You can now see NIBIRU!

reply to post by Xcalibur254


is it possible for a planet to only emit a very faint red glow?

reply to post by spikey


Good point. Even the existence of Brown dwarfs were only a theoretical concept until they were first discovered in 1995. We don't know everything about them, or how many types there are. Apparently to some here though, our Science on the recently discovered subject is flawless.


~SheopleNation

intersting but probably not peer-reviewed. just fact.

"Finding brown dwarfs near our sun is like discovering there's a hidden house on your block that you didn't know about," says Michael Cushing, a WISE team member at JPL. "It's thrilling to me to know we've got neighbors out there yet to be discovered. With WISE, we may even find a brown dwarf closer to us than our closest known star."

reply to post by stereologist


cant they be colder than a oven? say body temperature?and possibly even colder than that? now that would be something but i bet it would have to be close to spot below body temps

reply to post by letscit


A planet can emit no light of its own. Depending on its atmosphere the reflected light could appear red. However, if it is producing its own glow than it must be a star that is capable of sustaining fusion.

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by stereologistThis is science. There is no theory involved.

Wrong. Sure it's Science. We would have never been able to look into deep space without it, But you're mistaken when you claim that "there is no theory involved". Theory, and like Spikey said speculation, are everywhere and in between when studying Brown Dwarfs. ~SheopleNation

edit on 29-8-2011 by SheopleNation because: TypO

Absolutely agree mate.

Most of this is scientific theory.

The first Brown dwarf to be confirmed was only as recently as 1994...hardly enough time for us to know all the in's and out's with any real degree of certainty.

Most of this stuff remains firmly based in theory, using scientific principles with which to base those theories.

Originally posted by letscit
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

is it possible for a planet to only emit a very faint red glow?

Yes, i suppose it is.

A scenario would be a planet that escapes it's parent system, but has active volcanism, the heat and light from which would give it a dull red glow to a lesser or greater degree.

There are probably other scenarios where this could happen i suppose, but that's one off the top of my head.

reply to post by letscit


The only difference a lower temperature would make is that it would produce a lower IR signature. An object's temperature has no bearing on its ability to be seen visually. Just take Pluto for instance. It is extremely small, but it is actually quite bright. When Pluto's diameter was finally able to be measured scientists were surprised at how small it actually was due to the amount of light it was reflecting.

Originally posted by letscit
intersting but probably not peer-reviewed. just fact.

"Finding brown dwarfs near our sun is like discovering there's a hidden house on your block that you didn't know about," says Michael Cushing, a WISE team member at JPL. "It's thrilling to me to know we've got neighbors out there yet to be discovered. With WISE, we may even find a brown dwarf closer to us than our closest known star."

No lateral thinking is being employed in his example...what if you suddenly discovered a whole hidden house on your block, that you never knew was there....UNDERNEATH your block.

Now, it doesn't sound so impossible suddenly does it.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by letscit

 

A planet can emit no light of its own. Depending on its atmosphere the reflected light could appear red. However, if it is producing its own glow than it must be a star that is capable of sustaining fusion.

Not necessarily Xcalibur,

Volcanism and more importantly low level light from electric storms could theoretically cause a planet to self luminate, as could different compositions and mixtures of gases fluorescing under the effect of electrical or plasma activity.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


im thinking you are wrong. but im sure you'll find some wiggle room.

Scientists using data from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) have discovered six "Y dwarfs"-- star-like bodies with temperatures as cool as the human body.

www.sott.net...

and this article came to sott courtesy of: Science@NASA

i also found this interesting

Scientists have found what is considered the darkest planet so far discovered - a body the size of the biggest planet in our solar system, which emits only a "faint red glow," despite orbiting extremely close to its sun. According to data gathered so far, the planet, first discovered about five years ago, is darker than coal or black acrylic paint.

www.sott.net...

seems the universe is very unique and no one has all the answers and not 1. that is not ONE single clue to what is out there. the experts cant even agree on if pluto is a planet or not.
www.sott.net...

i also find this interesting as it was new to me so i could be to others as well.

In the image at the top of the page, various frequencies of X-rays are shown in red, green, and blue. Since X-rays are invisible, the colors are arbitrary and are either assigned by a computer program or a graphic interpreter who's job is to create images for public release. The interesting thing about the X-ray distribution is that they are englobing the central star, with tendrils of plasma interconnecting other glowing regions.

www.sott.net...

yep. space is much like the deep ocean. unexplored and mysterious and not well understood at all.

Originally posted by letscit
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

is it possible for a planet to only emit a very faint red glow?

Sorry for the butt-in, but certainly. It is possible for a planet to emit light of its own. However, this does not imply that a planet or other space-borne body will not reflect light from an outside source. When you look at Jupiter or Saturn or Pluto, they are visible, not because they emit light, they are visible because they reflect light. This is why when the earth is between the moon and the sun we do not see all of the visible moon's surface. The earth is blocking the sunlight from reaching a portion of the moon. The moon does not emit light, it simply reflects light.

This is contrary to when the moon blocks the sun by way of an eclipse because we are seeing the visible light produced by the sun. Besides visible light waves, the sun also emits ultra-violet and infra red waves.

Source 1

Source 2

In order for an object not to reflect any visible light, it would have to have a gravametric field that would literally not allow visible light to escape. So far the only theorized source of such gravametric fields are black holes.

Source 3

For those that will respond with the black/coal planet. This planet does still reflect light, just not as much as scientists current models predict that a planet will reflect.

Source 4

-saige-

reply to post by letscit


Couldn't agree more with your sentiments.

We are only really starting out, it's foolish and arrogant to believe we are unqualified experts at anything cosmologically related.

sorry guys. not trolling. it just really bothers me when people try to explain away everything in space. there is no simple explanation, and there is millions upon millions of factors. some we do not even no about and some we know of but dont understand. so i completely fail to see how people can come on these threads and just totally say no, but still expect us to see them as open-minded. time will tell that is all.
if i was a betting man i would put my money on nothing being there. but i have seen many theories in 40 years shot down after they where supposed to be concrete. no one can say for certain. it is what it is.
also i find it interesting that everyone wants to say brown dwarf entering our inner solar system. the gravity from the sun and the gravity from the brown dwarf would make this impossible. there would be no inner solar system penetration. they would push away from each other. and scientists who are open minded speculate that it would get no closer than the oort cloud. which would still cause many changes here from the force of the 2-stars on the solar system.
but i dont know. all it is, is theory and speculation. and if i had a dime for every theory and speculation tossed around on this planet. well my bank accountant would be very fat.
i like these threads because they are informative no matter which way you lean, and i for one have got a great deal out of these space threads no matter how kooky they seem at first.
good day to all.

reply to post by saige45


nice post

reply to post by letscit


You're not trolling at all mate.

I see nothing wrong with your post or your point of view.

Except maybe the bit about a hypothetical BD not being able to enter our system due to it's and our suns's gravity cancelling each other out, or creating a repelling effect.

If the BD was only slightly more massive than say, 20 X Jupiter or even up to the theoretical limits of around 65X, i assume it would still be a lot weaker than the sun's.

reply to post by letscit

Tres-2b is interesting but it really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion on the albedo of a brown dwarf.

Tres-2b is what is called a "hot Jupiter", a gas giant on an orbit very close to its primary, much closer than Jupiter is to our Sun. Hot Jupiters are expected to be dark precisely because of their high temperatures, their proximity to their star. So, while Tres-2b is the darkest exoplanet found, it is not an unexpected discovery.

Hot-Jupiters are generally expected to be dark. Significant absorption due to the broad wings of the sodium and potassium D lines is thought to dominate their visible spectra (Sudarsky et al. 2000), leading to low albedos of a few percent.

www.astro.princeton.edu...

Brown dwarfs are subject to very different processes than those which lead to the low albedo of hot Jupiters. Processes much closer to those of a cool gas giant such as Jupiter.

reply to post by letscit


Don't be sorry bro, you made alot of good points. It's nice to see folks having a discussion without having to have an aswer, or thinking that they have the answer for everything. We are still infants in regards to our knowledge of deep space. ~SheopleNation

reply to post by spikey


Even if a companion star had significantly less mass than the Sun the orbits of the planets would be radically different. It would throw off the barycentre (center of mass)of the solar system. Most people assume that the Sun is the barycentre for our solar system, but this isn't true. Due to the mass of Jupiter the barycentre is outside the Sun. So, if there were an object several magnitudes more massive than Jupiter in the solar system it would throw off the barycentre even more. However, we know this is not true because our models for objects such as long-period comets, that use the barycentre, are accurate.

reply to post by letscit


In terms of the Y-dwarfs, I said that a lower temperature will produce a smaller IR signature, I didn't say it wouldn't produce an IR signature. If the point you're trying to make is that we needed an IR scope to discover these things, we also rely on IR scopes to find new exoplanets. These objects produce no light of their own and thus many times the light from the star they orbit will often obscure them from being seen in the visual spectrum.

In terms of the planet you mentioned, everything I said before remains true. I said that depending on a planet's atmosphere it could appear to glow red due to the light it reflects. That is exactly what is happening in this scenario. The planet is not producing any light of its own, it is light that it is reflecting. And as Phage pointed out Hot Jupiters were hypothesized to appear exactly as this planet does.