What are rogue planets?

[Unclear Engineer]

Well, at least we agree that there are lies on the Internet. We just disagree on which is which.

 

[ZZTOP]

Well, at least we agree that there are lies on the Internet. We just disagree on which is which.

I picked up a book once in which Hawking said that nothing can escape a black hole.

Later he admitted that he lied just to get attention and sell his golden book. That said I read the preface and skipped to a chapter then put the book composed of long syllabled scientific synonyms down as I saw the silliness. Others who celebrated the book had to wait years to know what I already did. True story

 

[Helio]

For rogue planets, just like trying to find Brown's Planet 9, orbital IR telescopes, especially survey scopes that image in broad patches, are the best bet for finding distant planets in the solar system since the larger the object the more IR they will likely emit.

Reflected light is a challenge for the more distant objects since their brightness varies with as to the inverse 4th power, not inverse square. This is because the light from the Sun diminishes as to the square of that distance in its travels to reach the object, and the light reflected that comes to us also diminishes also as to the square of that distance, hence the net is the 4th power reduction.

A Jupiter twin, by my math, would be invisible to the HST at around 8700 AU, ~ 16,000 AU for the JWST. Yet they both can see planets located almost 100x that distance (because only the inverse square law is at work).

Smaller objects will likely be cooler, thus harder to find for IR scopes. Then there is the galactic plane that produces a lot of background noise.

UE's note about microlensing and occultations are other ways they can be seen.

As for Hawking, he later showed that blackholes would evaporate given enough time due to events at the EH. Perhaps that explains his comment, though it is more likely that he may have been jesting. All one has to do is look at his physics and other comments to see his convictions about BHs.

 

[ZZTOP]

For rogue planets, just like trying to find Brown's Planet 9, orbital IR telescopes, especially survey scopes that image in broad patches, are the best bet for finding distant planets in the solar system since the larger the object the more IR they will likely emit.

Reflected light is a challenge for the more distant objects since their brightness varies with as to the inverse 4th power, not inverse square. This is because the light from the Sun diminishes as to the square of that distance in its travels to reach the object, and the light reflected that comes to us also diminishes also as to the square of that distance, hence the net is the 4th power reduction.

A Jupiter twin, by my math, would be invisible to the HST at around 8700 AU, ~ 16,000 AU for the JWST. Yet they both can see planets located almost 100x that distance (because only the inverse square law is at work).

Smaller objects will likely be cooler, thus harder to find for IR scopes. Then there is the galactic plane that produces a lot of background noise.

UE's note about microlensing and occultations are other ways they can be seen.

As for Hawking, he later showed that blackholes would evaporate given enough time due to events at the EH. Perhaps that explains his comment, though it is more likely that he may have been jesting. All one has to do is look at his physics and other comments to see his convictions about BHs.

What does our sun have to do with any rogue planet that by definition is not part of any star system?

So what physics did Hawking use when he claimed that nothing could escape a black hole? Think

 

[Helio]

What does our sun have to do with any rogue planet that by definition is not part of any star system?

My point was to demonstrate our ability/inability to observe such objects by using a local example, such as Jupiter. If we can't see Jupiter 1/6th of the distance to the edge of the solar system, then how hard will it be to see the more distant rogue planets? This is where UE's points should be recognized for detection.

So what physics did Hawking use when he claimed that nothing could escape a black hole? Think

The reason they are "black" is because even light is too slow to reach the necessary "escape velocity". Nothing known is faster, hence, nothing can escape. The math is out there and his papers are likely easy to find if you really are interested in the math/physics.

 

[ZZTOP]

My point was to demonstrate our ability/inability to observe such objects by using a local example, such as Jupiter. If we can't see Jupiter 1/6th of the distance to the edge of the solar system, then how hard will it be to see the more distant rogue planets? This is where UE's points should be recognized for detection.

The reason they are "black" is because even light is too slow to reach the necessary "escape velocity". Nothing known is faster, hence, nothing can escape. The math is out there and his papers are likely easy to find if you really are interested in the math/physics.

So according to both Hawking and you nothing can escape a black hole, except for the radiation that escapes the black hole, which by the way is not black since they have been photographed.

Ok now I understand

 

[billslugg]

The "image of a black hole" we have seen is really an image of an accretion disc surrounding a black hole. The Black Hole itself cannot be imaged.

 

[Helio]

So according to both Hawking and you nothing can escape a black hole, except for the radiation that escapes the black hole, which by the way is not black since they have been photographed.

Ok now I understand

At the EH, IIRC, a split can occur out of virtual particles that emerge where one part goes in the hole and the other leaves from the very edge of the EH. Thus the particle that leaves was never in the bh. [search Hawking soft hair]

An image of a bh will only show emptiness, which implies a bh. It is only the orbiting matter that reveals a bh, or it reveals itself by microlensing. [Bill beat me. ]

 

[ZZTOP]

At the EH, IIRC, a split can occur out of virtual particles that emerge where one part goes in the hole and the other leaves from the very edge of the EH. Thus the particle that leaves was never in the bh. [search Hawking soft hair]

An image of a bh will only show emptiness, which implies a bh. It is only the orbiting matter that reveals a bh, or it reveals itself by microlensing. [Bill beat me. ]

Says the current theory of the month. If Hawking radiation is real then Hawking was 100% wrong as Einstein was 100% wrong if universal expansion is happening

So why look to people who admitted to being wrong for answers? Makes no sense, but there are no answers

At present in the absence of any math to prove, the universe is an illusion that we are part of. So the question is, can we ever know what we are or are not, because according to the math the universe cannot be expanding faster than light speed as is now observed

 

[ZZTOP]

The "image of a black hole" we have seen is really an image of an accretion disc surrounding a black hole. The Black Hole itself cannot be imaged.

The disk is built by the gravity of the hole and as such is part of it. The fact is that when the theory first came out as mathematics that there were no images, and that if the image came first it would not be called a black hole in the first place. Just another mistake

 

[Helio]

If Hawking radiation is real then Hawking was 100% wrong as Einstein was 100% wrong if universal expansion is happening

How is Hawking 100% wrong if it is "real"?

Einstein, along with essentially every prior human since antiquity, assumed the universe was fixed (aka static), not shrinking nor expanding. Recall that the MW as the universe and those spiral nebulae, first observed by Rosse using his Leviathan telescope, were just nebulae.

Science is a step by step process. Step 2: It took Slipher to discover those odd spiral nebulae were very likely moving too fast to be objects in the MW.

Step 3: Hubble, using Cepheids, found the distance to Andromeda and others. He then produced an equation for using the apparent magnitude of spirals to determine their distance.

Step 4 -- the giant step -- Einstein introduces GR (General Relativity).

But, he soon tossed in his cosmological constant to make things "fit the appearances", namely a static universe. He admitted he had a "bad conscience" about something that simply looked ad hoc, which is why he tossed it out the door as soon as he woke up to Lemaitre's expansion model. But others (Lemiatre, Edington) did not drop what became a vacuum energy term to help drive expansion.

We can learn by wrong decisions. There are far more wrong science models than once that are solid. [No theory can be proven to be true, only falsified.]

Thus wrongness must be taken into context. Some wrongs are stupid while some are logical given limited evidence.

So why look to people who admitted to being wrong for answers? Makes no sense, but there are no answers

Are you never wrong? Who is never wrong? Being wrong means one is trying, at least.

At present in the absence of any math to prove, the universe is an illusion that we are part of. So the question is, can we ever know what we are or are not, because according to the math the universe cannot be expanding faster than light speed as is now observed

The expansion of space has no speed limit. In order to see very distant objects, we recognize that these objects are traveling in space where space itself is moving faster than light. Light, surprisingly, has little problem in reaching us from such regions because the emitted light eventually travels to regions that aren't traveling faster than light.

 

[ZZTOP]

How is Hawking 100% wrong if it is "real"?

Einstein, along with essentially every prior human since antiquity, assumed the universe was fixed (aka static), not shrinking nor expanding. Recall that the MW as the universe and those spiral nebulae, first observed by Rosse using his Leviathan telescope, were just nebulae.

Science is a step by step process. Step 2: It took Slipher to discover those odd spiral nebulae were very likely moving too fast to be objects in the MW.

Step 3: Hubble, using Cepheids, found the distance to Andromeda and others. He then produced an equation for using the apparent magnitude of spirals to determine their distance.

Step 4 -- the giant step -- Einstein introduces GR (General Relativity).

But, he soon tossed in his cosmological constant to make things "fit the appearances", namely a static universe. He admitted he had a "bad conscience" about something that simply looked ad hoc, which is why he tossed it out the door as soon as he woke up to Lemaitre's expansion model. But others (Lemiatre, Edington) did not drop what became a vacuum energy term to help drive expansion.

We can learn by wrong decisions. There are far more wrong science models than once that are solid. [No theory can be proven to be true, only falsified.]

Thus wrongness must be taken into context. Some wrongs are stupid while some are logical given limited evidence.


Are you never wrong? Who is never wrong? Being wrong means one is trying, at least.

The expansion of space has no speed limit. In order to see very distant objects, we recognize that these objects are traveling in space where space itself is moving faster than light. Light, surprisingly, has little problem in reaching us from such regions because the emitted light eventually travels to regions that aren't traveling faster than light.

Hawking said that nothing could escape a black hole, then he changed this to everything escapes a black hole by radiation. Since both are not correct either one is right and one is wrong or both are wrong. Thus Hawking was wrong,

Einstein claimed math that PROVED a non expanding universe. This was wrong as Hubble proved

I do not accept everything that I am told, and neither should you

 

[Helio]

Hawking said that nothing could escape a black hole, then he changed this to everything escapes a black hole by radiation. Since both are not correct either one is right and one is wrong or both are wrong. Thus Hawking was wrong,

No. Look at what I said.

Einstein claimed math that PROVED a non expanding universe. This was wrong as Hubble proved

I do not accept everything that I am told, and neither should you

No. Einstein's initial cosmological model assumed a static universe, but his model failed to explain redshifts. De Sitter also assumed a static universe, but his model explained redshifts, yet his model had no mass in the universe. Worse, as Lemaitre discovered, de Sitter's model violated homogeneity, thus the geodesics were incorrect.

We all tend to believe what we want to believe. The facts are critical to understanding, but the facts (objective evidence) require they be fully taken into context. The facts greatly favor one and only one model --- BBT. But, as I've said, no model/theory is provable, only falsifiable. BBT is highly respected since essentially all it has passed some many tests of its very many predictions. It's not fully understood because it we have yet to unify all the forces, for instance.

I've spent a lot of time studying the BBT, mainly how we got here from historical evidence. It's a very interesting story. The BBT took many decades to become mainstream, and there was a lot of great doubt in the early days. For instance, Einstein, in a meeting with Lemaitre, told Lemaitre his math was fine but his physics was abominable. Once, however, he took a serious look at Lemaite's work, with the help of both Edington and de Sitter, Einstein was apologetic. Einstein was quick to stand and give Lemaitre applause for his work after a speech of his model.

 

[ZZTOP]

No. Look at what I said.

No. Einstein's initial cosmological model assumed a static universe, but his model failed to explain redshifts. De Sitter also assumed a static universe, but his model explained redshifts, yet his model had no mass in the universe. Worse, as Lemaitre discovered, de Sitter's model violated homogeneity, thus the geodesics were incorrect.

We all tend to believe what we want to believe. The facts are critical to understanding, but the facts (objective evidence) require they be fully taken into context. The facts greatly favor one and only one model --- BBT. But, as I've said, no model/theory is provable, only falsifiable. BBT is highly respected since essentially all it has passed some many tests of its very many predictions. It's not fully understood because it we have yet to unify all the forces, for instance.

I've spent a lot of time studying the BBT, mainly how we got here from historical evidence. It's a very interesting story. The BBT took many decades to become mainstream, and there was a lot of great doubt in the early days. For instance, Einstein, in a meeting with Lemaitre, told Lemaitre his math was fine but his physics was abominable. Once, however, he took a serious look at Lemaite's work, with the help of both Edington and de Sitter, Einstein was apologetic. Einstein was quick to stand and give Lemaitre applause for his work after a speech of his model.

Einstein did not know what a redshift was until Hubble educated him and Einstein was forced to admit his mistake. Yet people like you still cannot admit that Einstein was wrong. It's comical actually.