This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
Less than a year ago, astronomers discovered 'Oumuamua, the first known object from another star system to pass through our own.
Astronomers first discovered the asteroid in question, which has the succinct name 2015 BZ509, back in 2015 using the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System.
If astronomers can determine exactly which star system the asteroid initially came from, they may be able to learn how the Sun and Bee-Zed's host star interacted in the distant past.
Less than a year ago, astronomers discovered ‘Oumuamua, the first known object from another star system to pass through our own. Now, in a new study published today in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, astronomers announced the discovery of the first interstellar object known to have taken up permanent residence around the Sun.
“Evidence of the role of extraterrestrial viruses in affecting terrestrial evolution has recently been plausibly implied in the gene and transcriptome sequencing of Cephalopods,” the researchers write. “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens.”
So it seems like the idea is really that they evolved here on Earth, but way back when, they got a few modifications to their DNA via space viruses. Rather than quickly dismiss this (for the sake of discussion), how would this ever be tested/proved?
For example, the article says:
“Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch color and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene,” the paper says, pointing to the possibility that this “great leap forward” in complexity was due to “cryopreserved squid and/or octopus eggs” crashing into the ocean on comets millions of years ago.
With recent advances in genome sequencing, wouldn't they be able to search for "extraterrestrial" anomolies in the genes associated with their unique eyes? Also, how unique to the animal world are the above attributes?
Edit: I'm also noticing the second quote seems to contradict the first, as it says frozen, ferilized squid (and or octopus) eggs hitched a ride on comets so millions of years ago.
There's probably a reason you're not in that job anymore then. VW clearly crossed the solid white on the left and braked hard to merge. Both big offenses. You can't drive like that around big trucks. You do realize some of those truckers in Australia have like 5 trailers attached. God-damned road trains. People need to learn to respect the size of tractors and that they can't just stop on a dime
I agree, and wish to add that the personification of the universe as an entity which 'tries to find the most efficient solution' is inappropriate.
I understand this point of view, but I feel like efficient isn't a personified word on its own. I view it as meaning the path of least resistance, so water flowing down hill would find the most efficient route. That doesn't imply it's conciously choosing a particular path. Just my two cents though, I know many feel differently.
I'm sure he's doing great work in studying Pluto, but this guy really has a bug up his butt about whether or not Pluto is a planet. Pluto would be better served by Alan Stern gushing about how awesome it is, not about an ultimately meaningless nomenclature.
Although I think the conversation is definitely worth having, I do think it's weirdly polarized, with both sides digging in and making it personal (at least for defining stuff in space).
Here's a high-resolution image of Pluto from New Horizons because you're right, Pluto's pretty fucking cool whether it's a planet or not.
it's better to say there's broadly stars and planets in the universe, and both come in a wide variety of forms.
In other words, detailed and specific classifications, just like I said.
I guess I'm viewing their definition of "planet" as a tree with lots of branches, and the IAU definition as a single, branchless tree with a bunch of bushes around it. That probably doesn't help clarify my view at all though.
I think we might be arguing close the same thing. My biggest takeaway is that saying Pluto is not a planet clouds how people view it, so it makes communication more difficult.
This oldest oxygen was found in a galaxy? And they are talking about stars? What about the whole galaxy forming by that moment?
That's a really good point. I'll search around for more, but in the meantime, I'll just link the whole abstract
A fundamental quest of modern astronomy is to locate the earliest galaxies and study how they influenced the intergalactic medium a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. The abundance of star-forming galaxies is known to decline from redshifts of about 6 to 10, but a key question is the extent of star formation at even earlier times, corresponding to the period when the first galaxies might have emerged. Here we report spectroscopic observations of MACS1149-JD1, a gravitationally lensed galaxy observed when the Universe was less than four per cent of its present age. We detect an emission line of doubly ionized oxygen at a redshift of 9.1096 ± 0.0006, with an uncertainty of one standard deviation. This precisely determined redshift indicates that the red rest-frame optical colour arises from a dominant stellar component that formed about 250 million years after the Big Bang, corresponding to a redshift of about 15. Our results indicate that it may be possible to detect such early episodes of star formation in similar galaxies with future telescopes.
I asked on Reddit a while back if there's a theoretical limit to how large a planet can be (planet, not star), and someone explained it with references as being around 1.5 times the size of Jupiter. So I guess this proves that wrong
This is a really interesting question and the problem is that the answer is a bit nebulous.
From an article by Discover magazine called "How Big is the Biggest Possible Planet?":
There are two ways to come at the question, depending on what you mean by “big.” If you think of the size of a planet in terms of mass, then there is a specific but rather technical answer. Planets are defined as bodies that do not generate their own energy from nuclear fusion. Any planet more than about 13 times the mass of Jupiter (4,000 Earth masses, roughly) generates enough heat and pressure in its core to trigger limited fusion reactions of deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen. At that point, the object is considered a brown dwarf instead of a planet.
And from another article by Astronomy magazine called "When is a planet a planet?"
In the territory between 14 and 72 Jupiter masses are objects that astronomers call brown dwarfs, and they are neither stars nor planets. Scientists believe they form like stars, but never gain enough mass to begin the hydrogen-to-helium fusion process. Instead, they convert hydrogen into a heavier isotope called deuterium, a process that produces far less energy. Brown dwarfs have been found at a range of temperatures—up to about 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit and dipping down to several degrees below zero—and give off very little light, so most telescopes hunt for them in infrared rather than visible light.
Came here with the same link, so I'll be brief:
The International Astronomical Union defined a planet as an object that:
- orbits a star
so they're not what we call planet
I completely agree that the definition of a planet needs more work, but requiring that a planet orbits a star seems incomplete/problematic to me. For example, what if a "planet" formed around a star but then was ejected? Since the rogue planet no longer orbits the star, would it no longer be a planet? The answer very well (and maybe should) be, "No. If it's not orbiting a star, it's not a planet." But then what do we call it?
I'm just excited that we have discoveries that are forcing us to address these questions!
I agree Seagull if you plan on doing a lot of finger picking. For that price you can also get used Martin's and Taylor's
Someone else recommended a Taylor 114, and I've played Martins I like a lot too. Where's the best place to shop used? A smaller shop?
Based on where you live. If you have a guitar center near by stop by to get a feel of the guitar. If you feel comfortable, stop by smaller and local shops to see if you can get a better price. Good for both you and local business
Thanks for the advice! I'll check it out this week
Fun story: When I was a kid my neighbors dad rigged up a trashcan swing (tie a rope to a trashcan handle, throw the other end of the rope over a tree branch, and tie that end to the other trashcan handle). I got in and my friend slowly twisted and wound up the rope by spinning the trashcan. When he couldn't wind it anymore, he let go.
I spun faster and faster as the rope untwisted, and eventually I was pinned against the inside of the trashcan while rotating at what seemed like a dozen revolutions a second.
I stumbled out when it finally stopped spinning, and my friend's smile dissapeared instantly. Very matter-of-factly, he said, "Go see your mom." (She is a nurse.)
Turns out, I hemorrhaged a bunch of blood vessels in my eyes. The whites of my eyes remained beet red for the next week or so. Going back to my third grade classes, I felt half embarrassed, half like a god.