ANU boffin finds our sun's twin

since the dawn of time, mankind has dreamed of destroying the sun….

and to weigh in on the argument – the troublesome sentence in S4nta’s post just doesn’t make sense. Logically or humorously. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

How do we go about that?

if we kill this star, global warming on our planet will stop.

and darkmilk, I’m sorry, but I still don’t see how anything in S4anta’s post could offend even the fussiest of astronomers.

darkmilk: in one place where I can respond and hopefully improve my community.

Should probably have a crack at improving your delivery or risk having your helpful suggestions simply being laughed at.

fnaah: But where is the link to the actual story?
At the very least there’s a link to the site that hosts the story. It took me two clicks to find it.

While I get the tongue-in-cheek reference to our sun causing our sea levels to rise (which technically, it doesn’t, the added levels of greenhouse gases cause radiation to be trapped, which heats up the planet – there is no change to what the sun is doing)

…which heats up the planet and contributes to the rise in sea levels… it isn’t that difficult to connect the dots and S4anta shouldn’t have to aim for the lowest common denominator.

Any idiot knows that the sun doesn’t affect sea levels across the whole galaxy, and again, I think S4anta was relying upon the reader having an IQ in double digits.

Similarly, even though this is (presumably) a direct quote from the article itself, I’m having a hard time figuring out which star is 4.6 billion years old

It is clearly a quote, and it is clear which star it means when referring to age. “…it may be a billions years older than the sun, which is middle-aged at 4.6…” i.e the twin is older than our sun which is 4.6 – the twin is 5.6.

This site is built on people putting their own spin on the news – if you’re looking for headlines only, find the site yourself and use RSS.

Do I think the issues you raised aren’t issues at all? No. Do I think they’re nitpicky and out of place on a site based on user contributions (that lacks any real posting guidelines and where each article is moderator approved), yes.

Alright, fair enough, “any old slop” was a bit overly critical, and I apologise.

However, there are some issues here that need to be looked at.

The original poster has simply found a story that they thought may be of interest to the rest of us and has shared.

Fair enough. But where is the link to the actual story? I see a link to someone *in* the story, and a link to an archaeology site.

While I get the tongue-in-cheek reference to our sun causing our sea levels to rise (which technically, it doesn’t, the added levels of greenhouse gases cause radiation to be trapped, which heats up the planet – there is no change to what the sun is doing), the sentence is pretty ambiguous, and also implies that the sun affects sea levels across the whole galaxy. It’s not *meant* to say that, but that’s the way it reads.

Similarly, even though this is (presumably) a direct quote from the article itself, I’m having a hard time figuring out which star is 4.6 billion years old. Again, the sentence reads either way.

All said and done, I think I’d rather have read a post that says “Scientist finds twin to our star, click for more details”, but I guess that’s why I read other sites more than RA.

I should clarify a little: it’s great to see science stories, but if you remove the section that I’m criticizing this would have been a good *science* story without having to have an emotional or topical angle typical of journalists.

I don’t think I got out of the wrong side of the bed, but I might have been reading Bad Astronomy way too much! This story copped it as it is an example of something that has been bugging me for a while (my work is Astronomy related) in one place where I can respond and hopefully improve my community.

You’re joking right?

I’m all for good grammar and spelling, but it isn’t like S4anta’s post was the product of a preschooler, and it certainly wasn’t any old slop.

The original poster has simply found a story that they thought may be of interest to the rest of us and has shared. The nutters (darkmilk) and the grammar police need to do this.

I’m kinda with darkmilk on this one. I appreciate that s4anta put in some effort in bringing us the story, but you can’t just write any old slop just because it sounds cool and “newsy-like”.

Bad grammar is something that is up with which I will not put. 😉

apologies for bad spelling and being stupid enough to assume that people are astute enough and have the vocab to understand when any particular is using creative license to be tounge in cheek.

I am not a journo, i actually have better things to do, such as sitting in my sleeping bag and taking heroin, then posting my paranoia to annoy pin heads like darkmilk.

Stp crying emo boy.