Re: The Sun had Sisters
- From: Michael McCulloch <michaelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:18:05 -0400
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:49:18 -0700, Klaatu
<mutster8_nospam_@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061024_sun_sisters.html
"The Sun had sisters when it was born, according to new research, hundreds
to thousands of them.
And at least one was a supernova, providing further support for the idea
that there could be lots of planets around other stars since our solar
system emerged in such an explosive environment..."
Is it just me or is the growing number of discoveries of planets
around other stars just the expected result? Why should our solar
system be "special" in the galaxy?
The idea that there are gobs of planets out there doesn't especially
surprise me. I think the methods of finding them are interesting, but
the result is not unexpected. It would be more astounding if we were
not finding planets.
What will be much more thrilling to me personally is the eventual
discovery of a rocky planet covered with liquid water orbiting around
another star.
---
Michael McCulloch
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Sun had Sisters
- From: Matthew Ota
- Re: The Sun had Sisters
- From: Greg Crinklaw
- Re: The Sun had Sisters
- From: jsavard
- Re: The Sun had Sisters
- From: Jim Klein
- Re: The Sun had Sisters
- References:
- The Sun had Sisters
- From: Klaatu
- The Sun had Sisters
- Prev by Date: Converting digital cameras
- Next by Date: Re: Converting digital cameras
- Previous by thread: The Sun had Sisters
- Next by thread: Re: The Sun had Sisters
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|