It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The birth of planets, The answer?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Astronomers have identified a planet that is less than 10million years old!

Link to story



The new planet orbits an infant star, called TW Hydrae (TW Hya), which is thought to have formed between eight and ten million years ago.




The planet would have formed shortly after the birth of the star and it is possible that other planets are forming within the disc. The star is 180 million light years from Earth. On Earth at that time, chimpanzees were splitting from gorillas to form a branch of the ape family tree that led to the evolution of human beings. Dinosaurs had been extinct for 50 million years.




Star systems are thought to form amid clouds of dust and gas, and the discovery of the planet is expected to provide insights into the mechanisms.


Looks like good news for all the alternative planet birth theory's.

And for those of you who want to find out how we became to be floating around on this lump of space rock 'Watch this space'.

I doubt any of us will be around long enough to benefit from the research, but you never know, the Universe is a pretty unpredictable place.

Regards.




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Nice find.
Yes, This is good news if you believe that planets are formed in the accretion disk during the formation of a star. I, however, do not buy into this notion. A strong argument could be made that planets are captured objects. This Captured Planet Model might just exlain what is going on with our friend Comet Holmes, our newest planetary member now larger than the sun!



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


A planet being a captured object may explain how it came to orbit its star, but that doesn't explain how it was formed in the first place.

...but I don't want to get off topic here. Nice find xSMOKING_GUNx



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Although this is an interesting find, I think the distance of 180 million light years can't be right. To put it in perspective, the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, so that would be well outside our neighborhood. I did a quick search and found this article on the furthest exoplanet found.


Similarly, at a distance of more than 20,000 light years from Earth, it is probably the most distant such planet yet found, said study co-author David Bennett of the University of Notre Dame.

Exoplanet is smallest, farthest yet to be found

Bold emphasis added.

20,000 light years is very impressive, and not even close to being outside our galaxy. If that number was right, the headline would be about the distance and not the age, me thinks.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


...and that note about dinosaurs being extinct 180 million years ago is also incorrect. Dinos went extinct about 65 million years ago. Neither Chimpanzees nor apes existed 180 million years ago.

The rest of the info in the article is interesting, but their distances and timescales seem to be off. However, with mistakes like that, it makes you wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the info.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I think it is just that the paragraph is not very well set out.

I think that they are trying to say that if the planet is less than 100million years old then around



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
I struggle a little with time and distance traveled through space, but from what I gather 180million light years would mean that it would take 180million years for the light to travel to us from the discovered planet, so surely the planet must be at least 180million years old? If it was only 100million years old we would not be able to spot it for another 80million years.

That is right if we could see a planet that far away, which we can't. If it were a distant galaxy then yes you are right. The article said the planet is less than 10 million years old, but is 180 million light years away, so the light would not reach us for another 170 million years.

Like I said the distance of 180 million light years is wrong, and the furthest exoplanet yet discovered is 20,000 light years. Big difference.

Here is another article about the discovery, but there is no mention of the distance.

A Young Extrasolar Planet In Its Cosmic Nursery

Feel free to use it to start a new thread if you like. The article in the OP is not accurate.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The aricle mentions that the planet is orbiting "TW Hydrae" which wikipedia says is 56 parsecs away. A parsec is 3.262 light years, which would make the distance 182.672 light years. Not 180 million light years...



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Nice work.

So the star is 180Thousand light years from us not 180Million light years, probably a hasty error on the article author's part.

Makes a lot more sense in the 'Distance - Time' equation that I was struggling to grasp a few posts back.

Thank you for your valuable input mythatsabigprobe



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Actually not even 180 thousand, just 182.6 years at the speed of light. I just used 3 decimal places coz I was feeling all technical like.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Actually not even 180 thousand, just 182.6 years at the speed of light. I just used 3 decimal places coz I was feeling all technical like.


Ok!


That makes even more sense now.

Cheers for the heads up.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join