Posted on 11/17/2019 11:01:40 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Right now, we know of about 4,000 confirmed exoplanets, mostly thanks to the Kepler mission. TESS, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, will likely raise that 4000 by a lot. But what about the stars that all of these planets orbit?
A new study from the Astrophysical Institute and University Observatory of the University of Jena identified over 200 exoplanets that exist in multiple star systems. The study is part of the effort to understand how host stars shape the formation and evolution of planets.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
These images show some of the exoplanet host stars with companion stars (B, C) that were found during the project. The images are RGB composite images taken with the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (PanSTARRS) in the y- (960 nm), i- (760 nm), and g-band (480 nm). The image in the middle shows a hierarchical triple star system. Image: Mugrauer, PanSTARRS
I’m going to post this too.
Giant exoplanet found around tiny star shouldn’t even exist, astronomers say
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/world/giant-exoplanet-dwarf-star-scn/index.html
Does an accretion disk resulting in two stars create more gas giants? I would think so. Gas giants are much easier to see just because of size of the light interruption when they transit the star(s).
Could it be a protostar that never ignited that got captured by the dwarf? The odd orbit might point to this. Doesn’t sound like they formed together given the odd orbit.
Not to be difficult or anything, but stellar formation has never been seen, so the accretion disk is merely a hypothesis. :^)
My guess is, what we're seeing is the result of capture, and a binary star system would have a leg up on other systems to perform capture. OTOH, Jupiter's got loads of small moons, and many of them are in retrograde, considered diagnostic of capture.
Not very long ago, in a galaxy that's, well, pretty much where we are...
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
And a unique creation implies the existence of a Creator.
What about my second comment. Odd orbits in general would seem to me to be indicative of capture.
On 1st, Jupiter would have had to be about 80 times more massive to ignite and make us a binary. For that to happen the HYPOTHETICAL accretion disk would have had to have lots more mass. More mass would lead to more gas giants. I would think capture would not account for all the exoplanets in those systems, rather it is a function of more mass. HYPOTHETICALLY of course. ;-)
https://www.thoughtco.com/could-jupiter-become-a-star-4136163
If we took one of the smallest known stars (OGLE-TR-122b, Gliese 623b, and AB Doradus C) and replaced Jupiter with it, there would be a star with about 100 times the mass of Jupiter. Yet, the star would be less than 1/300th as bright as the Sun. If Jupiter somehow gained that much mass, it would only be about 20% bigger than it is now, much more dense, and maybe 0.3% as bright as the Sun. Since Jupiter is 4 times further from us than the Sun, we’d only see an increased energy of about 0.02%, which is much less than the difference in energy we get from annual variations in the course of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. In other words, Jupiter turning into a star would have little to no impact on Earth. Possibly the bright star in the sky might confuse some organisms that use moonlight, because Jupiter-the-star would be about 80 times brighter than the full moon. Also, the star would be red and bright enough to be visible during the day.
According to Robert Frost, an instructor and flight controller at NASA, if Jupiter gained the mass to become a star the orbits of the inner plants would be largely unaffected, while a body 80 times more massive than Jupiter would affect the orbits of Uranus, Neptune, and especially Saturn. The more massive Jupiter, whether it became a star or not, would only affect objects within approximately 50 million kilometers.
So no. Lots of other reasons though.
Take our own Jupiter as it is. It's just far enough away to not cause harmful tectonic activity on Earth. But it's also just close enough to absorb harmful objects into its massive gravity well that might hit the earth more often than occurs (i.e. asteroids and comets). Almost as if Someone made sure things were set up juuuuussst right. Binary systems, it seems to me, would require even more fine tuning for advanced life on one of their planets.
Take our own Jupiter as it is. It’s just far enough away to not cause harmful tectonic activity on Earth. But it’s also just close enough to absorb harmful objects into its massive gravity well that might hit the earth more often than occurs (i.e. asteroids and comets).
Same deal if it was a red dwarf. Tectonically and orbitally neutral but the protective gravity well would be larger. Possibly more ideal.
As I said there are other reasons to believe in a Creator. Jupiter capturing space threats and not harming us is not it. Look at the fine-structure constant. There are others. God is a mathematician.
Agreed. IMHO the universal constants make for strong apologetic arguments.
If radically different than terrestrial life were found on Mars would it shake your faith?
All the math of the universe seems to point at creating conditions where life is possible.
Tatooine? We can’t go there that’s the realm of the Hutts.
I got that -- capture is more likely as the explanation for a system that appears to be this wacky; it's probably somewhat more commonplace than generally accepted for two stars to collide, and their planetary systems shake out however they do; and when a star goes kablooey, its perfectly possible that its former planets wander off into the sealanes as it were; however, until we can actually *go* to other star systems in a reasonable time frame, we're relying on a data set that, while ever-improving, will still be skewed toward systems that appear peculiar to us. This skew is another good reason to use the pages of "Rare Earth" for 'recycling' in the outhouse up at the cottage.
Heh... Pizza the Hutt... and, as all us SW geeks know, it’s a real place and no so far, far away...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tataouine
Out of the 1776 X-Planets topics (and, may I say, wow), here are some that are probably already also on the Catastrophism list:
So the onus isn't on Christians to prove Earth is unique. The onus is on atheists to prove Earth is not unique.
Intelligent life seems to be a goal of the universe. I will gaurandamntee we are not the only intelligent life. Even on earth there are other semi-intelligent species. Glad to hear you have not hitched your wagon to the we are alone group. As you said... no scripture says only on earth. Some people have set themselves up badly for when we discover other life, never mind if we stumble across other intelligent life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
