What is Digg?60 Comments
- derlin, on 11/02/2007, -5/+87Planet *****, can you spell it?
- crazybugger, on 11/02/2007, -14/+46I'd prefer to called planets, not plannets.
- sircomix, on 11/02/2007, -0/+29The pot calling the kettle black?
- idioteque1025, on 11/02/2007, -2/+31FTA: "They are also more than 2,000 degrees hotter, making extra-terrestrial life impossible."
Isn't that kind of a naive way of thinking. Maybe there are people chilling on that planet who just discovered earth and think it is far to cold for extra-terrestrial life. I'm not saying we could survive there, but to say it like we are the end-all-be-all of the universe is kind of narcissistic. - idiggitall, on 11/02/2007, -1/+20and I'd prefer to be able to understand what you're saying. WTF?
- erzz, on 11/02/2007, -1/+20Now they are real names for planets. Wasp sounds so much better than YI23104752 or whatever the normal crap nomenclature is ;)
- chronichyjinx, on 11/02/2007, -2/+20I'd also prefer if you could make some sense. But we all can't get what we want.
- thrikulam, on 11/01/2007, -1/+19Say "Wasp" one more time.
- AllnightChemist, on 11/02/2007, -0/+18These are planets so large you need two Ns to spell it!
- slashbot, on 11/01/2007, -1/+14Apparently one of them has already been named Rosie O'donnell
- airmaster, on 11/02/2007, -1/+10The knew Firrefox hazz a bilt innn spehl chequer
ann o yeaaaa so duzz diggggggggg - kaelyiesta, on 11/02/2007, -1/+8FTA:
""These planets are gas planets like Jupiter, but are very much hotter because they are around 50 per cent closer to their stars," he said."
"They are orbiting their stars so closely that their 'year' lasts less than two days. "
So, we know the planets have mass > jupiter, and lets assume(because they dont explicitly state what they are 50% the distance of, for all we know, they could be talking about mercury or venus) the average radius/distance of the planets is half that of jupiters distance to our sun. The average of that is 375 *10^6 km roughly. The circumference is 2*PI*r for a perfect circle, which is close enough. If my hasty math is right, the distance the planets sweep in one full period is 2.35619449 × 10^9 km. This is done in 2 days, so the average velocity is 2.35619449 × 10^9 km/ 2 days. That comes to an average velocity of 13,635,384.8 m / s. Light is 299792458 m / s, so if my math is right, the planets are still within einsteins bounds, even using the assumption of the farther radius.
Still, I am amazed that such massive planets have such a large rotational acceleration. The sun must be massive as well. - dimmak, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7I was hoping that 3 inconspicuous planets just decided to show up in our solar system to ***** with Pluto more.
- idiggitall, on 11/02/2007, -1/+8I know. I'm just being an *****.
- kweeky, on 11/02/2007, -0/+6Such as the field of astrophysics?
- Gadren, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6True, but there's a sort of implied "as we know it" after the word "life" when talking about exobiology. If we throuw our hands up in the air and say that anything's possible, it's far harder to get anything done.
- hydroplane, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5I for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
- typicalusername, on 11/02/2007, -2/+6"NNNEEEERRRRDDDDSSSSS!!!"
- LoudMusic, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Not to mention, 2000 degrees hotter than Earth would incinerate damn near every kind of matter that we are aware of. Especially all life-oriented matter.
- typicalusername, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4Wow...Those ANYONE must be the whole 80% rest of the planet, who believe in one god or another. "We are the children of the stars"? No offense bro, but definately sounds like newage hippie nonsense to me...
- frostcrow, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3exra... it's like watching retards make fun of retarded kids.
- skyshock1, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3WASP? I'm guessing these are far away from the SPIC and KIKE galaxies.
- HayString, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3White Anglo-Saxon Protestant anyone?
- nestcrw, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I guess that not too many people care about planets here (not to be confused with 'plannets' of course). I would have thought that this would have more diggs than it does.
- objectcode, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4welcome to planet MF
- psiphre, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2what's the time dilation of doing .045C?
- chrup, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2There is some error in their calculations - and an error in the comment on their site about the speed the planets rotate.
Speed of light: ~300,000 km/sec => ~ 1,080,000,000 km/hour => 25,920,000,000 km/2 days
They claim the planets are 50% closer to their sun than Jupiter is o ours. According to NASA, Jupiter's mean distance to our sun is:
778,570,000 km, 50% of that is 389,285,000 km, and we get the circumference (the distance those planets need to travel in the 2 days) by 389,285,000 km * 2 * pi => 1,222,938,827 km
Comparing the distance to the speed of light, we can therefore calculate that the planets are traveling at about 5% the speed of light.
Conclusion: Utter rubbish. - TrojanGuy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Dugg for making me think of getting "hot and heavy" with 3 planets.
- threemagic, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2For the simple reason you use to justify it's non-existence. The universe is vast and, as far as we know, infinite so all things are possible. The bible may not be correct but to suggest a more powerful being than ourselves exists seems somewhat foolish to me.
- LoudMusic, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1The parent post didn't mention it. So I did. See how that works? Or too complicated for you? (:
- ciaran036, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1I know... (?)
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2"I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords"
- genepooldesign, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1There's some poor bad-spelling guy (assuming he just hit the n key an extra time and didn't realize it until it was too late) out there who is completely mortified by all of the commentary.
- dagooh, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1If they're giant, how hard can it be to find them? boooouuuuuurns!
- CosmicSombrero, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1That calculation isn't clear. Calculating orbital distances requires more information than given in the article; namely, you need to know the mass of the star and the period (which they give at ~2 days).
If we assumed a sun-like star, then you could roughly calculate that the average separation is (Period in Years)^(2/3) in AU, or roughly 4.7 million km (close!). This would imply an average orbital velocity of about 600,000 km/h, which is quick but nothing relativistic.
The line about them being "50% closer" is ambiguous. Its certainly not referring to 50% closer than Jupiter (unless the host stars are very massive, which I doubt).
We know of planets with sub-10 hour orbital periods (SWEEPS-10, for example), which orbit M-dwarf stars (low mass) and as such have much lower velocities at a given distance from their host star. - pinchduck, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Are they going to kill the planets, like they did with that ancient clam thing?
- benbread, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1'British' suggests people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - you may have noticed from the name that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom...
- threemagic, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You can say, "not to mention" but I don't think you can follow through on it
- ciaran036, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/707091 ...
The scientists were from Queen's University in Belfast. - m8ymerc1, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Your way off! It stands for White Anglo-saxon planet
- inactive, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1I assumed it was the Queen's English spelling.
Sorry, had to say it. - superfusion, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2With the exra "n", they must be bigger.
- slashbot, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2I don't think it works in certain fields
- techmonkey4u, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1@idiggitall: welcome to digg
- hiPpymIck, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3from the comments on the article
According to this approximation the speed of the large planet around its sun is 937,320,000km/h the speed of light is 1,079,252,848.8 km/h. Do they not think they have something wrong in their calculations. A planet this size going around its sun in only two days?
- Robert Browne, Liverpool
anyone.. or this the British version of the Onion again - santaliqueur, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1I see what you did there.
- prol, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0It would be better news if they found smaller and colder exoplanets. They find huge and hot ones often now.
- MaTT2011, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Oh man, i love me some n3wz about the universe; every new bit of information gives those of us who can incorporate such information a much more comprehensive perspective on life, the universe and the general order of things.
It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know that human beings (and other life forms in the universe) are the direct result of the order/chaos of the universe; we are the ultimate culmination and result of the universes complex processes. We are the children of stars......how could ANYONE believe in wacky concepts such as the judeo-christian god in the face of these truths? Such beliefs only do a great injustice to the majesty of the universe and life in general. - thingamagizmo, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0And, actually, it also mentions that it was funded by three universities, so the two articles probably just picked one of the three and used it for their story. It's a lot more concise that way, even if it is inaccurate.
- chronichyjinx, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2One was named Rosie, the other O'Donnell.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is