If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Go home, solar system, you're drunk   (scientificamerican.com) divider line 31
    More: Cool, solar system, spacecrafts  
•       •       •

11051 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2013 at 3:56 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-18 03:29:41 PM
l.wigflip.com
 
2013-10-18 03:58:19 PM
Subby's pattern indicates  two-dimensional thinking.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-10-18 03:59:16 PM
Just tilt your ahead to the side
 
2013-10-18 04:05:32 PM
There is only one solar system. The article refers to another star system.
 
2013-10-18 04:06:30 PM
Wait.  Shouldn't that be Extra-Solar System?  I mean, since WE are in the Solar system (our sun being called Sol and whatnot).
 
2013-10-18 04:10:36 PM
Kepler-56 is a giant star that's four times larger than the Sun and emits nine times more light. To determine the star's orientation, researchers used Kepler to study variations in its brightness, which arise from the star's vibrations and look different depending on whether the star is viewed equator-on, pole-on or somewhere in between.

I wonder how they know that if Earth's current position is the only vantage point for viewing the star.
Is Earth's orbit over the year big enough accomplish this? (i.e. two sets of observations six months apart)
 
2013-10-18 04:11:28 PM

Drunken_Polar_Bear: Wait.  Shouldn't that be Extra-Solar System?  I mean, since WE are in the Solar system (our sun being called Sol and whatnot).


Yes. Technically, it should be 'star system', and only Sol should be referred to as the Solar system, but I've seen even Star Trek get this wrong, so I've long since stopped fighting it.
 
2013-10-18 04:14:03 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-10-18 04:16:54 PM
Han Solo's Kessel Run record is still good though, right?
www.cowboyjedi.com
 
2013-10-18 04:25:21 PM
Let's just name all the stars "Sol," that will save a lot of time.
 
2013-10-18 04:27:20 PM
See what happens when you let Celestia raise the sun after a night spent trying to drink Luna and AJ under the table?


/DNRTFA
 
2013-10-18 04:36:28 PM

SpdrJay: Let's just name all the stars "Sol," that will save a lot of time.


I was looking forward to the Betelgeuser System. It's a new health product.
 
2013-10-18 04:45:44 PM
Okay, so if I u derstand this correctly, almost all systems in a galaxy will tend to have planets that orbit in the same direction along the plane of the equator of their host star.  But there are cases where a planet will move in the opposite direction entirely, or perpendicular to their host star's equator.

What I really find amazing is that this set of circumstances has only just been discovered once, recently.  It doesn't seem like something so absurdly rare when you consider how many planetary systems there are - especially when you consider that not all of them formed as conveniently as our solar system did.

Or to put it another way...  It seems most systems started out as a big cloud of gas, that according to the laws of gravity, flattened, rotated and began to agregate in accordance with the galactic north/south alighnment (like ours).  But, what happens when a star forms in a similar way, but doesn't leave much material behind to make planets - but does have enough gravitational pull to capture a couple, created elsewhere, as they fly by?  Their orbits would be defined by whatever trajectory they were flying in to start with.
I can't imagine that that is so friggin unlikely.
 
2013-10-18 05:09:40 PM
I just read a science book that was published a few years ago that specifically said solar systems did not work this way.  It's amazing how much our outlook changes, the more we learn.  Our best ideas from just a few years ago don't always hold up, yet there are people still clinging to the old ideas from the bronze age, as explanations for the universe.
 
2013-10-18 05:29:12 PM

Boojum2k: There is only one solar system. The article refers to another star system.


Thank you.
 
2013-10-18 06:22:39 PM
Flat disc of gas and dust. Is it Ash Wednesday already?
 
2013-10-18 06:47:30 PM
[Headline]

Sorry, I still like this meme
 
2013-10-18 07:40:59 PM

Some Coke Drinking Guy: I just read a science book that was published a few years ago that specifically said solar systems did not work this way.  It's amazing how much our outlook changes, the more we learn.  Our best ideas from just a few years ago don't always hold up, yet there are people still clinging to the old ideas from the bronze age, as explanations for the universe.


If you want the Truth, read your Bible. Science is always being proven wrong, but God's word is always right.
 
2013-10-18 07:48:07 PM

durbnpoisn: Okay, so if I u derstand this correctly, almost all systems in a galaxy will tend to have planets that orbit in the same direction along the plane of the equator of their host star.  But there are cases where a planet will move in the opposite direction entirely, or perpendicular to their host star's equator.

What I really find amazing is that this set of circumstances has only just been discovered once, recently.  It doesn't seem like something so absurdly rare when you consider how many planetary systems there are - especially when you consider that not all of them formed as conveniently as our solar system did.

Or to put it another way...  It seems most systems started out as a big cloud of gas, that according to the laws of gravity, flattened, rotated and began to agregate in accordance with the galactic north/south alighnment (like ours).  But, what happens when a star forms in a similar way, but doesn't leave much material behind to make planets - but does have enough gravitational pull to capture a couple, created elsewhere, as they fly by?  Their orbits would be defined by whatever trajectory they were flying in to start with.
I can't imagine that that is so friggin unlikely.


Most astronomers would say it's not too uncommon. I've heard some say that maybe 3 - 5% might have such systems, but this is the first evidence that has been gathered in support of the idea. As for myself; I would think that such events are rather common with young stars that have formed close together. Pluto might be a captured object, by the way.
 
2013-10-18 08:42:44 PM
How does this help get 18yo girls to show us their titties?
 
2013-10-18 09:38:15 PM
So solar radiation only applies to our sun and not that of others, so when wiring electricity on another planet I would not be able the "earth" one of the connections? And since we have our Moon already named as such, those things orbiting around the planet should then not be called moons?
I get so confused on such things...
 
2013-10-18 10:12:58 PM

Quackadam: So solar radiation only applies to our sun and not that of others, so when wiring electricity on another planet I would not be able the "earth" one of the connections? And since we have our Moon already named as such, those things orbiting around the planet should then not be called moons?
I get so confused on such things...


Technically, our moon is called Luna. Luna is earth's moon. Sol is Earth's sun. So  there's still 'moons of Jupiter' and 'the Sun of Gilese 431B'  (or any extra-solar planet)
 
2013-10-18 10:17:10 PM

Quackadam: So solar radiation only applies to our sun and not that of others, so when wiring electricity on another planet I would not be able the "earth" one of the connections? And since we have our Moon already named as such, those things orbiting around the planet should then not be called moons?
I get so confused on such things...


Stellar radiation

Grounding (I've never once heard the term "earthing," but my dictionary says it's British for "grounding" - crazy limeys)

Satellites

Although, to be fair, those complaining about "solar system," while technically correct (the best kind of correct) are being a bit pedantic.

"Sol" is the name of our sun. But then so is "Sun."

Earth (capitalized) is the name of our planet, but earth (lowercase) means the substance of the land, and/or dirt.

Moon is the name of Earth's satellite, but moon (lowercase) is also accepted as a term for any natural satellite that isn't just dust or small chunks - basically (but not officially) anything big enough to be seen in the planet's sky by the naked eye, or alternatively, anything big enough to have a measurable gravitational effect on the planet or sister satellites.

/everything that follows "basically" in the preceding sentence is my own attempt to explain
//don't jump down my throat please, Phil and other Farkstronomers.
 
2013-10-18 10:17:53 PM

Sim Tree: Technically, our moon is called Luna. Luna is earth's moon. Sol is Earth's sun. So  there's still 'moons of Jupiter' and 'the Sun of Gilese 431B'  (or any extra-solar planet)


Yeah, that too.
 
2013-10-19 01:24:22 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: SpdrJay: Let's just name all the stars "Sol," that will save a lot of time.

I was looking forward to the Betelgeuser System. It's a new health product.


But only if you are able satisfactorily to explain what a Hrung is, or why it should choose to collapse on Betelgeuse Seven.
 
2013-10-19 01:25:19 AM

Quackadam: So solar radiation only applies to our sun and not that of others, so when wiring electricity on another planet I would not be able the "earth" one of the connections? And since we have our Moon already named as such, those things orbiting around the planet should then not be called moons?
I get so confused on such things...


No, no, ALL these moons are ours, except Europa.
 
2013-10-19 07:14:21 AM

Some Coke Drinking Guy: I just read a science book that was published a few years ago that specifically said solar systems did not work this way.  It's amazing how much our outlook changes, the more we learn.  Our best ideas from just a few years ago don't always hold up, yet there are people still clinging to the old ideas from the bronze age, as explanations for the universe.


Should have watched QI last night.

Then, you'd know about the half-life of facts.

i.imgur.com

RedVentrue: Pluto might be a captured object, by the way.


Pluto is a Kuiper belt object.

And I've never understood the fervour of the "Pluto is still a planet" crowd. Words need to have meanings - and astronomers need to have the word "planet" mean something. It doesn't take a lot of study to realise that Pluto doesn't have a lot in common with the 8 planets, and if Pluto is to be considered a planet, then many other bodies should be too.

Ceres, in the asteroid belt, used to be considered a planet as well, but there aren't crowds of people wailing and gnashing their teeth about it.

/According to wikipedia (yeah, I know), in the time that Ceres was considered a planet, the solar system had 23 planets.
 
2013-10-19 07:26:14 AM

special20: Han Solo's Kessel Run record is still good though, right?
[www.cowboyjedi.com image 500x182]


umm, I always thought that lesser craft/pilots had to detour certain 'un-navigable' asteroid fields, and avoid singularities that solo/chewie could manage in the falcon, thus; travelling only 12 parsecs would logically imply faster delivery of the kessels.

Kinda like taking your bike through the shortcut in the forest whilst on the beer run, allowing you to get back faster than if you took the car.

Maybe I'm just clutching, but that's the way I've rationalized that line since I was a kid.
 
2013-10-19 10:09:59 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Quackadam: So solar radiation only applies to our sun and not that of others, so when wiring electricity on another planet I would not be able the "earth" one of the connections? And since we have our Moon already named as such, those things orbiting around the planet should then not be called moons?
I get so confused on such things...

Stellar radiation

Grounding (I've never once heard the term "earthing," but my dictionary says it's British for "grounding" - crazy limeys)

Satellites

Although, to be fair, those complaining about "solar system," while technically correct (the best kind of correct) are being a bit pedantic.

"Sol" is the name of our sun. But then so is "Sun."

Earth (capitalized) is the name of our planet, but earth (lowercase) means the substance of the land, and/or dirt.

Moon is the name of Earth's satellite, but moon (lowercase) is also accepted as a term for any natural satellite that isn't just dust or small chunks - basically (but not officially) anything big enough to be seen in the planet's sky by the naked eye, or alternatively, anything big enough to have a measurable gravitational effect on the planet or sister satellites.

/everything that follows "basically" in the preceding sentence is my own attempt to explain
//don't jump down my throat please, Phil and other Farkstronomers.


Thank you for the civil response, it's so rare these days.  I was posting a bit tongue in cheek, in college I did take many Astronomy classes and to the best of my memory, I don't recall any of my teachers ever making the solar / star system separation / distinction. One may have on an "for the record" or "just to be correct" statement but as I said that was a while ago.

Thanks for taking the time and the well explained answer.
 
2013-10-19 10:34:52 AM

ciberido: To The Escape Zeppelin!: SpdrJay: Let's just name all the stars "Sol," that will save a lot of time.

I was looking forward to the Betelgeuser System. It's a new health product.

But only if you are able satisfactorily to explain what a Hrung is, or why it should choose to collapse on Betelgeuse Seven.


Otherwise, I'm calling you Ix from now on...

/That's one part of the hollywood movie version I was really happy about: Zaphod calling Ford Ix when they meet...
//Sadly, most of the other parts of the movie, I was less than happy about...
 
2013-10-19 03:30:04 PM

iron de havilland: Pluto is a Kuiper belt object.

And I've never understood the fervour of the "Pluto is still a planet" crowd. Words need to have meanings - and astronomers need to have the word "planet" mean something. It doesn't take a lot of study to realise that Pluto doesn't have a lot in common with the 8 planets, and if Pluto is to be considered a planet, then many other bodies should be too.

Ceres, in the asteroid belt, used to be considered a planet as well, but there aren't crowds of people wailing and gnashing their teeth about it.

/According to wikipedia (yeah, I know), in the time that Ceres was considered a planet, the solar system had 23 planets.


All of this.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report