Posted on 01/31/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by KevinDavis
For more than 200 years, astronomers thought that most of the stars in our galaxy had stellar companions. But a new study suggests the bulk of them are born alone and never have stellar company.
Since planets are believed to be easier to form around single stars, the discovery could mean planets are more common as well.
Conventional wisdom on double star systems, called binaries, goes as far back as the late 1700s. More sophisticated observations made in the 20th century seemed to confirm the numerical dominance of pairs.
Stellar surveys found that more than half of all Sun-like stars were part of multiple systems. For more massive stars, like O- and B-type stars, the number was estimated to be as high as 80 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
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.
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.
Ping.
| f | |
| p |
>> 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?
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.
Because are the bigger stars keep getting divorced from the smaller stars who aren't in the spotlight?
Hollywood marriages never work out anyway.
...that's because they ain't doin' the Kurt Russell-Goldie Hawn 'thingee"......
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. :')
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.
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.
Thanks. I was sure somebody would.
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.
I'm sensing discrimination against same magnitude steller binaries. I'm calling the ACLU (Astronomical Civil Liberties Union).
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.