Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Waspie_Dwarf

Astronomers Find Sun’s ‘Long-Lost Brother’

24 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Astronomers Find Sun's "Long-Lost Brother," Pave Way for Family Reunion

AUSTIN, Texas - A team of researchers led by astronomer Ivan Ramirez of The University of Texas at Austin has identified the first "sibling" of the sun — a star almost certainly born from the same cloud of gas and dust as our star. Ramirez's methods will help astronomers find other solar siblings, which could lead to an understanding of how and where our sun formed, and how our solar system became hospitable for life. The work appears in the June 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

"We want to know where we were born," Ramirez said. "If we can figure out in what part of the galaxy the sun formed, we can constrain conditions on the early solar system. That could help us understand why we are here."

arrow3.gifRead more...

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
fixed source link.
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the ingredients of the rare earth hypothesis exist within the milky way so this is awesome news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the ingredients of the rare earth hypothesis exist within the milky way so this is awesome news.

What has this got to do with the "rare earth hypothesis"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the orbits of sun and HD 162826 are run backward to their birthplace,

a Happy Birthday song will be in order. Thence, the brother of the sun could

stand a nickname. Being that he's in the constellation Hercules, :-? maybe

"Happy Birthday Herculean Dude and his brother, Happy Birthday to you..."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has this got to do with the "rare earth hypothesis"?

The rare earth hypothesis describes the perfect place that a earth type planet might form and life can evolve. The milky way matches the hypothesis. And yet here we are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rare earth hypothesis describes the perfect place that a earth type planet might form and life can evolve. The milky way matches the hypothesis. And yet here we are.

Despite the fact that I explained it in very simple terms you really don't understand the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis at all.

The "Rare Earth" hypothesis is exactly what it's name suggests, a hypothesis that says planets like Earth are rare. It sets out a series of conditions which limit the probability of life existing else where in the Universe. These conditions are based on the conditions found on Earth. As the Earth is found in the Milky Way galaxy it stands to reason that the Milky Way galaxy MUST have the right conditions to find a planet like Earth. This is not some great revelation you have made here, it's simply a case of stating the bloody obvious.

The point of the "Rare Earth" hypothesis is not to say that the Milky Way is suitable for life... we already know that, it's to say that many other galaxies AREN'T.

Your statement is like saying that Waspie_Dwarf's cat lives in Waspie_Dwarf's living-room. That means that Wapie-Dwarf's house must have the correct condition's for Waspie_Dwarf's cat.. well d'uh! That goes without saying.

However just because the house is the perfect place to find the living room it does not mean that other rooms in Waspie_Dwarf's house MUST have cats. In fact the "Rare Earth" hypothesis would go further, it would say that is not enough to live in Waspie_Dwarf's house, the conditions must be the same as the living-room, hence finding further cats, even in Waspie_Dwarf's house are very unlikely.

If you had understood the "Rare Earth" hypothesis you would have understood that a galaxy very similar to the Milky Way is just one of many conditions that need to be met.

As usual your comment does nothing except advertise your total ignorance of the subject. As usual you did not answer the question asked which was:

What has this got to do with the "rare earth hypothesis"?

Since it is virtually impossible to get a straight answer from you on anything I'll answer the question for you... The "Rare Earth" hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the article I posted.

Would it be too much to ask that you make on-topic comments? Since there is already a topic where the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis is being discussed I suggest that you use that if you wish to discuss it further.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me how they(scientists) find this stuff out. Great find.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me how they(scientists) find this stuff out. Great find.

Me too, there is proof, logic and evidence behind these kinds of finds/claims but I still find them unbelievable.

Great find, great article. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As amazing as this is, we still know more about outer space than the oceans and they're smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I explained it in very simple terms you really don't understand the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis at all.

The "Rare Earth" hypothesis is exactly what it's name suggests, a hypothesis that says planets like Earth are rare. It sets out a series of conditions which limit the probability of life existing else where in the Universe. These conditions are based on the conditions found on Earth. As the Earth is found in the Milky Way galaxy it stands to reason that the Milky Way galaxy MUST have the right conditions to find a planet like Earth. This is not some great revelation you have made here, it's simply a case of stating the bloody obvious.

The point of the "Rare Earth" hypothesis is not to say that the Milky Way is suitable for life... we already know that, it's to say that many other galaxies AREN'T.

Your statement is like saying that Waspie_Dwarf's cat lives in Waspie_Dwarf's living-room. That means that Wapie-Dwarf's house must have the correct condition's for Waspie_Dwarf's cat.. well d'uh! That goes without saying.

However just because the house is the perfect place to find the living room it does not mean that other rooms in Waspie_Dwarf's house MUST have cats. In fact the "Rare Earth" hypothesis would go further, it would say that is not enough to live in Waspie_Dwarf's house, the conditions must be the same as the living-room, hence finding further cats, even in Waspie_Dwarf's house are very unlikely.

If you had understood the "Rare Earth" hypothesis you would have understood that a galaxy very similar to the Milky Way is just one of many conditions that need to be met.

As usual your comment does nothing except advertise your total ignorance of the subject. As usual you did not answer the question asked which was:

Since it is virtually impossible to get a straight answer from you on anything I'll answer the question for you... The "Rare Earth" hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the article I posted.

Would it be too much to ask that you make on-topic comments? Since there is already a topic where the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis is being discussed I suggest that you use that if you wish to discuss it further.

That is a simple way of saying that no two planets are the same, or that life is unique or the Earth is rare same thing. Im not sure if the rare earth hypothesis even takes into account the possibility that We might be riddled with life and Earthlikes in our galaxy alone.

Technically of course you are correct so I have come up with my own idea called the Common Earth Hypothesis where the odds of Earth like planets are scattered abundantly through out our Milky Way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically of course you are correct so I have come up with my own idea called the Common Earth Hypothesis where the odds of Earth like planets are scattered abundantly through out our Milky Way.

What part of the following was beyond your capacity to understand?

Since there is already a topic where the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis is being discussed I suggest that you use that if you wish to discuss it further.

And by the way it can only be your idea if you came up with it first, Since the belief that Earth like planets are common has existed for many MANY decades you really can not claim it as your idea.

Now, go back and re-read the posts Lilly and I made on the various hypothesis about life through the universe. Read them as many times as it takes for something to sink in. Then, if you have any more comments to make, make them in that thread, not this one. You will find it here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=265845

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As amazing as this is, we still know more about outer space than the oceans and they're smaller.

Yes, by just a tad :w00t:.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh c-mon... It is oviously not a reality. A supposition, maybe but nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch!

Agree, how scathing :unsure2:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things are pretty wonderful: that they are able to measure the chemical composition so well, especially of extremely rare molecules, and that they are able to trace back the orbit of the star through several galactic revolutions

Except maybe for panspermia, I don't think this makes these stars significantly better as candidates for life than other similar stars born elsewhere. They will all be roughly the same age though, which might have a bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have almost always believed that our sun has a sister. I consider it's apogee and perigee is always in my thoughts when the topic of global warming comes into the conversation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I explained it in very simple terms you really don't understand the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis at all.

The "Rare Earth" hypothesis is exactly what it's name suggests, a hypothesis that says planets like Earth are rare. It sets out a series of conditions which limit the probability of life existing else where in the Universe. These conditions are based on the conditions found on Earth. As the Earth is found in the Milky Way galaxy it stands to reason that the Milky Way galaxy MUST have the right conditions to find a planet like Earth. This is not some great revelation you have made here, it's simply a case of stating the bloody obvious.

The point of the "Rare Earth" hypothesis is not to say that the Milky Way is suitable for life... we already know that, it's to say that many other galaxies AREN'T.

Your statement is like saying that Waspie_Dwarf's cat lives in Waspie_Dwarf's living-room. That means that Wapie-Dwarf's house must have the correct condition's for Waspie_Dwarf's cat.. well d'uh! That goes without saying.

However just because the house is the perfect place to find the living room it does not mean that other rooms in Waspie_Dwarf's house MUST have cats. In fact the "Rare Earth" hypothesis would go further, it would say that is not enough to live in Waspie_Dwarf's house, the conditions must be the same as the living-room, hence finding further cats, even in Waspie_Dwarf's house are very unlikely.

If you had understood the "Rare Earth" hypothesis you would have understood that a galaxy very similar to the Milky Way is just one of many conditions that need to be met.

As usual your comment does nothing except advertise your total ignorance of the subject. As usual you did not answer the question asked which was:

Since it is virtually impossible to get a straight answer from you on anything I'll answer the question for you... The "Rare Earth" hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the article I posted.

Would it be too much to ask that you make on-topic comments? Since there is already a topic where the "Rare-Earth" hypothesis is being discussed I suggest that you use that if you wish to discuss it further.

Just where did you explain that? I see no explaination thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Taniwha should find of interest comments re:

‘Cluster Planets’: What They Tell Us

http://www.centauri-...ms.org/?p=29808

by PAUL GILSTER on JANUARY 15, 2014,

i.e.

henry cordova January 22, 2014 at 12:12

through

Henry Corova January 27, 2014 at 18:04

and, particularly in regard to earthlike planets,

Henry Cordova January 23, 2014 at 23:45

The first comment above in connection with

kzb January 23, 2014 at 14:23

[...]There is a possibility with globular clusters that I find fascinating:

there could be a large population of “delocalised planets”.

A great many planets are thought to be ejected or caused to leave

their birth system by close encounters in such clusters.

comes closest to explaining to me

the relationship between globular clusters’

and the sun’s leaving their birthplaces.

http://www.unexplain...8

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun seems to have been born in a normal gas cloud evolving into an open cluster and then the stars dispersing because of random motions. That would imply the sun has dozens of siblings, if not thousands, scattered by now all around the galaxy. We are only likely to identify those that are by chance relatively nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Frank et al,

Interesting as was my last quote,

it was not the one that linked GCs with stars.

The sun seems to have been born in a normal gas cloud evolving into an open cluster and then the stars dispersing because of random motions. That would imply the sun has dozens of siblings, if not thousands, scattered by now all around the galaxy. We are only likely to identify those that are by chance relatively nearby.

They will find more sibling stars, but, given the process, maybe not that many, e.g.

"The team identified HD 162826 as our sun’s sibling by following up on 30 possible candidates [...]

But several factors are needed to really pin down a solar sibling, Ramirez said. In addition to chemical analysis,

his team also included information about the stars’ orbits —

where they had been and where they are going in their paths around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

Considering both chemistry and orbits narrowed the field of candidates down to one: HD 162826."

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just where did you explain that? I see no explaination thus far.

Uhm, the explanation was right there. Did you even read it?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, the explanation was right there. Did you even read it?

Cheers,

Badeskov

I suggest you go back over the thread. The explanation followed his statement that he explained it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun seems to have been born in a normal gas cloud evolving into an open cluster and then the stars dispersing because of random motions. That would imply the sun has dozens of siblings, if not thousands, scattered by now all around the galaxy. We are only likely to identify those that are by chance relatively nearby.

I wonder if stars born in these clusters also 'hatch' in clusters similar to fish eggs all at the same time or even sub divide like biological cells. I guess these things arent known until we can actually witness one in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.