50 ms·
New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs
- jnordwick 9y agoCould Jupiter have been a failed pair?
- gpvos 9y agoNot impossible, but rather unlikely. According to TFA, the partner star was much further out. Also, gas giant planets Jupiter's size are fairly common I thought (this knowledge may be outdated).
- pc2g4d 9y agoTFA? I'm getting "The Force Awakens". Or "Teach For America".
- detaro 9y ago"The F…ine Article"
- hinkley 9y agoThe Friendly Article, good sir.
- civilian 9y agoThe Feline article?
- dotancohen 9y agoThe Fine Article
- dotancohen 9y agoThe Fine Article
- trafficlight 9y agoThe Fucking Article
- AckSyn 9y agoAlso synonymous with RTFM, read the Fn manual. Or my favorite: "read the manual. The F is silent"
- Mz 9y agoIt seems to be a discussion board internet meme. I am not sure of the actual history, but my impression is that it started as "Did you read the fucking article?" which is sometimes rebutted with "Yes, I read the fucking article." and then "read the fucking article" became RTFA and now some people use TFA to mean The Fucking Article. (Or maybe people more polite than me always used RTFA rather than writing it out. I have quite the terrible potty mouth. shrug)
- pavement 9y ago...and RTFA borrows from the older RTFM (which of course pairs with TFM), and "M" indicating the Manual, or rather Instructions Manual, harkening back to the "man" command in Unix. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
- tripzilch 9y agoin this context it's usually just intended to mean "the featured article". like "OP" on message boards.
- andrewflnr 9y agoI read it as The Feature Article, which looks dumber written out than it did in my head. You know, like Feature Presentation.
- gpvos 9y agoThe Featured Article. (There are echoes of another F-word in there, mostly from the older abbreviation RTFM, but they are rather faint.)
- poizan42 9y agoWell, it's the first result on urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TFA http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TFA
- biehl 9y agoThe Fine Article
- jamiek88 9y agoIt used to be thought that it was a 'failed star', but you’d need at least 75-85 Jupiter masses to get fusion started it turns out so no, it wasn't close to being a star.
- mee_too 9y agoDon't think so, it's too small.
- jansho 9y agoWell what do you know, Jupiter doesn't actually orbit the sun! Not properly anyway http://www.iflscience.com/space/forget-wha-you-heard-jupiter-does-not-orbit-the-sun/ http://www.iflscience.com/space/forget-wha-you-heard-jupiter...
- libeclipse 9y agoA better source than IFLS?
- ngoldbaum 9y agoThis is silly semantics. Jupiter and the Sun both orbit the center of mass of the Jupiter-Sun system. The article is making the point that for Jupiter and the Sun this point happens to be just outside the surface of the Sun. It's much simpler to say "Jupiter orbits the Sun" than "Jupiter and the Sun both orbit the center of mass of the Jupiter-Sun system". You can think of the former as a shorthand for the latter.
- jansho 9y agoBut doesn't this show that the main players of the solar system are the sun and Jupiter? Apologies for the source, and my clear lack of knowledge in astronomy.
- theoh 9y agoAll planets orbit the centre of mass of themselves and the local star, modulo interactions with other planets. The position of the centre of mass relative to the surface of the star is completely immaterial. NB for smaller bodies, Jupiter is involved in perturbing or capturing their orbits to a great extent -- but we could conceivably have several very large planets contributing to that dynamic. Yes, Jupiter is the largest planet.
- fwefwwfe 9y agoThey are the two most massive, so that is tautologically true...
- 9y ago
- Razengan 9y agoRelated question(s): Do stars ever look like Jupiter/gas-giant planets at some point during their formation? Can planets like Jupiter "pull in" enough matter to "ignite" and become stars in the future?
- dotancohen 9y agoExcluding the Sun, there is not enough mass in the entire solar system to ignite Jupiter. Therefore, barring interaction with another star system, the answer is no.
- zhte415 9y agoIt does emit more radiation than it absorbs, which is star-like.
- simonh 9y agoBut it does so for completely different reasons - gravitational energy release due to gradual contraction rather than nuclear fusion.
- thaumaturgy 9y agoNo: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gnq8t/is_it_true_that_jupiter_is_a_failed_star/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gnq8t/is_it_tru... The question itself is weird; planets don't really "fail" to become something else. They simply accumulate mass during accretion, and either that mass (and other factors) is sufficient for ignition and sustained fusion, or not. It would be a little bit like asking if Neptune is a failed Jupiter or Mars was a failed Earth (hmm, perhaps a bad example). Jupiter is far, far too small to have been a candidate for a brown dwarf.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoNo, Jupiter is a planet not a star. Brown dwarfs start out well over a dozen times more massive than Jupiter. Planets form from a proto-planetary disk, as Jupiter did (you can tell because it is in the same orbital plane as the other planets, the same as the original plane of the disk). 99.9% the mass of the Solar System is in the Sun. 0.1% of the mass of the Solar System is in Jupiter. It's very big for a planet in our Solar System but it is very small compared to even the smallest stars.
- mxfh 9y agoWe'll Always Have Pairs
- memracom 9y agoYes, there will always be a Paris... city of light!
- fokinsean 9y agoAdds kindle to Nibiru fire
- acd 9y agoIf all stars are born in pairs where is our suns sister sun and earths sibling planet?
- umeshunni 9y agoFrom the article: Based on this model, the Sun's sibling most likely escaped and mixed with all the other stars in our region of the Milky Way galaxy, never to be seen again.
- yshdjfhu4irekf 9y agois it possible that it's just on an extreme orbit and we may one day reconnect?
- simonh 9y agoWe would easily detect a star closer to the Sun than our known stellar neighbours. Any former sibling star further away from us than that would be affected by the gravity of other stars more than by the gravity of the Sun.
- meric 9y agoHow far could the star have travelled in 200 million years? I find it hard to think it could be more than a dozen light years away. And the list of stars within, say, 20 light years, is finite.
- simonh 9y agoI think you may be confusing the age of the Sun with the time it takes to complete one galactic orbit. The sun is more than 4 billion years old while 200m years is a bit less than the period for one orbit of the Galaxy (225-250 my). The Sun has completed more than 20 orbits in its lifetime. Even a 0.1% difference in galactic orbital period between the sun and it's twin would put them 3,000 light-years apart by now.
- 9y ago
- exabrial 9y agoI read this initially as "paris" and the title took a strange turn when I clicked it
- ihaveajob 9y agoGlad I'm not the only one. I wonder if someone thought that would be a catchy title for this reason.
- sideshowb 9y agoI read that as Paris. On the plus side it makes more sense now. Should probably go to sleep...
- gitpusher 9y agoI also read Paris, and thought "stars" referred to celebrities. Oops
- pix64 9y ago"All Stars"
- kc10 9y ago+1
- aeleos 9y agoThat is literally the exact thing that I thought too. Its interesting that a sentence like this can be so easily misinterpreted by multiple people in the same way.
- ryanar 9y agoThe brain has multiple indicators for this misinterpretation. Stars early on in this sentence, narrows down context, Born in makes us even further think of a human star aka celeb, Pairs is capitlized, making us think it is a proper noun, the brain also doesnt read the middle letters of words if you remember that word jumbled experiment where you can still read it. All of this combines together to make the brain on first glance say Paris and not pairs
- janwillemb 9y agoIsn't it the capitalization of the first characters of each word which causes the confusion? New evidence that all stars are born in pairs versus New Evidence That All Stars Are Born in Pairs I've never understood the rationale of capitalizing headlines this way anyway (is it the American way?)
- antognini 9y agoFor some background, a little under half of all stellar systems are binaries. About 40% are single stars, and about 10% are triple systems. The remainder (perhaps a few percent) are higher-order systems like quadruples and quintuples.
- twic 9y ago> Many stars have companions Most stars. Many years ago, i downloaded a copy of the Gliese star catalogue, and set about generating some star charts of nearby space in VRML (which should give you some idea of just how many years ago that was). Multiple stars are listed as multiple entries in the catalogue, and i realised that if i drew markers for each one, they'd overlap and look terrible. Never mind, i thought, there will only be a few of them, and that's alright for a first version. Not so! The majority of stars were in multiple systems (although the majority of systems are not multiple), and the chart looked even more shonky than i had anticipated. I had to go back and tweak my generator to merge multiple stars into single entries.
- djsumdog 9y agooh wow .. VRML. That does take me back
- jackaroe78 9y agoI just came
- lucideer 9y agoSame! This is such a common problem for me today, working on small scale city maps. Hearing about it on a universal/galactic scale, and also in the now redheaded stepchild of earlier web tech (i.e. IE) is not only incredibly cool and impressive (today), but also to hear of the possible data inference implications is somewhat exciting.
- aisofteng 9y agoMostly unrelated, but Nemesis, one of Isaac Asimov's lesser known novels, was one I personally found a good read.
- motyar 9y agoI read it 'Paris'. I need some coffee.
- daxfohl 9y agoI was just going to say the same thing. I need some beer.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- MarkMc 9y agoI read it as 'Paris' too. Actually I expect this is a very common error. "Born in $place_name" has a much higher base frequency than "Born in Pairs", so our System 1 brain screams "Paris!" until System 2 kicks in.
- grogers 9y agoFor me it was the casing. We aren't used to seeing "Pairs" capitalized, especially so since it is not the first word in the sentence. Paris however, will always be capitalized, so the brain autocorrects to the wrong word. Even though the title is in headline-case, it still fools you.
- kashyapc 9y agoYep, you hit the nail -- it's the casing, indeed. Much like other humans here, I read it 4 times, and still got stumped until I saw the comments section. (While coffee is next to me, and Paris is almost a stone's throw (3 hr train) from where I live.) As you could imagine, clicked it purely because of my brain going: "What is that non sequitur at the end of the title?"
- rcconf 9y agoI just asked a friend of mine beside me to read it, and she read the same thing, "Paris" instead of Pairs. I also made the same mistake. Hah!
- ramshanker 9y agoSo we lost our partner? So sad.... ;) I remember reading, nearest proxima century is also a group of stars.
- astrobe_ 9y agoIt would be Nemesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%2...
- toddmorey 9y agoLeBron James and Steph Curry were born in the same Akron, Ohio hospital, 39 months apart, so I buy the theory. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/05/28/lebron-james-and-steph-curry-were-born-in-the-same-akron-hospital-39-months-apart/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/05/28...
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoThe article says "egg-shaped cocoon" half a dozen times. Does it really mean "elliptical"? It would seem odd for one end of the gas cloud that forms binary systems to be larger on one end. If so, they don't explain why or how.
- sdiq 9y agoI know this really isn't the place for religion but somehow the Quran talks about these things: 51:47-49 47. We constructed the universe with power, and We are expanding it. 48. And the earth—We spread it out—How well We prepared it! 49. We created all things in pairs, so that you may reflect and ponder. And that the universe is actually expanding is something that wasn't known at the time of Mohammad.
- diogenescynic 9y agoI think that's just confirmation bias (might be another fallacy) because when you have enough source material, it's trivially easy to find those types of references predicting the future or describing something we only prove later. You also end up ignoring all the times the source material was wrong and focusing on the instances it was seemingly correct. See also, Nostradamus and the Bible for a similar type of phenomena.