Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Phys Org2)   Astronomers discover three super-Earths and two super-Mercuries in one super-system. What are the odds of finding a '64 Comet Cyclone, and a '69 Cougar Eliminator in the same space?   (phys.org) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Planet, Extrasolar planet, Solar System, composition of small planets, Earth, Large Telescope, star system HD, Instituto de Astrofsica e Cincias  
•       •       •

328 clicks; posted to STEM » on 27 Sep 2022 at 6:13 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



16 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-09-27 3:00:15 PM  
How about a 65 super betelguese?
 
2022-09-27 6:19:09 PM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-27 6:22:17 PM  
Not the first Super Mercury though.

i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-27 7:00:54 PM  
Stop calling everything a super-whatever the fark.

Go Star Trek and make a classification system.
 
2022-09-27 7:33:57 PM  
Is there a wolf howling at 3 moons? I'd buy that t-shirt!
 
2022-09-27 8:07:32 PM  
Probably Zero.  They don't have Human cars or an Elon Musk.
 
2022-09-27 8:07:35 PM  
I think that's really cool. Wonder if there's a model of the system.
 
2022-09-27 8:23:49 PM  

leeksfromchichis: Stop calling everything a super-whatever the fark.

Go Star Trek and make a classification system.


Agreed.
 
2022-09-27 10:13:37 PM  

leeksfromchichis: Stop calling everything a super-whatever the fark.

Go Star Trek and make a classification system.


I agree that super Mercury super Earth makes no sense. If that is orbital distance, well, what if they are orbiting a brown dwarf? It makes all the difference. So many variables.

I think it is too complicated. The best I have seen so far for general layman use is a 0 to 1 scale, with Earth being a 1. On that scale, Mars ranks very highly, BTW. I think it is a 0.7. There is a Wikipedia list.

But the flavors and dimensions very quickly get out of hand. Too massive. Too much gravity. Not dense enough. No land masses. No tectonics... or too much. Solar flares. Temperature. No magnetic field. Too dark, too bright, spectrum too red.

The classification of stars is not straightforward. I don't  know how that can be done easily for planets. I am just going to guess that they are going to be classified by resources, not by habitability, for a very long time. "Gas giants, rocky planets, ice planets, moons"  Early explorers more or less ignored continents that had no important resources, even if they were habitable.

Star Trek was populated by bipedal creatures operating with Earth gravity, Earth atmosphere, and all speaking English. Everywhere they went was a "class M planet."

Here is one suggestion that journalists should use:  xx is a yyy-like, ppp-sized planet in a qqq-like orbit around a zzz-star. That would give a lot of information clearly.

Here is another: For planets that very closely resemble another well known yyy planet in most ways, you could use yyy analogue. Some Earth like planet the size and mass of Jupiter would not be an Earth analogue, but Venus with a breathable atmosphere would definitely be an Earth analogue.
 
2022-09-28 12:24:17 AM  
s1.cdn.autoevolution.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-28 12:27:58 AM  

Peach_Fuz: Star Trek was populated by bipedal creatures operating with Earth gravity, Earth atmosphere, and all speaking English. Everywhere they went was a "class M planet."



The TNG episode "The Chase" explains why that is.  But, no, they weren't all speaking English, they all have implanted "universal translators*"


*Little Green Men is a fantastic DS9 episode
 
2022-09-28 12:28:45 AM  

PineappleOnPizza: Peach_Fuz: Star Trek was populated by bipedal creatures operating with Earth gravity, Earth atmosphere, and all speaking English. Everywhere they went was a "class M planet."


The TNG episode "The Chase" explains why that is.  But, no, they weren't all speaking English, they all have implanted "universal translators*"


*Little Green Men is a fantastic DS9 episode


and i misattributed the referred link when trimming my comment, apologies PeachFuz / 2fardownthread
 
2022-09-28 12:31:25 AM  

2fardownthread: leeksfromchichis: Stop calling everything a super-whatever the fark.

Go Star Trek and make a classification system.

I agree that super Mercury super Earth makes no sense. If that is orbital distance, well, what if they are orbiting a brown dwarf? It makes all the difference. So many variables.

I think it is too complicated. The best I have seen so far for general layman use is a 0 to 1 scale, with Earth being a 1. On that scale, Mars ranks very highly, BTW. I think it is a 0.7. There is a Wikipedia list.

But the flavors and dimensions very quickly get out of hand. Too massive. Too much gravity. Not dense enough. No land masses. No tectonics... or too much. Solar flares. Temperature. No magnetic field. Too dark, too bright, spectrum too red.

The classification of stars is not straightforward. I don't  know how that can be done easily for planets. I am just going to guess that they are going to be classified by resources, not by habitability, for a very long time. "Gas giants, rocky planets, ice planets, moons"  Early explorers more or less ignored continents that had no important resources, even if they were habitable.

Star Trek was populated by bipedal creatures operating with Earth gravity, Earth atmosphere, and all speaking English. Everywhere they went was a "class M planet."

Here is one suggestion that journalists should use:  xx is a yyy-like, ppp-sized planet in a qqq-like orbit around a zzz-star. That would give a lot of information clearly.

Here is another: For planets that very closely resemble another well known yyy planet in most ways, you could use yyy analogue. Some Earth like planet the size and mass of Jupiter would not be an Earth analogue, but Venus with a breathable atmosphere would definitely be an Earth analogue.


it's a pretty tough thing because you can have 2 planets the exact same size, density, composition, atmosphere, magnetism, and distance from a star and they are 2 very different places depending on the star which they orbit.
 
2022-09-28 12:32:08 AM  

PineappleOnPizza: 2fardownthread: leeksfromchichis: Stop calling everything a super-whatever the fark.

Go Star Trek and make a classification system.

I agree that super Mercury super Earth makes no sense. If that is orbital distance, well, what if they are orbiting a brown dwarf? It makes all the difference. So many variables.

I think it is too complicated. The best I have seen so far for general layman use is a 0 to 1 scale, with Earth being a 1. On that scale, Mars ranks very highly, BTW. I think it is a 0.7. There is a Wikipedia list.

But the flavors and dimensions very quickly get out of hand. Too massive. Too much gravity. Not dense enough. No land masses. No tectonics... or too much. Solar flares. Temperature. No magnetic field. Too dark, too bright, spectrum too red.

The classification of stars is not straightforward. I don't  know how that can be done easily for planets. I am just going to guess that they are going to be classified by resources, not by habitability, for a very long time. "Gas giants, rocky planets, ice planets, moons"  Early explorers more or less ignored continents that had no important resources, even if they were habitable.

Star Trek was populated by bipedal creatures operating with Earth gravity, Earth atmosphere, and all speaking English. Everywhere they went was a "class M planet."

Here is one suggestion that journalists should use:  xx is a yyy-like, ppp-sized planet in a qqq-like orbit around a zzz-star. That would give a lot of information clearly.

Here is another: For planets that very closely resemble another well known yyy planet in most ways, you could use yyy analogue. Some Earth like planet the size and mass of Jupiter would not be an Earth analogue, but Venus with a breathable atmosphere would definitely be an Earth analogue.

it's a pretty tough thing because you can have 2 planets the exact same size, density, composition, atmosphere, magnetism, and distance from a star and they are 2 very different places depending on the star which ...


(much less likely to have identical atmospheres with vary stars though.  )
 
2022-09-28 4:44:04 AM  
I'd rather have a Plymouth Satellite....
 
2022-09-28 9:00:39 AM  
2fardownthread:

I agree with you that I'm right.
👍
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.