CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050713_triple_sun.html

w00t! I love stuff like this. I'm always collecting information of this type for when I'm witnessing to my peers. ^^

I won

Neat! Now if the technique can only be refined enough to detect smaller planets, then some really interesting work can be done.

PS. Pitch Black was a cool movie.

that picture... is so pretty! Yet i would be scared to death If i were like there... isolated O.o

"How a planet was born amidst these competing gravitational forces will be a challenge for planet formation theories."
I still like the theory that says that God put them all there and guides their paths

and that picture is no doubt an artist's rendition of what they think it might look like there... a very good artist at that... full size pic plz?

Edit: Nevermind, http://www.space.com/images/050713_trin ... set_02.jpg
looks like a great piece of art, but poorly rendered for viewing on computers...

That's so cool! I wonder if anything does live on there? This universe( orirgin of name 0ne phrase) is so above our thinking. This kind of find makes me so excited!

wow that pic is so awesome, if you find anymore stuff like that, please do post it...it is really good for whitnessing:)


[Dolor=SeaGreen]teen4truth[/color]

Ah, take that, Planet Gunsmoke... THREE suns compared to your meagre two.

Hi guys,

Yeh planets are simply beautiful and amazing things. So are stars, and globular clusters, planetary nebulae, and galaxies.

I haven't read through the whole article from the first link, but in answer to oro!girl7's question about life on the planets, it's probably not likely, because:

- the planets are past 3 Astronomical Units. Life is most likely to exist from 0.95 to 1.15 AU (as you can see it's a very fine range).

- the planets are gas giants. They do have atmospheres, but probably ones unlike earth's and therefore not good for life. You'd want the kind of atmosphere that carbon based lifeforms can survive in, and though my chemisty is shocking, i think it's relatively safe to say that most gas giants have either hydrogen, ammonia or methane mostly in their atmospheres. You need more carbon and oxygen in them. A lot more, I think.

- The three stars' combined gravity would also play havoc with the planets. It's probably safe to say that only stable star systems such as ours (where there is just one primary star, and it is neither too large or too small - thus ensuring a steady life cycle for the star) are capable of hosting life.

To me this seems to argue that there is an Intelligent Creator (God) who put us here. It would seem to me that a lot of care and planning was involved and that life just didn't simply "happen".

However, I could be wrong regarding gas giants' being unable to host life (for example, the inner solid cores may be warm enough to host some kind of life even though it's 3AUs away from the stars) as I am not a trained scientist and lack the necessary knowledge.

I am simply coming from the perspective of a person who has been interested in Astronomy and apologetics for a number of years.

Also, the existence of life (intelligent and otherwise) does not rule out the validity of God and Christianity - it simply affirms that God is capable of pleasantly surprising with His magnificent creative power.

Also, the existence of life (intelligent and otherwise) does not rule out the validity of God and Christianity - it simply affirms that God is capable of pleasantly surprising with His magnificent creative power.

Most certainly not. I am of the opinion that there very well may be other, unfallen & unsinful worlds out there that still get to bask in the presence of God.

What these creatures look like is anybody's guess, but I am sure they are beautiful beings.

That is God's art work for you.

frwl wrote:"How a planet was born amidst these competing gravitational forces will be a challenge for planet formation theories."
I still like the theory that says that God put them all there and guides their paths

Exactaily what I was thinking! Dude, three suns? That is amaizing!! I love this stuff! Isin't it AWESOME how God is creative?? We tend to put Him in our little boxes, and think He is some stuffy old guy up in heaven. But he MADE the universe! Everything from how the leaves are all so diffrent, in color, texture and shape, to a planet with three suns!!!

Ultra Magnus wrote:I haven't read through the whole article from the first link, but in answer to oro!girl7's question about life on the planets, it's probably not likely, because:

- the planets are past 3 Astronomical Units. Life is most likely to exist from 0.95 to 1.15 AU (as you can see it's a very fine range).

With a single sun of our Sun's size and temp, maybe. But then, there are also environments on our planet where bacteria and other life don't rely on sunlight, but on chemicals pouring from vents in the earth, underwater.

- the planets are gas giants. They do have atmospheres, but probably ones unlike earth's and therefore not good for life. You'd want the kind of atmosphere that carbon based lifeforms can survive in, and though my chemisty is shocking, i think it's relatively safe to say that most gas giants have either hydrogen, ammonia or methane mostly in their atmospheres. You need more carbon and oxygen in them. A lot more, I think.

We don't have the technology to detect much smaller than gas giants when they're so far away. There may well be millions of Earth sized planets throughout that 3 star solar system-- but we can't detect them currently, if I understand correctly.
And again, not all life on Earth requires the same gases and chemicals as humans do.

- The three stars' combined gravity would also play havoc with the planets. It's probably safe to say that only stable star systems such as ours (where there is just one primary star, and it is neither too large or too small - thus ensuring a steady life cycle for the star) are capable of hosting life.

It'd be more complicated than our solar system, sure. But it probably has an equilibrium or stable state it settled into... or not. But I think it's possible. Besides, the farther away from the suns the planets are, the less that gravity affects them.

Arbre wrote:With a single sun of our Sun's size and temp, maybe. But then, there are also environments on our planet where bacteria and other life don't rely on sunlight, but on chemicals pouring from vents in the earth, underwater.

I don't know enough about bacteria and lifeforms that don't need sunlight to survive. Would it still be fair to say that for the earth to be as it is (capable of sustaining life, even chemical vents pouring forth, etc.) the Sun is ultimately needed? Could you tell me more about this stuff, thanks.

Arbre wrote:We don't have the technology to detect much smaller than gas giants when they're so far away. There may well be millions of Earth sized planets throughout that 3 star solar system-- but we can't detect them currently, if I understand correctly.
And again, not all life on Earth requires the same gases and chemicals as humans do.

Yes I agree, I think earth-sized planets are extremely difficult to detect when they're in other star systems. And you're right again in that planets certainly take in carbon dioxide instead of oxygen.

What do you think about the possibility of life being sustained by methane or ammonia instead?

Arbre wrote:It'd be more complicated than our solar system, sure. But it probably has an equilibrium or stable state it settled into... or not. But I think it's possible. Besides, the farther away from the suns the planets are, the less that gravity affects them.

Sorry .. what I should have said more clearly was that I think because larger stars burn up their fuel quicker, it'd not make for as stable a star system as ours, since giant and supergiant stars tend to go boom when they die and flood their surroundings with all kinds of nasty stuff (e.g. radiation).

I enjoyed talking with you. Cheers!

Ultra Magnus wrote:I don't know enough about bacteria and lifeforms that don't need sunlight to survive. Would it still be fair to say that for the earth to be as it is (capable of sustaining life, even chemical vents pouring forth, etc.) the Sun is ultimately needed? Could you tell me more about this stuff, thanks.

That depends on what you mean by the earth as it is. It is true that some types of life, including the most primitive life, requires neither sunlight nor oxygen. The earliest bacteria are believed to have had metabolisms that either ate sulphur or methane, producing oxygen as a waste product. However, the energy needed to sustain complex life is greater than can be obtained from this kind of metabolism (at least as seen so far in terrestrial life), whilst oxygen can be used to power such a metabolism.

In terms of sunlight, like I said life can exist without it, however volcanic and hydrothermal activity are quite localized, and are subject to suddenly becoming dormant or totally inactive as a result of tectonic activity. I'm also not sure as to how much total energy these kinds of sources can supply to the food chain, which will most likely place limits on the kind of ecology that can develop. Sunlight on the other hand is constant, universal and probably supplies more available energy.

For further reading you might be interested in William Schopf's "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils" or Christopher Wills "The Spark of Life"

What do you think about the possibility of life being sustained by methane or ammonia instead?

Methane breathing life already exists on earth, but the limiting factor is the amount of available energy.

Oh thanks for that. The main point I've managed to remember from this is that without sunlight the variety and complexity of life is quite stunted / limited.

Wow... triple the sunburn in half the time... great summer vacation...

Now how come a planet like Jupiter can get 16 moons, but we're stuck with one? I think 16 would make quite a pretty night sky. Just kidding, Big Guy in Charge, don't hit me with any lightning bolts.

rocklobster wrote:Now how come a planet like Jupiter can get 16 moons, but we're stuck with one? I think 16 would make quite a pretty night sky. Just kidding, Big Guy in Charge, don't hit me with any lightning bolts.

C'mon, can you imagine how nuts the tide would be with 16 moons pulling on us instead of just one?

Jupitor has 50 something moons that they have discovered so far actauuly. Alot of space imformation gets outdated fast.

Yeh Jupiter has heaps of moons, some big (e.g. Ganymede) and some quite tiny (usually the name is just a combination of letters and numbers).

Jupiter has heaps of heaps simply because it's the biggest planet and has the greatest gravitational pull out of the planets.

It's also good because it acts a shield for us against incoming comets (I think one of them that hit Jupiter was comet Shoemaker-Levy).