Huge "rogue" planet discovered roaming aimlessly outside our solar system

a reply to: toysforadults

That's interesting. It lends a lot of credence to the Dogon cosmogony.

originally posted by: ZombieZygote

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Riffrafter

It says in the article that the object is 200 million years old. How do they know how old it is?

They'll just throw out some scientific sounding jargon that nobody can possibly verify, and state it as fact. Standard operating procedure.

Just because you're ignorant about how science works doesn't make it false.

Educate yourself before spouting off foolish comments.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Let me get this straight... this thing is 1,264,822 AU away from us - it's not as if it's brushing up against Pluto every other orbit.

Nothing's worse than when even simple terms like "nearby" gets misused by journalists.

originally posted by: face23785
I dunno why this article talks like scientists were surprised to discover this. Everything I've ever read about rogue planets said they're likely common. In fact there's a good argument that there may be more rogue planets than planets that are orbiting stars.

The surprise is about the size of it (if it's a planet, it's the biggest planet we've seen), and about its very powerful magnetic field.

originally posted by: Scrutinizing

originally posted by: Fools
How can it be anything that matters to our solar system at 20 light years away?

What? You don't think that's a little close for comfort?

There is something else wrong here.

1. How can a planet be a rogue?
2. How can a planet be aimless?

The answer to both of those question is when a planet not orbiting a star. Planets form around stars, and that's where they usually stay.

originally posted by: face23785


I was following you until you suggested the charges could transfer to the core because of conductive materials like iron in the mantle. The mantle is mostly silicates. According to Wikipedia iron only makes up about 6% of the mantle, by weight, and since iron is one of the more dense elements in the mantle this means it must be an even smaller percentage by volume. I doubt there's continuous structures of it running down to the core that an electric current could follow. Am I missing something?

Perhaps continuous conductive structures are not needed. Referring back to the video of the "Spinning Sphere of Molten Sodium" experiment.

At mark 4:52 Professor Dan Lathrop explains that they have not been able to generate a magnetic field dynamo yet without the help of an external electric current that produces a magnetic field. He points out the field coil that can clearly be seen.

Notice also at mark 3:30 he tries to explain that an initial electric current is needed to start off this dynamo action yet states he doesn’t care where this initial current comes from. I am suggesting the possibility that this initial current comes from the Sun via the solar wind and is induced by the relative motion of the Earth through the heliosphere.

We do know that electric currents from the Sun's solar wind can be found flowing though and around Earth's magnetic field.
Challenges associated with near-Earth nightside current
Electric Currents in Outer Space Run the Show
Defining and resolving current systems in geospace
I think it's reasonable to assume that this could be the initial startup of Earth's magnetic field and that this is also what keeps it going. In other words the currents found in geospace, from the solar wind, could act like the field coil in that experiment.

originally posted by: Uberdoubter
a reply to: Riffrafter

Let me get this straight... this thing is 1,264,822 AU away from us - it's not as if it's brushing up against Pluto every other orbit.

Nothing's worse than when even simple terms like "nearby" gets misused by journalists.

This is what I was trying to explain on the previous page. The distances involved are almost incomprehensible. Anyone worried about "well what if it hits us!" needs to read a little more.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: face23785
I dunno why this article talks like scientists were surprised to discover this. Everything I've ever read about rogue planets said they're likely common. In fact there's a good argument that there may be more rogue planets than planets that are orbiting stars.

The surprise is about the size of it (if it's a planet, it's the biggest planet we've seen), and about its very powerful magnetic field.

Gotcha. The first article I saw on it, which I don't think was linked here, the first sentence was something along the lines of "scientists have found a planet where they never expected to find one". Of course, no scientist may have said that, that could've just been the clueless journalist saying it.

As far as the size, I really don't see how that's surprising any knowledgeable astronomers either. Gas giant planets, brown dwarves, and stars are all essentially the same thing. They are all just balls of gas. They have vastly different characteristics of course, but the main differences are all driven by one factor, how much gas they were able to accumulate. Once a ball of gas gets big enough it becomes a brown dwarf, and then if it accumulates enough gas beyond that point it will become a star. It would stand to reason we're going to find balls of gas of every size you can name, at least from the smallest limits of a gas giant planet up to the largest limits of a star. It really just depends how much gas was available while it was forming.

I'm oversimplifying that, but I'm sure you get my point.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: face23785


I was following you until you suggested the charges could transfer to the core because of conductive materials like iron in the mantle. The mantle is mostly silicates. According to Wikipedia iron only makes up about 6% of the mantle, by weight, and since iron is one of the more dense elements in the mantle this means it must be an even smaller percentage by volume. I doubt there's continuous structures of it running down to the core that an electric current could follow. Am I missing something?

Perhaps continuous conductive structures are not needed. Referring back to the video of the "Spinning Sphere of Molten Sodium" experiment.

At mark 4:52 Professor Dan Lathrop explains that they have not been able to generate a magnetic field dynamo yet without the help of an external electric current that produces a magnetic field. He points out the field coil that can clearly be seen.

Notice also at mark 3:30 he tries to explain that an initial electric current is needed to start off this dynamo action yet states he doesn’t care where this initial current comes from. I am suggesting the possibility that this initial current comes from the Sun via the solar wind and is induced by the relative motion of the Earth through the heliosphere.

We do know that electric currents from the Sun's solar wind can be found flowing though and around Earth's magnetic field.
Challenges associated with near-Earth nightside current
Electric Currents in Outer Space Run the Show
Defining and resolving current systems in geospace
I think it's reasonable to assume that this could be the initial startup of Earth's magnetic field and that this is also what keeps it going. In other words the currents found in geospace, from the solar wind, could act like the field coil in that experiment.

I think you've got a chicken or the egg problem there. Electric currents from the solar wind traveling through Earth's magnetic field can't be the catalyst to start the magnetic field. Perhaps there's some other mechanism that can transfer them to the core. I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't think it's transmitted by iron and obviously the magnetosphere can't transmit electric current before the magnetosphere exists.

a reply to: Devino

Each of those articles is about charged particles being affected by planetary magnetic fields, not vice versa.

The solar wind carries no net charge. It is electrically neutral, equal numbers of negative and positive ions. It is the Earth's magnetic field which causes negative ions to be separated from positive ions and creates the currents being discussed in those articles. An illustration from the first one:

originally posted by: face23785
I think you've got a chicken or the egg problem there.

I agree. Electricity and magnetism are mutually inclusive so one doesn't exist without the other. The problem I have is with a stand alone magnetic dynamo. Can a spinning ball of electrically conductive liquid create a magnetic field on its own?

Electric currents from the solar wind traveling through Earth's magnetic field can't be the catalyst to start the magnetic field.

I don't understand enough to comment either way yet I don't think we should conclude that this cannot happen.

Perhaps there's some other mechanism that can transfer them to the core. I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't think it's transmitted by iron and obviously the magnetosphere can't transmit electric current before the magnetosphere exists.

I agree. There are other ways of transferring electricity, see electromagnetic induction. It's similar to what the field coil seen in the liquid sodium experiment was doing.

I have always wondered, if Planet X was a Brown Dwarf or similar, as is in this case here, it would still put out heat without much light.

with its stated gravitational strength, id say there is a chance there might be smaller objects accompanying it.....

a planet, warmed by the heat this object emits, what is the possibility of potential life?

The traditional "greys" with their oversized eyes, does that not make you think they would be from a world that is very low on light? such as in this scenario?

im sure heat could produce and maintain life in the absence of direct "sunlight". next question....are there any objects orbiting in association with this large object?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Devino

Each of those articles is about charged particles being affected by planetary magnetic fields, not vice versa.

Yes they are. I don't believe I claimed otherwise.

The solar wind carries no net charge. It is electrically neutral, equal numbers of negative and positive ions. It is the Earth's magnetic field which causes negative ions to be separated from positive ions and creates the currents being discussed in those articles.

The solar wind at any given point can be considered electrically neutral because of a near equal number of + and - charges yet I think it's incorrect to claim that there is no electrical potential present in a plasma. This potential can be observed in Earth's magnetic field because these charges separate. If it weren't for plasma from the Sun's solar wind these electric currents would not exist. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point or splitting hairs over definitions.

a reply to: Devino

If it weren't for plasma from the Sun's solar wind these electric currents would not exist.

Currents can and do form as a result of the ionization of the upper atmosphere by sunlight. Solar particles are not required.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point or splitting hairs over definitions.

You seemed to be implying that currents in the solar wind cause the Earth's magnetic field. They don't. Now, those "locally" induced currents can indeed have an effect on the Earth's field (causing it to "wiggle"), that is what a geomagnetic storm is, but such effects are not caused by the currents affecting the Earth's outer core.

Don't hear much about the planet that is closer and sits just above our solar system NASA announced about 3-5 years ago.

Seems more interesting and more like what Nibiru nuts would jump on than something 20 light years away imho.

Think some theorized it may of been a planet that was originally part of our system.
I forget what it is called and too lazy to google it up right now, had one of those alpha numeric names.

If I can find an article about it and the conference where they announced it I'll post it later.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: face23785
I dunno why this article talks like scientists were surprised to discover this. Everything I've ever read about rogue planets said they're likely common. In fact there's a good argument that there may be more rogue planets than planets that are orbiting stars.

The surprise is about the size of it (if it's a planet, it's the biggest planet we've seen), and about its very powerful magnetic field.

Gotcha. The first article I saw on it, which I don't think was linked here, the first sentence was something along the lines of "scientists have found a planet where they never expected to find one". Of course, no scientist may have said that, that could've just been the clueless journalist saying it.

As far as the size, I really don't see how that's surprising any knowledgeable astronomers either. Gas giant planets, brown dwarves, and stars are all essentially the same thing. They are all just balls of gas. They have vastly different characteristics of course, but the main differences are all driven by one factor, how much gas they were able to accumulate. Once a ball of gas gets big enough it becomes a brown dwarf, and then if it accumulates enough gas beyond that point it will become a star. It would stand to reason we're going to find balls of gas of every size you can name, at least from the smallest limits of a gas giant planet up to the largest limits of a star. It really just depends how much gas was available while it was forming.

I'm oversimplifying that, but I'm sure you get my point.

I guess astronomers like to have some sort of system and order for distinguishing between various cosmic bodies. It can't just be a matter of accumulating gas. A planet is a body formed through accretion of material in a protoplanetary disc around a star:



while a star is formed through gravitational collapse of parts of an interstallar cloud of gas and dust:



Brown dwarfs are included in the latter definition, they just didn't have enough gravitational oomph to pull enough matter to grow massive enough for thermonuclear ignition.

But you know what, you might be right and there indeed can be bodies of all sorts of sizes and masses, with no distinct boundaries between them. Formation os cosmic bodies like stars and planets is still very much a hypothesis. en.wikipedia.org...

The topic is pure click bait. It's like saying "the cops are outside your door!" and finding out after that they are outside your door, 20km away, in a police station. Factually correct but sensationalized by stressing the wrong things e.g. 'roaming outside of our solar system'.

Otherwise a good find.

a reply to: Phage

I think Devino had said in the previous thread and this one , that the earth in its proto state was being bombarded physically by everything from meteor , asteroids, and other planetary bodies early in its development , and that when the core was in its infancy , the sun blasted it with loads of particles and kick started the magnetosphere by transfer of charged particles.

Here are some links posted to me when i asked about magnetosphere's.

www.sciencenews.org...

mepag.jpl.nasa.gov...

www.universetoday.com...

www.nature.com...

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

www.researchgate.net... ewyG5rQ7_3vSfQ

aimlessly wandering means it doesnt have an orbit?