Planet that doesn't orbit a star.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sad_freak

Guest
i heard about somthing that astrinomers found. apprantly somone has discovred two planets that orbit one another. has anyone else heard this? i didn't think it would be gravetationally possible. i imagined they would either be pulled together or thrown apart.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_Discover_Twin_Planemos_999.html<br /><br />Its possible for planets to orbit each other as is thought to be the case with the planemos. Binary stars orbit each other around what is known as a barycenter. The barycenter is a point closest to the more massive object that both objects orbit.<br /><br />These new objects must emit some radiation in the form of light. Otherwise, since planets as we know them merely reflect light, how did they detect these objects? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
S

sad_freak

Guest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5241774.stm<br /><br />that's the story i saw. since you reminded me of the name 'planemos' i looked it up. it does mention that they are not accaully planets and their orbit is VERY far apart, further than the sun is from pluto. <br />just goes to show what other wierd thing could be out there.
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
I believe we will some day discover that galaxies are filled with miniature "Solar Systems" comprised of commonly orbiting Sub-solar sized debris. They'll range in size from multiple Brown Dwarf systems (with associated moons, moonlets and belts of debris); down to golf ball sized systems - and even smaller!<br /><br />For a long time, astronomers have resisted the idea that Sub-solar systems were common; they theorized that stars (with their accompanying planets, etc.) were the only logical result of the accretion disc process. <br /><br />It's my opinion that these Sub-solar systems are very common in galaxies; but unfortunately, they're very difficult to detect because they are just too dark to see. <br /><br />Vast numbers of these small un-illuminated systems would contribute to the missing mass (Dark Matter) which <i>we know</i> galaxies must contain, but are unable to detect; and since we can't see it, we're not sure what it's really comprised of...<br /><br />These small systems would likely form from dust and debris starved areas of Stellar Nurseries; much like normal Solar Systems form.<br /><br />The recent discoveries of large Extrasolar planets and other independent Brown Dwarf sized celestial objects seems to support this view and makes me think there's a lot more of this stuff out there! But for now it's all just conjecture... <br /><br />I'm betting we'll eventually discover several Brown Dwarf sized systems between us and our nearest stellar neighbors; (and no, I'm not trying to start a "Planet X" argument...). <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />I think this simple concept makes perfect sense -- it's a discovery waiting to happen!.
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Then its not planet.Brown dwarfs emit radiation.It is margin of stars and planets.Or L dwarf?qso has a pertinent point.Web sites not clear on this point.Anyway binary plant is new thing.BBC calls it twin planet.It exaggeration.They are not reported twins.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
The definition of a planet is getting blurrier between trying to decide the cutoff at both ends. Is Pluto a planet? At what point does a planet get large enough to begin to sustain fusion and become or be identified as a star? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
N

nexium

Guest
It is thought that Earth once had a surface temperatuere of about 500 degrees c = 932 f briefly. At this temperature a planet would be detectable at a distance of several light years by the infrared energy it radiated, even if there were no stars closer than about 4 lightyears. As the surface cooled, they would become less detectable, and a few such planets may be about a light year from Earth. They would occassionaly occult = eclipse stars briefly, and we could calculate their distance, if the same occult was observed from two wide spaced locations on Earth. When observed from a single location (or the time is not recorded to second accuracy) a comet or asteroid is generally assumed. Neil
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Good points, thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Nexium had made the point that planets that are not in close proximity or not orbiting stars can emanate heat in the infrared which would make them detectable with telesopes operating in the IR spectrum. I had asked how the planets be seen if they have no starlight to reflect.<br /><br />Even though a telescope could see planets in the IR spectrum, I guess now I'm wondering how one knows where to look for them.<br /><br />And it is remotely possible for a planet not to orbit a star if it was somehow broken away from that star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts