#ScienceFiction is informed by #Science
-
but it kind of makes sense doesn't it? it just follows logically
unsupported as yet by science (we've only seen a few), but it just "makes sense":
that interstellar space isn't empty, but riddled with gas giants
stars, essentially, not massive enough to ignite. just sitting there in the dark
they should outnumber the number of stars. just as a sheer result of gaussian distribution, and those that ignite are on the right side of the curve in size
@benroyce It's an interesting hypothesis, and testable! Given that we're all orbiting the giant black hole at the center of the Milky Way, and orbits closer to the center are faster than ours. Stars closer to the center would occasionally be occluded by these 'dark giants'. That would show up in our repeated observations. Those occlusions would completely block the star, unlike planets orbiting the star.
-
but it kind of makes sense doesn't it? it just follows logically
unsupported as yet by science (we've only seen a few), but it just "makes sense":
that interstellar space isn't empty, but riddled with gas giants
stars, essentially, not massive enough to ignite. just sitting there in the dark
they should outnumber the number of stars. just as a sheer result of gaussian distribution, and those that ignite are on the right side of the curve in size
@benroyce There's all sorts of things that can make dark gas glow. Even gravitational interactions. If dark gas existed in such huge lumps, we should be able to occasionally see the glow even if the stars don't get ignited up properly.
-
@benroyce It's an interesting hypothesis, and testable! Given that we're all orbiting the giant black hole at the center of the Milky Way, and orbits closer to the center are faster than ours. Stars closer to the center would occasionally be occluded by these 'dark giants'. That would show up in our repeated observations. Those occlusions would completely block the star, unlike planets orbiting the star.
not only testable, but in 4 months NASA is launching a craft to look for rogue planets/ brown dwarfs/ solitary gas giants sitting there in the dark (among other things)
Unveiling Rogue Planets With NASA’s Roman Space Telescope - NASA
New simulations show that NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will be able to reveal myriad rogue planets – freely floating bodies that drift through our
NASA (www.nasa.gov)
named after Nancy Roman:
-
@benroyce There's all sorts of things that can make dark gas glow. Even gravitational interactions. If dark gas existed in such huge lumps, we should be able to occasionally see the glow even if the stars don't get ignited up properly.
that's rather creepy
"why is there a faint glow nearby... and why does it seem to trace a path heading towards us"
-
that's rather creepy
"why is there a faint glow nearby... and why does it seem to trace a path heading towards us"
@benroyce Must be the Sky Coyote's bright eyes on their way to some new tricksting!
-
not only testable, but in 4 months NASA is launching a craft to look for rogue planets/ brown dwarfs/ solitary gas giants sitting there in the dark (among other things)
Unveiling Rogue Planets With NASA’s Roman Space Telescope - NASA
New simulations show that NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will be able to reveal myriad rogue planets – freely floating bodies that drift through our
NASA (www.nasa.gov)
named after Nancy Roman:
@benroyce
ooh, neat. Yeah if you could see the lensing you'd be MUCH more likely to see one as that would eliminate the need for a conjunction. Still I'm wondering if we could sift through snaps from Kepler and get lucky. -
did you hear about this one?
septuple system
(!)
@benroyce @rozeboosje Yep. But this is a young system - under five million years, and still associated with the galactic clouds it likely formed from - so perhaps not long-term stable.
Young, known-unstable multiple star systems are often called 'trapezia' after the Trapezium in the Orion nebula. But that is perhaps better described as an open star cluster in formation.
The star formation history of Upper Scorpius and Ophiuchus
Abstract page for arXiv paper 2209.12938: The star formation history of Upper Scorpius and Ophiuchus
arXiv.org (arxiv.org)
-
@benroyce @rozeboosje Yep. But this is a young system - under five million years, and still associated with the galactic clouds it likely formed from - so perhaps not long-term stable.
Young, known-unstable multiple star systems are often called 'trapezia' after the Trapezium in the Orion nebula. But that is perhaps better described as an open star cluster in formation.
The star formation history of Upper Scorpius and Ophiuchus
Abstract page for arXiv paper 2209.12938: The star formation history of Upper Scorpius and Ophiuchus
arXiv.org (arxiv.org)
-
@benroyce
ooh, neat. Yeah if you could see the lensing you'd be MUCH more likely to see one as that would eliminate the need for a conjunction. Still I'm wondering if we could sift through snaps from Kepler and get lucky.it's probably the difference between
"there's one... and there's one"
and
"holy shit, in this field of view... that's a lot"
-
@benroyce @martinvermeer At least one of them is a blue giant so yeah, it's young and it won't be long lived ...
-
@benroyce I always remember reading "our sun is a very average yellow star" and now we say "our sun is an uncommon lone star, unlike most stars which exist in multiple systems"
@nomenloony @benroyce Telescopes got muuuch better.
And we collectivly took a step into a larger world.
-
@benroyce @rozeboosje Yep. On long-exposure photographs, also the Pleiades show a dust nebula containing the cluster, and illuminated by it in reflected light.
The Pleiades are a bit older but not very old, some 100 million years. How do we know? From its colour-magnitude diagram. The cluster contains hot, bright blue stars that are still burning hydrogen, which would have branched off and turned into red giants burning helium, if the cluster were older.
-
@benroyce @martinvermeer At least one of them is a blue giant so yeah, it's young and it won't be long lived ...
@rozeboosje @benroyce They are all B type, but you mean component A which is B3V?
-
#ScienceFiction is informed by #Science
And Science in turn stares at Science Fiction, nods, and smiles broadly
"On ‘ #StarWarsDay’, researchers more than double the number of potential known ‘circumbinary’ planets like the fictional Tatooine, home to Luke Skywalker"
A circumbinary planet is a planet that orbits two suns
More than half of all stars exist in binary star systems or star systems with even more than two stars
Scientists discover 27 potential new planets that orbit two stars in solar systems far, far away
On ‘Star Wars day’, researchers more than double the number of potential known ‘circumbinary’ planets like the fictional Tatooine, home to Luke Skywalker
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
@benroyce Star Wars is science fiction? I always thought it was consumerism and merchandising based on awful fantasy movies with a weak allegory of the Vietnam conflict and ripped off Authurian legend, annoying characters and bad romance writing.
-
@benroyce Star Wars is science fiction? I always thought it was consumerism and merchandising based on awful fantasy movies with a weak allegory of the Vietnam conflict and ripped off Authurian legend, annoying characters and bad romance writing.
well, truthfully, it's more space opera than science fiction
-
@benroyce I read an article recently that explained that such systems are inherently unstable and such planets are bound to either end up being swallowed by one of the stars or yeeted out of the system. But do you think I can find it now? Can I 'eck.... sorry
@rozeboosje @benroyce Technically our solar system is unstable, too.
-
it's probably the difference between
"there's one... and there's one"
and
"holy shit, in this field of view... that's a lot"
@benroyce
Well if there are a lot of planets it's gonna put a big crimp in interstellar travel.
@johnlogic -
@rozeboosje @benroyce They are all B type, but you mean component A which is B3V?
@martinvermeer @benroyce possibly.... I lost the link where I read that
-
@benroyce
Well if there are a lot of planets it's gonna put a big crimp in interstellar travel.
@johnlogicon the contrary:
if we map it well enough, think of the gravitational slingshots
we always talk about the need to go straight line and have constant thrust over huge distances (and then braking)
but what if we had amazing maps, and were able to plot courses on gravitational slingshots one after the other over huge distances?
it would require exquisite mapping, even little objects would kill
and it would require extreme computation, as all these things are moving
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
on the contrary:
if we map it well enough, think of the gravitational slingshots
we always talk about the need to go straight line and have constant thrust over huge distances (and then braking)
but what if we had amazing maps, and were able to plot courses on gravitational slingshots one after the other over huge distances?
it would require exquisite mapping, even little objects would kill
and it would require extreme computation, as all these things are moving
The computation for gravitational slingshots shouldn't be very extreme. It's straightforward, but would require a fair amount of data. Once out of a star's system, it should be easier to slingshot around stars than planets.
