32 replies to this topic

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.gemini.ed...de/11836</span>
http://www.jpl.nasa....2012-197</span>
http://newsroom.ucla...572.aspx</span>

Well, I can think of three possibilities, ranging from the highly unlikely thru the downright weird to the unashamedly speculative.

1.
Our models of planet formation are dead wrong. Instead of taking millions of years, maybe it just takes dozens.
(Unlikely, imho.)

2.
This star is a freak and there'll never be another one that behaves anything like this.
(Unlikely, improbable and really weird, if that's true!)

3.
All the dust (several planet's worth!) has been rapidly hoovered up by von Neumann probes... http://en.wikipedia....n_probes</span>
...for purposes known only to their makers.




Any other offers?

BAA.

Edited by bornagainathiest, 11 July 2012 - 04:23 PM.

[Babylonian Dream]

Makes no sense to me. Maybe extreme solar wind? At a loss of astronomical purportions.

[Thought2Much]

4. God did it.

5. It was the Langoliers.

[Babylonian Dream]

Umm... guys... The klingons did it! Isn't it obvious? Who else would be so willing to destroy an entire solar system, and feel no emotion in doing so?

[WMDKitty]

Umm... guys... The klingons did it! Isn't it obvious? Who else would be so willing to destroy an entire solar system, and feel no emotion in doing so?

The Romulans, duh!

[mcdaddy]

Umm... guys... The klingons did it! Isn't it obvious? Who else would be so willing to destroy an entire solar system, and feel no emotion in doing so?

The Romulans, duh!

Ancient Aliens.

[Thurisaz]

As the interested layman who I am, I wouldn't rule out a freak influence coming from another star originally... like, some star not too far away went boom, the gamma ray burst hit that system and did awful things to the dust

So many things are possible out there... what a shame that we won't be able to get there to see it with our own eyes anytime soon

[bornagainathiest]

As the interested layman who I am, I wouldn't rule out a freak influence coming from another star originally... like, some star not too far away went boom, the gamma ray burst hit that system and did awful things to the dust

So many things are possible out there... what a shame that we won't be able to get there to see it with our own eyes anytime soon

Hey Thuriasz!

Please turn the corners of your mouth upwards!

Why?

Because we don't have to... "get there, anytime soon" ...to see what's happening.
.
.
.


Mid 2012 http://planetimager.org/

2013 http://www.almaobservatory.org/

2018 http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

2020 http://www.gmto.org/

Early 2020's http://www.eso.org/p...nstr/e-elt.html

Whenever. http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/eelt/owl/
.
.
Hang in there, partner!



BAA.

Edited by bornagainathiest, 12 July 2012 - 03:12 AM.

[Thurisaz]

Hey I didn't want to say we know nothing and have no way at all to learn anything... I'd just prefer to have a way to see it all personally

[stryper]

or the simpler explaination.

The theory of planetary formation needs to be updated. Like any model of how something works, it is correct in a majority of cases sa 75% - 80% of the time. That other 20% of the time something goes wonky.

Or even simpler, as happens in cosmology alot, we just happened to be in the right position to actually see the process "in action" thus leading to the first point.

[FeelHappy]

Oh wait until creationists twist this story.....

[bornagainathiest]

Hey I didn't want to say we know nothing and have no way at all to learn anything... I'd just prefer to have a way to see it all personally

You and me both, bro!

Ok, I'm pleased to be living during the twilight of Christianity...

... but on the flip side,I also wish I'd been born in 30th century, not the 20th!

C'est la vie!

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

or the simpler explaination.

The theory of planetary formation needs to be updated. Like any model of how something works, it is correct in a majority of cases sa 75% - 80% of the time. That other 20% of the time something goes wonky.

Or even simpler, as happens in cosmology alot, we just happened to be in the right position to actually see the process "in action" thus leading to the first point.

I'll go with that Stryper.

But the consequences (if your take is the correct one) are just staggering!

We'd have to drop the familiar timeframes of millions of years for astronomical events, in favor much, much shorter ones - perhaps centuries or millennia. This article... http://www.space.com...ar-systems.html ...and the links within it suggest that Alan Boss' new Disk Instability model can deal with rapid planet formation, whereas the original Core Accretion model can't.

If things pan out in Boss' favor, then we've got a ringside seat and can watch new worlds assembling themselves before our very (telescopic) eyes.

Thanks,

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Who flipped the switch?

[bornagainathiest]

Oh wait until creationists twist this story.....

Oh wait... I know what they'll say, FeelHappy!

2 Peter 3: 8 (NIV)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

So, if it looks like a new solar system is forming over something like a 6,000 year period, that's proof poz that God takes 6 days to make a world like ours?

R-i-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Who flipped the switch?

You need to ask, Ouroboros?

According to OrdinaryClay... "even a small amount of thought will show the truth of Intelligent Design".



BAA.

[Thought2Much]

I think it will be interesting to find out if there are now planets of some sort left in the system, or if the material is actually all gone. Either way, it's pretty interesting.

[freeasabird]

Our telescopes were getting too close so god had to pick up and move further away again.

[oddbird1963]

That's amazing. Are they saying new planets formed, or just that irradiated dust just cooled off quickly so now we can't see it? Maybe some systems form planets like theorized, but others spontaneously abort. Just so it's not the star's choice to abort the solar system. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

I don't see how it could support creationist assertions either way. Of course, without rationality, the creationists can assert anything they want.

[Thought2Much]

That's amazing. Are they saying new planets formed, or just that irradiated dust just cooled off quickly so now we can't see it?

It doesn't look like they know if there are planets in the system or not. I would imagine it would also be difficult to tell if they had anything to do with the disappearance of the dust or not, since we don't know if any planets that may be discovered existed before the event that cleared out the dust.