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!

Two Totally Unique Star Systems Discovered

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the two-of-a-kind-beats-ace-high dept.

Space 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."

cancel ×

141 comments

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

Interstellar Directions (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929026)

"Dude, I can't find you."
"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:Interstellar Directions (-1, Troll)

Arnonymous Coward (1208208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929088)

Here is the time-lapse video [youtube.com] mentioned in TFA. It shows the yellow binary stars orbiting each other.

Re:Interstellar Directions (-1, Offtopic)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929128)

Okay seriously, WTF is up with the Rick Astley video links?

Is it an April Fools thing? Come on let in the joke.... :)

Re:Interstellar Directions (1)

JJJK (1029630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929142)

It's an Internet thing ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickroll [wikipedia.org]

Re:Interstellar Directions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930366)

This website explains the whole rickrolling phenomenon really well:
http://internetisseriousbusiness.com/ [internetis...siness.com]

Re:Interstellar Directions (0, Offtopic)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929272)

You had been hit hard man.. Don't try to stand up yet..

Re:Interstellar Directions (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929606)

Here is the time-lapse video mentioned in TFA.
Ahh, sweet memories. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go find my yellow Members Only jacket and relax to some Lionel Richie tunes. Hell, I might just dance with my shadow while I'm at it.

Re:Interstellar Directions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929858)

Wow, the comments on this Rickroll are skyrocketing. Sheep, I tell you, sheep!

Oh your god! Ponies! (-1, Offtopic)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929030)

I, for one, welcome our new binary peanut star dwelling pony overlords.

Totally! (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929052)

Good to hear... I got tired of looking at partially unique ones.

Re:Totally! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929202)

OMG PONIES!

Re:Totally! (2, Interesting)

allcar (1111567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929414)

Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel. The trouble is, I can't decide if it was deliberate irony on behalf of the author, or just plain ignorance.

Re:Totally! (1)

siride (974284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929726)

It's not misuse. The only misuse is from the grammar NAZIs who refuse to understand nuance and complexity in language.

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 unique". This is really just the same thing as what I said at the beginning of the paragraph, but from a more holistic point of view.

Now, if the grammar NAZIs would pull their heads from their asses and take some time to think about what things actually mean, we wouldn't have this problem. By telling people they cannot use "unique" in this fashion, they are denying expressivity, which is not supposed to be the point of good grammar.

Re:Totally! (2, Funny)

david.given (6740) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930356)

Now, if the grammar NAZIs would pull their heads from their asses...

You do realise that Nazi is a proper noun, not an acronym, and therefore should not be capitalised?

HTH. HAND.

Re:Totally! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930446)

You do realise that Nazi is a proper noun, not an acronym
It's almost an acronym: "NAtionalsoZIalistische".

Re:Totally! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930176)

Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel.

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".

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. Me, given the sheer scale of what we're talking about, I'm sort of inclined to believe everything you can and can't imagine has been done before -- including life elsewhere, even if it is just worms wiggling in the muck. I just don't think scientists are encouraged to infer the existence of other things based on a single data point -- it's just bad form.

Who knows, within a few years, what we thought was unique last year will be so damned commonplace as to be not even worthy of notice. Space is very big after all. :-P

I just don't think they're abusing the word as badly as you think.

Cheers

Re:Totally! (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930044)

Here's a quote from the astronomer who found the systems, Dr. Val Egirl: "Like, oh my God, those systems are, like, totally unique fer shur. Those other astrophysicists are all like, 'they aren't unique if there's two of them', but, like, whatever!"

Scrotal (5, Funny)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929054)

A peanut? SPACEBALLS, more like.

Re:Scrotal (-1, Offtopic)

Mr_Whoopass (164559) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929078)

Vizzini: No more rhymes now, I mean it!
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?

Re:Scrotal (-1, Offtopic)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929112)

This is totally offtopic... but Vizzini's best quote in that movie is:

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!."

Re:Scrotal (-1, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929096)

If your scrote spins round like that I believe it is time to see a doctor.

Re:Scrotal (1)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929148)

Nonsense. Whipping my astronomically-proportioned yellow-glowing rotating gonads is the only way I can get people to speak to me at parties.

I think that this news is joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929440)

Its not possible to photograph star sufrace that is so far from Earth.
Only Betelguse maybe.

In my country we think that this is joke for 1 april.

Re:Scrotal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930322)

I dunno. To me it looks more like "boob mitosis".

Unique or two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929060)

pick one(!)

Re:Unique or two (2, Informative)

Moonpie Madness (764217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929072)

hahaha. I was looking forward to seeing someone get animated over that pun.

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 eachother".

Re:Unique or two (1)

jimmux (1096839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929308)

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:Unique or two (3, Funny)

jimmux (1096839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929346)

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:Unique or two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930100)

Ahhh, but it gets even more fun than that. Take the use of the word 'committee,' for example. It is perfectly acceptable grammatically to say "The committee are..." and "The committee is..." depending on whether you are referring to the members that comprise the committee (use 'are') or the committee as a whole (use 'is'). However, it would be incorrect to use 'are' when referring to the committee as a single entity. Got it?

Re:Unique or two (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930164)

First you have one peanuts, then you have two peanuts. Of course this ignores the fact that some peanuts only seem to contain one kernel.

Re:Unique or two (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929702)

but in today's world, Unique has other meanings, including "very unusual,"
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 things which are the same.

Colour me provoked.

"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions (2, Informative)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930280)

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

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 counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.

Now granted, it's the 5th definition of 5, but nevertheless, it is a legitimate definition of the word that exceeds the parameters you have laid down, and does allow for (a) a multiplicity of "unique" ("very unusual") items, as well as modifiers such as "very unique", etc.

The language has evolved beyond your notion of what it should be. Get over it.

Re:Unique or two (2, Insightful)

AGMW (594303) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930644)

And of course you can have two unique things if they are different, but the title is referring to two things which are the same.

Of course, if you are hacking on about scientific meanings of words then perhaps you meant to say similar.

Re:Unique or two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930854)

Of course, if you are hacking on about scientific meanings of words then perhaps you meant to say similar.

Yes, but are the similarities unique?

OMG PONIES (-1, Offtopic)

Mr. Capris (839522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929068)

Seriously, where's my bloody ponies?

Re:OMG PONIES (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929094)

To be honest it's a welcome change. 1st of April deteriorated to a very bad level after everyone felt compelled to create a joke for the day. I'll feel happy to know if slashdot is not doing anything today.

Re:OMG PONIES (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929716)

No, it's an unwelcome change. Slashdot is not just about tech news but also about humor and tradition. Yes, the humor is mostly lame, and the traditions just a few years old. But still....

Re:OMG PONIES (2, Funny)

siride (974284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929736)

That would be the ultimate April Fool's joke: good stories, grammatically correct summaries, no dupes, etc. And at the end they'd say "April Fools! Just kidding!"

Two? (2, Informative)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929080)

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

Re:Two? (2, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929130)

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...
It is in fact unique divided by half now.

Re:Two? (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929352)

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...
It is in fact unique divided by half now.
Oh no! We lost 1½ of them?!

Re:Two? (1)

Nevermine (565876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929538)

Quit raping the English language. Is 'totally unique' more unique than just 'unique'?

Re:Two? (1)

BotnetZombie (1174935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929690)

In fact, the proper term is twonique, or tonic as it's more commonly known.

Re:Two? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929720)

So it's doubly unique then?

Re:Two? (1)

float_on (1139653) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929958)

That would be (2*unique)/(1/2)=4*unique? Oh nos! The uniqueness is increasing!!

Re:Two? (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930002)

Sigh, can't anybody even use google anymore. It's tunique ... it's where
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? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929136)

What? I've had hundreds of Uniques in Diablo!

Re:Two? (2, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929138)

I've always wondered about the English expression "quite unique".

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? (4, Informative)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930826)

It seems for English speakers, uniqueness is not binary.

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] :

"Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary. [...] In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard [...]"

Twofo buttplugs goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929140)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] is Dying is Dying

It is official; GNAA [www.gnaa.us] confirms: Twofo is Dying is Dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured slashdot trolling community when Google confirmed that Twofo troll posts had dropped yet again, now down to less that a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot posts. Coming hot on the heels of a recent usenet survey which plainly states that Twofo trolling frequency has fallen, this news serves only to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in a recent digg.com comprehensive trolling test.

You don't need to be one of the Slashdot moderators to predict Twofo Trolling's future. The writing is on the wall: Twofo trolling faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo trolls because Twofo trolling is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo trolls. As many of us are already aware, Twofo trolling continues to decline in popularity. IP bans flow like a river of firewall rules.

"Twofo is Dying" trolls are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core posters. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time trolls Daz and xyzzy only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo trolls are dying.

Lets keep to the facts and look and the numbers.

Twofo Trolling leader Echelon states that there are about 7000 "twofo is dying" trolls. How many "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are there? Let's see. The number of "Zeus sucks cock" trolls versus "Twofo is dying" trolls on slashdot is roughly in the ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Zeus sucks cock" trolls. "Fuck twofo" posts on slashdot are about half the volume of "Zeus sucks cock" posts. Therefore there are about 700 trolls specialising in "Fuck twofo". A recent article put "destroy twofo" at about 80% of the twofo trolling community. Therefore there are about (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "destroy twofo" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "destroy twofo" slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles at Twofo, abysmal sharing, ITS, lack of IP addresses and so on, "destroy twofo" trolls stopped posting altogether and were taken over by "Zeus sucks cock" trolls who specialise in another kind of slashdot posting. Now "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are also dead, their corpses turned over to yet another charnel horse.

All major surveys show that Twofo trolls have steadily declined in slashdot posting frequency. Twofo trollers are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo trollers are to survive at all it will be among hardcore slashdot posters, hellbent on Twofo's destruction. Twofo trolls continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo trolls from their fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo trolls are dead.

Fact: Twofo trolls are dying

Re:Two? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929152)

Ah, but by being the semantical exception to the rule, it thereby becomes unique. Apart from the other one, and vice versa.

Re:Two? (-1, Redundant)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929168)

...and 'unique' cannot have degrees. Either something is unique or it is not.

So, "Two Totally Unique Star Systems" contains two syntactical errors in the first three words. Class.

Re:Two? (2, Funny)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929178)

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

Indeed. It becomes 'duique'.

Re:Two? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929408)

Indeed. It becomes 'duique'.
... and soon it will become Slashdot...

Re:Two? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929766)

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

Indeed. It becomes 'duique'.
And if something becomes even more unique than before, it becomes monique.

Re:Two? (2, Interesting)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929234)

So if I find, lets say, a neon blue apple and an apple with a cube shape.. Did I not find two unique apples?

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:Two? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929292)

So if I find, lets say, a neon blue apple and an apple with a cube shape.. Did I not find two unique apples?
But not totally unique. They aren't unique in appleness, only in shape or color.

Those are a clear example of partially unique, or quite unique, apples.

Re:Two? (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929418)

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:Two? (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929240)

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...
It would've been uniquer if there was only one, that would've been the uniquest.

Re:Two? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929680)

./ No you are wrong because unique is a reversing adjective this meana that in fact when you qualify it, as in "very unique" you are in fact saying uniqueness is reduced. Therefore "totally unique" which would seem at first glance wrong if not at least redundant, is in fact saying in "this is not unique". Where is your problem with that? The real problems arise with "uniquely unique" /.

Re:Two? (1)

CFTM (513264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929952)

Diablo II certainly disagreed with you on this one!

Re:Two? (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930038)

This might be a unique exception to that rule.

Re:Two? (1)

saider (177166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930186)

Aha! My sig is relevant to this discussion!

Re:Two? (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930206)

As submitter I will take full responsibility for the mista...haha just kidding. I'm just the middle man, so suck on those peanuts.

Re:Two? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930220)

Totally, man!

Waitaminute... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929084)

That's no peanut

Space is big (1)

b100dian (771163) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929180)

You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space is. ..but that's just peanuts to space

Why does this video look familiar? (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929100)

Oh yeah [film.com] ! Next, we'll discover that these two stars are engorged with milk.

Aren't those configurations expected? (3, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929118)

I mean, it's not so hard to imagine two stars circling one another. Don't they study how would that work without waiting to find an instance?

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? (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929328)

The stars are very very close and very very large. You'd need some very precise conditions to arise, or:

  • They'd merge
  • The gravitational fields would screw up the star formation
  • The gravitational waves in the oscillating system would necessarily damp it and cause the stars to collide
  • The original seeding material would have collapsed to the common center of gravity
  • The original seeding material would have flown apart
  • The gasses the stars formed from would not have been uniform enough for two equal-sized stars to form
  • The stellar nursary would have had another star close enough to disrupt/destroy the system
  • One or both would have exploded early on, from the massive, continuous surface disruption

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:Aren't those configurations expected? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930426)

I was wondering if it is possible to have galaxies in this configuration?

hmm peanuts (-1, Offtopic)

gonzoxl5 (88685) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929154)

I made a Mii with a face like a Peanut the other day...

peanut shaped universe (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929156)

Sorry i have already patented this idea, and it's a $10,000 license fee to use the term.

Oh, for cryin' out loud... (1)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929158)

Come on, guys, pick up your game. There's a peanut on the lens.

Lonely Rolling Star (1)

Soulshift (1044432) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929160)

Na na na na, na na na na na...
Na na na na, na na na na na...


Katamari Damacy...

Re:Lonely Rolling Star (1)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930082)

Actually, I was thinking that I had seen this in Mario Galaxy.

uh... (2, Funny)

transiit (33489) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929166)

This year's April 1st jokes are just a bit too esoteric, I think. Celestial peanut? What?

OMG! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929172)

Ponies!

Re:uh... (5, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929742)

This is Slashdot; April Fool's Day submissions will probably starting appearing around 3 April.

Re:uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929938)

And then we'll get a dupe a week later.

Re:uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930312)

This is Slashdot; April Fool's Day submissions will probably starting appearing around 3 April.
And then be dupe'd in mid-May.

Re:uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22930912)

as well as 5 April, 7 April and then again on 9 April. This *is* Slashdot, you know.

Are these the Type IIP supernovae? (2, Interesting)

Shag (3737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929200)

The article unfortunately doesn't say what rare type of supernovae these rare stars become. After a quick google I'm guessing they may be the type IIP ones, but I'm only familiar with type IA ones personally (and for relatively low values of "familiar" at that). We get our own not-quite-unique things over in type-IA land, too, like the super-Chandrasekhar-mass ones. SN2007if, discovered last year, was only the second one of those to be found.

Re:Are these the Type IIP supernovae? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929402)

hmmm, you familiar with IA type supernovas... that should burn a bit...

Re:Are these the Type IIP supernovae? (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929530)

Well, when you have something equal to around a 20 billion yottaton nuclear explosion... you tend to sit back and watch from a safe distance. The heat really doesn't bother me much from a few hundred million light years away. At that distance, you can't roast marshmallows, even on the double-degenerate (super-Chandrasekhar-mass) ones like SN2007if [harvard.edu] .

Bad headline? (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929288)

Should it actually read "Totally Unique Two-star System Discovered"?

Re:Bad headline? (1)

splutty (43475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929326)

Two thought to be unique two-star systems discovered that are uniquely tying together two stars previously thought to be unique for certain value of uniqueness.

Although I guess that's somewhat overkill for a headline :) However. The article does explain it. They found a unique set of stars in a (at that moment) unique configuration. Then in their search they found another one that had been documented way earlier but wrongly classified. Thus the (admittedly rather borked) headline.

Stability (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929316)

I wonder about the stability of the peanut shape. Why would the two stars not simply merge into a single star with a greater rotational speed? I guess if stars get this close together they must rotate (around themselves) at the same speed due to the tidal forces.

Re:Stability (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929480)

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:Stability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929564)

That's why I when I read the article I was hoping to see what their period of rotation was (didn't see it). Those things must be rotating at incredible speed not to be pulled together by the massive gravity of each other.

1st April :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929362)

$SUBJ

peanut shaped star system (3, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929462)

found a peanut, found a peanut,
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:peanut shaped star system (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930904)

(feel free to share the rest of the lyrics with the class)

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 you harder
My peanuts!

one thing leads to another (3, Funny)

doti (966971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929544)

Now, imagine the size of the squirrel!

The DARE.... (2, Funny)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929684)

I DARE someone to fly in between them. I DOUBLE-DOG dare ya.

Re:The DARE.... (3, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929896)

I can do this in less than 12 parsecs....

Article Correction (1, Funny)

siglercm (6059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929770)

Ahem. That's THE Ohio State University. I have relatives who've graduated from there. Thank you.

Twin Suns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22929788)

Hey, could this actually be the Tatoo system? We're all aware of the planet Tatooine having twin suns. I think we're one step closer to actually proving that Star Wars is a documentary.

Name them (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22929914)

Charlie Brown and Snoopy

I'm disappointed (3, Informative)

morethanapapercert (749527) | more than 6 years ago | (#22930270)

Despite the obvious importance of his work to a celestial arrangement of this kind, the article doesn't refer to Edourad Roche [wikipedia.org] or the Roche Lobe [wikipedia.org] that forms in the region between these two stars. When Roche Lobes overlap, it is a Contact Binary [wikipedia.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>