time".
Indeed, but there are two kinds of "miss".
Arthur C. Clarke put it best, when he said that we would meet "apes or
angels, but never men".
I think that the lifetime of a tool-using species is not a short one,
at least not in _all_ cases. Even we may yet manage to survive longer
than the dinosaurs did.
Either we're *way* outclassed... or we're the first.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:07:08
From:
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Michael McCulloch wrote:
> The idea that there are gobs of planets out there doesn't especially
> surprise me. I think the methods of finding them are interesting, but
> the result is not unexpected. It would be more astounding if we were
> not finding planets.
> What will be much more thrilling to me personally is the eventual
> discovery of a rocky planet covered with liquid water orbiting around
> another star.
Well, the former makes the latter more likely. And the former is what
we can do at this time.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 03:07:48
From:
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Matthew Ota wrote:
> Even better, an extrasolar planet with a substantial fraction of oxygen
> in its atmosphere, as that would be absolute proof of life there.
Not necessarily.
What about the methane "cow farts" being found on Mars? Those are
evidence of either
life "outgassing" or some (as yet) unknown chemical process. Given the
short "longevity"
of methane in the Martian atmosphere; "something" is generating it --
could be large
underground fields of bacteria or some venting from Mars' underground
geologic process(es).
The methane was reported recently per results from the ESA orbiter and
confirmed by, I
believe, spectrographic analyses using the Keck.
A Google search using "Mars methane" returns 1,830,000 hits featuring
articles from
National Geographic, the BBC, New Scientist, Space.com, ESA, etc etc
etc. For example:
<http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMZ0B57ESD_0.html >
Given the diversity of life on Earth I expect the universe to be
teeming with life even under
conditions that boggle the mind.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:01:26
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
> Given the diversity of life on Earth I expect the universe to be
> teeming with life even under
> conditions that boggle the mind.
Given so little evidence, I suppose that's a reasonable speculation.
But wait a minute, I have to ask this: if life is teeming everywhere in
the Universe, where is it elsewhere in the solar system?
I know people will claim we haven't looked hard enough yet or point to
traces of methane here and there. But, isn't it possible that the fact
that we have to look so hard, right here in our own back yard, might
just be telling us something? I mean, life on earth has completely
changed the composition of the atmosphere. It's bloody obvious!
When it comes right down to it the only evidence we have appears to
indicate that life may not be so omnipresent. At the very least, I say
it renders the, "life exists on earth therefore it must elsewhere"
argument moot.
Food for thought.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 23:07:47
From: Iordani
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
> When it comes right down to it the only evidence we have appears to
> indicate that life may not be so omnipresent.
Once in every solar system seem a lot to me...
> At the very least, I say
> it renders the, "life exists on earth therefore it must elsewhere"
> argument moot.
...so I'd argue the opposite.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 00:06:52
From: Matthew Ota
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Even better, an extrasolar planet with a substantial fraction of oxygen
in its atmosphere, as that would be absolute proof of life there.
Matthew Ota
Michael McCulloch wrote:
> On Tue, 24 2006 20:49:18 -0700, Klaatu
> <mutster8_nospam_@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
> >
> >"The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
> >to thousands of them.
> >
> >And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
> >that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
> >system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
>
> Is it just me or is the growing number of discoveries of planets
> around other stars just the expected result? Why should our solar
> system be "special" in the galaxy?
>
> The idea that there are gobs of planets out there doesn't especially
> surprise me. I think the methods of finding them are interesting, but
> the result is not unexpected. It would be more astounding if we were
> not finding planets.
>
> What will be much more thrilling to me personally is the eventual
> discovery of a rocky planet covered with liquid water orbiting around
> another star.
>
> ---
> Michael McCulloch
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:12:30
From:
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> [...]
> I know people will claim we haven't looked hard enough yet or point to
> traces of methane here and there. But, isn't it possible that the fact
> that we have to look so hard, right here in our own back yard, might
> just be telling us something? I mean, life on earth has completely
> changed the composition of the atmosphere. It's bloody obvious!
No doubt about that! And there have also been numerous extinction
events that (apparently) wiped out earlier life [on Earth]. Life has
(apparently) restarted from scratch at least 5 times [on Earth] per
some
of the recent journal articles I've read the past month.
> [...]
> When it comes right down to it the only evidence we have appears to
> indicate that life may not be so omnipresent. At the very least, I say
> it renders the, "life exists on earth therefore it must elsewhere"
> argument moot.
>
> Food for thought.
Complicating the discovery of extraterrestrial life is the fact that
adequate
sensors (for want of a better word) haven't been deployed. Methane is
not
a 100% sure-fire indicator of life.
At issue also is the so-called "habitable zone" surrounding a star.
Though
we've found life in undersea volcanic vents on Earth, does that imply
life
could exist on Venus? Some Earth forms of life expire in the presence
of
oxygen.
Further complicated by the timeline: our seach(es) may be too early or
too
late.
The Universe is a big place. I'd really be surprised, no, shocked, to
learn
Earth was the only habitat for life.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:32:55
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Thad wrote:
> No doubt about that! And there have also been numerous extinction
> events that (apparently) wiped out earlier life [on Earth]. Life has
> (apparently) restarted from scratch at least 5 times [on Earth] per
> some of the recent journal articles I've read the past month.
Do you remember how they come up with the figure 5?
> At issue also is the so-called "habitable zone" surrounding a star.
> Though we've found life in undersea volcanic vents on Earth, does that
> imply life could exist on Venus? Some Earth forms of life expire in
> the presence of oxygen.
The earliest forms of life do indeed "fear" oxygen. And although life
did in fact changed the atmosphere from a reducing one to an oxidizing
one, that process took a long time. It took proto-plants to do that.
For at least a billion years or so, life on the Earth didn't change the
atmosphere that drastically.
> The Universe is a big place. I'd really be surprised, no, shocked, to
> learn Earth was the only habitat for life.
Tony Flanders made a provocative observation, which I happen to agree
with. He said he could conceive of a universe in which life was
plentiful, and also of one in which the Earth was unique. What he
couldn't conceive of was one in which there were exactly two (or by a
similar argument, three or four, or five) planets bearing life. The
universe is simply too big for that kind of coincidence. There exist
sound statistical reasons behind Tony's assertion.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 18:52:04
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Tony Flanders made a provocative observation, which I happen to agree
> with. He said he could conceive of a universe in which life was
> plentiful, and also of one in which the Earth was unique. What he
> couldn't conceive of was one in which there were exactly two (or by a
> similar argument, three or four, or five) planets bearing life. The
> universe is simply too big for that kind of coincidence. There exist
> sound statistical reasons behind Tony's assertion.
If I understand that right (and maybe I missed the point) that's exactly
why it's so important to keep looking for life in the solar system. If
mars really did have life, then it's not a big jump to say that life is
plentiful.
On the other hand it could still only "infect" one in 1,000,000 solar
systems, which by my accounting would be rare. Yet, the Universe is so
large one could claim the total number would still be huge and conclude
that life is in fact plentiful (which I guess is another way to look at
what Tony said). But isn't that just a matter of semantics? I'm not
sure there is anything profound there.
Personally, I'm an agnostic on this issue.
So whenever someone makes a claim of faith one way or another I'm
naturally drawn to argue with it. The most common argument I see in
favor of life being plentiful is this earth extrapolation: life on earth
can be found in every conceivable nook and cranny; therefore it is
likely to be found in nooks and crannies elsewhere. There is merit to
that argument. But I think the counter argument is just as good: if
life really is so abundant then why has it only taken hold in an obvious
way on this one planet (in our solar system)? Where are the bunnies on
mars? Where are the waving grasslands? Why haven't the atmospheres of
other planets been grossly altered? In other words, where is the
obvious life?
But what really fascinates me with this whole idea isn't the astronomy
at all. After all, there isn't any! Not yet. What fascinates me is
how so many people not only want to believe in an answer but actually
seem to be compelled to decide one way or another. I've had long
conversations with students regarding this question. For many, they
would not (could not?) accept "we don't know" as an answer. So what is
it about human psychology that leads many (most?) people to choose one
over the other, even when there is no evidence to base a decision on?
Is it simply that decisiveness is a desirable quality from the point of
view of the survival of the species? Is this tendency toward
"irrational decisiveness" genetic? Is it learned? Has the incidence of
rational thinking (the opposite) changed significantly over the course
of human history?
I suspect the answer to these questions has something to tell us about
what it means to be human. And after all, isn't the real reason we look
outward, in the end, only to gain perspective for when we look inward?
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 23:54:42
From:
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Thad wrote:
> > No doubt about that! And there have also been numerous extinction
> > events that (apparently) wiped out earlier life [on Earth]. Life has
> > (apparently) restarted from scratch at least 5 times [on Earth] per
> > some of the recent journal articles I've read the past month.
>
> Do you remember how they come up with the figure 5?
Evidence in the geologic record. One specific article had a chart
depicting
extinction events over a several billion year period leading to the
present
period.
Since I read it recently, it has to be in one of about 20 magazines
presently
atop my family room table. I'll find it this weekend and followup with
the
cite. I meant to locate it earlier today but I didn't have time then
(and I don't
right now since I need to prepare dinner).
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 09:11:44
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
> Brian Tung wrote:
>> Thad wrote:
>>> No doubt about that! And there have also been numerous extinction
>>> events that (apparently) wiped out earlier life [on Earth]. Life has
>>> (apparently) restarted from scratch at least 5 times [on Earth] per
>>> some of the recent journal articles I've read the past month.
>> Do you remember how they come up with the figure 5?
>
> Evidence in the geologic record. One specific article had a chart
> depicting
> extinction events over a several billion year period leading to the
> present
> period.
I think if you reread the article (as you said), you'll see that they
were describing "mass extinctions" of which their are numerous examples.
Not complete sterilization of the planet. These extinction events are
believed to have killed off 50-90% or even more of all species. That
still leaves a lot of bacteria, viruses and other critters crawling
around.
Shawn
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:00:03
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Thad wrote:
> Evidence in the geologic record. One specific article had a chart
> depicting extinction events over a several billion year period leading
> to the present period.
The reason I'm suspicious is that paleontologists *do* speak of five
major extinction events, but these events all take place within the
last half a billion years, and none of them ended all life on the
Earth. The most recent was the K-T event that extinguished the
dinosaurs (except for the birds, if you're a strict cladologist), and
the biggest one, the one that *almost* ended it all, was the end-Permian
event that may have helped to usher in the age of the dinosaurs. Over
90 percent of species appear to have died in the end-Permian event, as
compared to just about half in the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) event.
What's more, there seem to have been life continuously from about 3.7
billion years ago right down to the present. The time that there could
have been *complete* extinction events would have been in that first
800 or 900 million years or so, but I was (and remain) dubious that
there could be any dependable record of that--especially to the point
that they could count up five of them.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 12:57:11
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: The Sun had Sisters
|
Klaatu wrote:
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
>
> "The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
> to thousands of them.
>
>
> And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
> that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
> system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
I have just one copyright from 1990, a two page document dealing with
stellar evolution,natural effeciency and the geometric consequences.
Based on two external rings and one smaller intersecting internal
ring,the 1990 work remains a private work even though 4 years later
these pictures of SN1987A emerged -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1994/22/image/a/format/web
There are probably genuine dynamicists who would love to work on
stellar evolution as a two step process and there is every indication
that our parent star emerged from that process but being far too
greedy,the dynamicists want the entire Universe rather than sticking
with easy to work with stellar evolutionary processes.Again,4 years
before the rings were observed is something I am rightly proud of and
even though it remains s a private work that I would not care that
anyone here seen,it,that is only because of the lack of intuitive
intelligence in astronomical matters.
Intuitive intelligence is not a guessing tool,it is the highest faculty
of humanity and affirms and rejects ideas based on physical
considerations.The faculty is not something which guesses one way or
another (my 'intuition tells me this or that') but rather it is an
experience which directs and re-directs information to new and more
productive working principles.The original Copernican insight that
planetary motions around the Sun,ours and the other planets, are seen
directly from an orbitally moving Earth is an example of intuitive
intelligence.This can be affirmed on Nov 8th despite the dominance of a
false and counter-productive view.
I dropped the work on stellar evolution a long time ago to see what was
going on with astronomy and why grown men were behaving like idiots.I
can now say that celestial sphere geometry is at the core of it all and
while there are genuine men who work on stellar evolution in an
enviroment dominated by exotic concepts of the celestial arena,there
are not enough men with the courage to acknowledge that there is a
limit to the agenda of the dynamacists and that there are really no
astronomers.
|
|
