Skip to comments.
Astronomers Had it Wrong: Most Stars are Single
space.com ^
 | 01/30/06
 | Ker Than
Posted on 01/31/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by KevinDavis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
 first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next  last
    
To: RightWhale; Brett66; xrp; gdc314; anymouse; NonZeroSum; jimkress; discostu; The_Victor; ...
2
posted on 
01/31/2006 5:46:52 PM PST
by 
KevinDavis
(http://www.cafepress.com/spacefuture)
 
To: KevinDavis
    "One is the loneliest number ..."
3
posted on 
01/31/2006 5:56:26 PM PST
by 
manwiththehands
(Good news for America = bad news for democRats.)
 
To: KevinDavis
    For more than 200 years, astronomers thought that most of the stars in our galaxy had stellar companions During that 200 years it "was scientific, irrefutable fact", once it is wrong it is "astronomers thought". This is why I don't hand over my life to the limits of scientific knowledge being passed off as irrefutable.
 
4
posted on 
01/31/2006 6:20:29 PM PST
by 
SampleMan
 
To: KevinDavis
    the bulk of them are born alone and never have stellar company
 
That's so sad.
5
posted on 
01/31/2006 6:21:12 PM PST
by 
July 4th
(A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
 
To: SampleMan
    It may have been conventional wisdom of late that most stars were double stars or had more than one companion, but I really doubt that astronomers have thought that "for more than 200 years." Sirius is one of the closest stars, and I don't think its companion (the Pup) was detected until the middle or latter part of the 19th century.
 
To: SampleMan
    During that 200 years it "was scientific, irrefutable fact", once it is wrong it is "astronomers thought". This is why I don't hand over my life to the limits of scientific knowledge being passed off as irrefutable.Ping.
 
7
posted on 
01/31/2006 6:38:10 PM PST
by 
AmishDude
 
To: KevinDavis
    I believe the factor of the Drake Equation that just got multiplied by two is 
 
8
posted on 
01/31/2006 7:09:33 PM PST
by 
impatient
 
To: SampleMan
    >> During that 200 years it "was scientific, irrefutable fact", once it is wrong it is "astronomers thought". This is why I don't hand over my life to the limits of scientific knowledge being passed off as irrefutable. << 
 
Whoever said it was irrefutable fact?
 
9
posted on 
01/31/2006 7:42:58 PM PST
by 
dangus
 
To: impatient
    And multiplying the Drake Quation by 2 is laughably insignificant... although my first ever shot at estimating the value of the Drake Equation, I got precisely 2... which made me wonder, "us and who else?" 
 
And yes, I am quite aware that given the enormous exponentials in the Drake Equation, it's almost silly to claim getting 2. But I did.
 
10
posted on 
01/31/2006 7:45:45 PM PST
by 
dangus
 
To: KevinDavis
    Because are the bigger stars keep getting divorced from the smaller stars who aren't in the spotlight?
 
11
posted on 
01/31/2006 7:49:42 PM PST
by 
Tanniker Smith
(I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
 
To: dangus
    Hollywood marriages never work out anyway.
 
12
posted on 
01/31/2006 8:51:38 PM PST
by 
dangus
 
To: dangus; All
    "Hollywood marriages never work out anyway.' ...that's because they ain't doin' the Kurt Russell-Goldie Hawn 'thingee"......
 
13
posted on 
01/31/2006 8:56:03 PM PST
by 
musicman
 
To: KevinDavis
    But a new study suggests the bulk of them are born alone and never have stellar company.
 I would think that stars form wherever, then wander toward each other to form multi-star systems. Same goes for planetary systems. :')
 
14
posted on 
01/31/2006 9:09:49 PM PST
by 
SunkenCiv
(In the long run, there is only the short run.)
 
To: dangus
    Whoever said it was irrefutable fact? Astronomers. This is no different than scientists in every community. Mind you I think science is a wonderful thing, I just don't think scientists are as scientific as they should be. Herd mentality rules.
 
To: SampleMan
    o, I mean you actually tell me where you ever heard it said that it was an irrefutable fact that most stars were binary. Because frankly, it seems like you are merely making garbage up. Any time I've ever heard reference to binary star systems, I've always heard it purely as conjecture.
 
16
posted on 
02/01/2006 5:02:50 AM PST
by 
dangus
 
To: manwiththehands
    Thanks. I was sure somebody would.
 
17
posted on 
02/01/2006 5:17:05 AM PST
by 
jimfree
(Freep and Ye shall find.)
 
To: dangus
    Let me rephrase for you. Does passed off as irrefutable fact sound better? 
 
Sentences in text books and news articles don't say, "It is irrefutable fact that..." They say, "Most stars are binary systems." "Gobal warming is..." etc.
 
To: annie laurie; garbageseeker; Knitting A Conundrum; Viking2002; Ernest_at_the_Beach; mikrofon
    This topic from January never got added or pinged, because it was pre-list. :') 
  
· X-Planets ping list · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark ·
 
 
19
posted on 
11/16/2006 9:22:03 AM PST
by 
SunkenCiv
(I last updated my profile on Thursday, November 16, 2006     https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
 
To: KevinDavis
    I'm sensing discrimination against same magnitude steller binaries. I'm calling the ACLU (Astronomical Civil Liberties Union).
 
20
posted on 
11/16/2006 9:25:14 AM PST
by 
ZeitgeistSurfer
(The Democrats solution is poison. When the patient is dying, their solution - more poison.)
 
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
 first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next  last
    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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson