<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Clearing the Browser Tabs &#8211; Da Radio Guy Saturday Edition</title> <atom:link href="http://www.sundriesshack.com/2010/11/20/clearing-the-browser-tabs-da-radio-guy-saturday-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2010/11/20/clearing-the-browser-tabs-da-radio-guy-saturday-edition/</link> <description>Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 03:09:31 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Falahime</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2010/11/20/clearing-the-browser-tabs-da-radio-guy-saturday-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-695553</link> <dc:creator>Falahime</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:30:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=14286#comment-695553</guid> <description>I can&#039;t look at Ryan Reynolds without thinking &quot;Van Wilder.&quot; &quot;Yamato&quot; looks f-ing awesome, tho. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#039;t look at Ryan Reynolds without thinking &quot;Van Wilder.&quot; &quot;Yamato&quot; looks f-ing awesome, tho.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jimmie</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2010/11/20/clearing-the-browser-tabs-da-radio-guy-saturday-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-695546</link> <dc:creator>Jimmie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:45:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=14286#comment-695546</guid> <description>Why you do not have your own science blog is entirely beyond me. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why you do not have your own science blog is entirely beyond me.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Mr. Science Guy</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2010/11/20/clearing-the-browser-tabs-da-radio-guy-saturday-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-695545</link> <dc:creator>Mr. Science Guy</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:25:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=14286#comment-695545</guid> <description>Call it &#039;first planet &lt;i&gt;formerly&lt;/i&gt; located in another galaxy&#039;; or even &#039;first planet formed in another galaxy,&#039; if you want to be accurate. It&#039;s not in another galaxy any more, because its parent galaxy was eaten by ours. Like the Magellenic Clouds will eventually be absorbed.
If the planet&#039;s parent star were still in another galaxy, it would be &lt;i&gt;much&lt;/i&gt; too far away for us to find the planet. This is not to suggest that the discovery is insignificant, though--here, let&#039;s look at a couple of different hypotheses:
A) Planets might not form around every star, but they form around many stars, and that means there are billions of trillions of planets in the universe.
B) Planets can only form in the Milky Way galaxy, because of the unique conditions found here, so there are probably no more than about a trillion planets in the whole universe.
Now, up until last week, either of those hypotheses was plausible, because every planet we&#039;d found was in our local neighborhood, and therefore was formed &lt;i&gt;somewhere&lt;/i&gt; in the Milky Way, even if its star later got dragged around and mixed with stars from other parts of the galaxy. This new planet is also in our neighborhood, now, but its star was born in an early galaxy that doesn&#039;t exist any more; now that it&#039;s been discovered, Hypothesis B has been shattered. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Call it &#039;first planet <i>formerly</i> located in another galaxy&#039;; or even &#039;first planet formed in another galaxy,&#039; if you want to be accurate. It&#039;s not in another galaxy any more, because its parent galaxy was eaten by ours. Like the Magellenic Clouds will eventually be absorbed.</p><p>If the planet&#039;s parent star were still in another galaxy, it would be <i>much</i> too far away for us to find the planet. This is not to suggest that the discovery is insignificant, though&#8211;here, let&#039;s look at a couple of different hypotheses:</p><p>A) Planets might not form around every star, but they form around many stars, and that means there are billions of trillions of planets in the universe.</p><p>B) Planets can only form in the Milky Way galaxy, because of the unique conditions found here, so there are probably no more than about a trillion planets in the whole universe.</p><p>Now, up until last week, either of those hypotheses was plausible, because every planet we&#039;d found was in our local neighborhood, and therefore was formed <i>somewhere</i> in the Milky Way, even if its star later got dragged around and mixed with stars from other parts of the galaxy. This new planet is also in our neighborhood, now, but its star was born in an early galaxy that doesn&#039;t exist any more; now that it&#039;s been discovered, Hypothesis B has been shattered.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: www.sundriesshack.com @ 2012-05-26 00:16:39 by W3 Total Cache -->
