Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rare Exoplanet Found In Star Cluster, Orbits Sun's 'Twin'

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the let's-steal-their-sun-and-claim-it-as-our-own dept.

Space 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."

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Possible! (-1, Offtopic)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45968155)

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!

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968199)

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!

I'm White Jesus, and I approved this message.

Re:Possible! (3, Insightful)

tjlee (1695968) | about 6 months ago | (#45968235)

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:Possible! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45968277)

2,600 light years is distance, not age. It could be much older.

...only 3,400 years older!

Re:Possible! (2)

tjlee (1695968) | about 6 months ago | (#45968429)

...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:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45969087)

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.

Re:Possible! (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#45969117)

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:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45970295)

Since a small number of crackpots actually got together and decided how to interpret this supposedly divinely inspired book, it kind of renders the whole thing as a load of crap, doesn't it? Interpreting the word of your god as you see fit is... not the word of your god.

Re:Possible! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#45970857)

Any document can be interpreted incorrectly, just as any tool can be used to poke your eye out.

Re:Possible! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45971887)

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:Possible! (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 6 months ago | (#45972157)

That is the best plot line for a movie. Ever!

Re:Possible! (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#45969409)

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:Possible! (1)

tjlee (1695968) | about 6 months ago | (#45969509)

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:Possible! (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#45970673)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968251)

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!

F one of TFAs:

These compact orbits ensure that the worlds aren’t remotely “Earth-like”; they are “hot-Jupiters”, Hellish worlds that are baked by their host stars.

Praise God!

These SCIENTISTS have found HELL!

Praise God!

These SCIENTISTS have proven HELL exists and logically, that means Heaven exists and therefore GOD exists!

Praise God!

* I can't get a job and I have $48,000 in student loans to pay. I need a well paying career and what pays more than evengelist. Nothing personal, but I'm gonna have to be against Evolution and pretty much everything else that I can't spin into Biblical horsesh....prophecy.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968485)

If you're going down that path you have some reading [amazon.com] to do.

Re:Possible! (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45968355)

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:Possible! (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45968479)

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 disagree with their view on the age of the universe, it's impossible for me to counter the second argument, and as such, your argument would fall on deaf ears as well.

Faith must, by definition, be taken by faith, and it tells you what it tells you.

I think they're both loons, but they find my "faith" in science to be just as soundly grounded as their faith in their faiths.

Re:Possible! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968675)

Um. Ok... so why are you bringing this nonsense here? Seriously? Do you have anything to contribute to the article without having to go out of your way to turn this into a discussion about theism vs atheism derp?
 
There's a time and place for that and much to the dismay of many here it's not in most of the science articles presented on Slashdot. The only reason you're not modded down for making this kind of bad noise is because many here would take it as a sign that someone is a theist and disagrees with you. The fact of the matter is that your post brought nothing but more pointless static to an already undermined scientific community on Slashdot.
 
Wanna bash religion? Fine, do it in a religious forum where you'll actually hit your target audience. Want to discuss science? Fantastic! Can you do it without having to push your agenda every post? That would be really great.
 
You haven't said anything here that we haven't heard tens of thousands of times before. We know there will be young earth creationists for the rest of our lifetimes. What of it? We can't do anything about it and your post isn't doing anything about it either. Go to where they are and have a blast.
 
Now, if you have nothing to say about the science presented here please just shut up and move along. It's gotten really old, FFS.
 
And no, don't take this as a defense of theism. I'm just sick and tired of the sound byte sized arguments and memes that have been beaten to death. Save that kind of thing for Facebook. Most of the people I see like you have no clue how to discuss science for real. You go around with your Science Channel education and act like you're part of the legitimate scientific community but you don't know a micron from a parsec. Maybe that's not really you but you sure do come off that way.

Re:Possible! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45968943)

Lighten up, Francis.

Not everything posted here is meant to bring us closer to enlightenment.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45969173)

Except for that jerks like you take up the thread with your garbage. Move along, you're not needed here.

Re:Possible! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45969259)

Protip: Click any thread to collapse it.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45971375)

Protip: Go fuck yourself. You're stuck with me, bitch!!! Haha!

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45976799)

He's not the one who started it, dipshit. So far this whole thread is a religion troll, with antitheists offtopically baiting religious folks (whom outnumber the antitheists by a huge margin). The GP just bit, that's all.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968705)

I've got two close friends who believe in a young earth. ... I think they're both loons

Then why the hell are they still close friends?

Sounds like masochism to subject yourself to people exhibiting that much stupid.

Re:Possible! (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45968987)

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:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45969685)

I find that life's more enjoyable when not everyone you surround yourself with agrees with you on everything lock, stock and barrel.

It isn't about a difference of opinion, it's about the actions they perform as a result of holding those different opinions. Like the difference between disliking gay marriage and thinking it a sin vs advocating for its ban and voting the same. Or the difference between simply disliking people of a certain color vs going to klan meetings.

I guess you've just been lucky enough to never find yourself in such a situation. :/

Re:Possible! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45970099)

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.

....but for much the same reasons as a few posts above, my friends contain Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, you name it. Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan, athiest - I happily enjoy a conversation over a bowl of pho with all of them.

You're right, of course, that you have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't continue to befriend someone who advocated violence to press their agenda. You can split hairs about how voting for or voicing a particular opinion is akin to picking up arms yourself -- but I can't live in a bubble where we all think alike, so I get along with all sorts of people.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45970485)

I'm not sure how to read your post. But choosing to not associate with someone who is trying to repeal the Civil Rights Act, the 13th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, or the 26th Amendment (just to name a few) is not "living in a bubble where we all think alike".

Re:Possible! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45970579)

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! I'm out of here, and I'm calling your parole officer. You were in the army? Baby killer! I can't think of a single thing I do almost any waking moment of the day that some extremist for some cause will find just as reprehensible as any of the things you listed. Heck. I wear clothes most of the time. Someone no doubt thinks that's a sin - to not reveal my glory to their sun-loving god.

I'm just going to have to be friends with a few people whom I don't always see eye to eye with.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45975661)

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).

So I was right then. You feel that a person who decides to avoid associating with someone who is attempting to take away their or others basic human rights means that that person is "living in a bubble where we all think alike". I don't really understand why that is so, but thank you for confirming what you meant.

Re:Possible! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45977825)

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 won't be something I say to people.

"Your desire to bomb the abortion clinic means we can never be friends." ...on the other hand, would be a great example of something I'd have to say.

The points along the spectrum where you defriend people may be different than mine. The good news is that your view on the topic wouldn't be enough for me to stop being a friend to you. The bad news is, however, that it looks like my view of tolerance and acceptance for people who don't share my One True Way of Thinking might get me kicked out of your clubhouse :(

Re:Possible! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 6 months ago | (#45977823)

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:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968817)

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 disagree with their view on the age of the universe, it's impossible for me to counter the second argument, and as such, your argument would fall on deaf ears as well.

Faith must, by definition, be taken by faith, and it tells you what it tells you.

I think they're both loons, but they find my "faith" in science to be just as soundly grounded as their faith in their faiths.

The counter to "faith" as an argument is a basic philosophy education. It's really juts an appeal to authority propped up by a straw man.

The counter to the guy who refuses to believe in science because of notable hoaxes, would probably be to shout "Noah" (the incident when "infallible" god decided "fuck it's all wrong better start over"), or "Jesus" (another example of "infallible" God going back on his own rules). You probably won't convince him, but you'll give any spectators a good show. If you want to make a cogent argument you could try pointing out that Science does not claim to be infallible, and therefore pointing out single cases where the method has failed does not necessarily invalidate the whole, whereas a Philosophy who's truth were pinned on the infallibility of it's source can be disproved in whole by a single counter example to the accuracy of that source.

Re:Possible! (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45969061)

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 frustrate him as well, so, on that we're even.]

I believe that, subtracting the hokum, most of what my friend believes makes for good neighbors and good society. We just disagree on the "why" portion of those measures of good and bad. ...and the fundamental need to derive good and evil from faith.

Uneducated indeed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968949)

I wonder if either of them knows that Luther, the founder of Protestantism and ultimately the ancestor of their own variant thereof, did not define faith as they do. Faith, to Luther, was not so much the taking of a strict intellectual position as a basic trust in God himself. This definition not only allows for, but essentially requires, the perpetual re-interpretation of scripture in the light of new learning.

Though that notion was not new with Luther. It goes back even further, to people like Saint Augustine, who cooked up many ideas still believed by Protestants today, and who stated that Genesis was clearly metaphorical and that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.

Biblical literalism is a defining characteristic of a very young (within the last century) but popular set of Christian denominations. The more educated variants of the faith recognize the fact that these books were not written with literalism in mind, and that intelligent interpretation requires a keen understanding of context as well as the use of our God-given intellect and moral conscience.

Unfortunately, Mainline Christianity continues to lose numbers, leaving more and more people believing that Christianity is defined, at its essence, by this strange notion of the inerrancy of ancient documents.

Re:Possible! (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#45969171)

> 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.

Oh geeze! Are you serious?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968617)

Actually the Bible doesn't define a 6,000 year old universe.

Tell that to the fundies who go to amusement parks [creationmuseum.org] .

...just as the Bible indicates.

Of course it did. And all myths indicate a beginning. That's we humans conceptualize time.

I don't know what your beliefs are or what your game is, but I have a lot of beliefs myself - some that run contrary to scientific evidence, but you know what? I make an effort to look at the evidence and challenge my beliefs.

And keep in mind, the Bible was writtien well before modern science existed. Well before the Arabs developed modern mathematics. Just maybe - maybe - those stone aged peoples expressed their perception of God with the primitive concepts available to them. I also wonder why God made His presence known then and not now. Why aren't present day Sodom and Gormorahs (Las Vegas is my choice) being wiped out by God? Where's the saviour? - Well I'd argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King,Jr. was the second coming.

we humans have a tendancy to anthropomorphize everything and if we couldn't understand the physcial laws of the Universe, wouldn't it be natural to do so with those?

And for those who think snicker at that comment, what makes you think that all these physical laws with their uncanny regulaarity and systemic perfection aren't in themselves some intelligence? We may be here by chance, but who loaded the dice? Multiverses may be just getting the deck loaded right.

Re:Possible! (1)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | about 6 months ago | (#45969749)

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.

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45974021)

So why did god wait for billions of years to create us, just lazy?

Re:Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45975635)

I'm sure whatever the schedule and reason it was according to His purpose.

Interesting vs Exciting (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45968187)

Sun II - Interesting
Earth II - Exciting

Re:Interesting vs Exciting (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 months ago | (#45968503)

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: Interesting vs Exciting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45969025)

Many stars don't have Goldilocks' zones because a planet close enough to receive the correct radiation would mean being torn apart by the star's gravity.

Re: Interesting vs Exciting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45969941)

this is wrong. Stars all the way down to M9's have habitable zones. The planets in the 'Goldilocks' zone do end up tide locked, meaning one side always faces the star, but fairly recent models (as recent as 2007) indicate that convection would maintain habitable temperatures around the planet. You would only get photosynthetic life on the starward side, but most of the habitable space in the universe is going to end up around very small starts, simply because they live trillions of years.

Re:Interesting vs Exciting (0)

durrr (1316311) | about 6 months ago | (#45968753)

Found in the constellation Cancer - Ironic

Re:Interesting vs Exciting (3, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45968845)

I'd say that's on tropic.

Re:Interesting vs Exciting (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#45969181)

There should be an "exciting" mod point.

Sun vs Star (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968205)

There is only ONE "Sun". If you are referring to another star, either use its given name, or say "star".

Re:Sun vs Star (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 6 months ago | (#45968245)

Um, they did. Where are you seeing "sun" used for another star here?

Re:Sun vs Star (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45968267)

Are you suggesting that Messier 67-A's sun is 2600LY away from it?

The capital-S "Sun" only appears in the title...

Re:Sun vs Star (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 months ago | (#45968275)

Er what? The title says "Rare Exoplanet Found In Star Cluster, Orbits Sun's 'Twin'". The "Sun" is referring to this solar system's main star which IS named the Sun. It means exactly what it says. There has been an exoplanet found orbiting a star in a remote galaxy. That star has many characteristics of the Sun as to be almost its twin. Reading comprehension fail.

Re:Sun vs Star (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 6 months ago | (#45968621)

I found the Slashdot headline to be ambiguous to be ambiguous between "twin of Sol" and "binary star", and am glad the comments were able to disambiguate for me without my having to RTFA.

Re:Sun vs Star (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45968281)

No No. "The Sun" is our's any solar system can have a sun

Re:Sun vs Star (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#45969189)

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 (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#45968371)

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 (2)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 6 months ago | (#45968533)

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! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 months ago | (#45968567)

Now we can find out what rabbibunny tastes like.

Two? (3, Insightful)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about 6 months ago | (#45968651)

In the Universe One is Unique, Two is Common. It's just the first to found, more will be found...

Still... (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#45968683)

It's a boring trip even in a Very Fast Picket OU.

Re:Still... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45971427)

s/boring/short
Even a Plate class could do 2600 years in a matter of days.

Two Suns (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 6 months ago | (#45972195)

Which one is Jesus?

GNU/Sun! (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 6 months ago | (#45973115)

An almost-perfect copy of Sun located in an "open" cluster? I didn't know the FSF was branching into stellar engineering :).

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>