It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn’t Be There

page: 2
53
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
If any of you are so inclined you too can be a planet hunter:




LINK: www.planethunters.org...

BTW: Citizen planet hunters have found two planets. (PH1 and PH2 respectively)

One of which is part of a 4 star system! Its even in the habitable zone. Its a gas giant but it may have habitable moons. (Think Avatar, Endor, etc)

PH2 on Wikipedia


edit on 6-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Thats why we should have an open mind as scientists...
Nothing is stationary, everything evolves (''ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΡΕΙ'' Hrakleitos)
stating you know everything is a blashemy to nature
Sometimes science is taken by meanstream scholars as a dogma, and thats no better than religion

In 100 years from now - if our civilization still exists- our grand children will look atthe ''big bang theory'' with laughs and ridicule, as we look at the ''flat earth'' one

Knowlege can't have a peak cause it's infinite... it our understanding that's limited



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Dr1Akula
Thats why we should have an open mind as scientists...
Nothing is stationary, everything evolves (''ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΡΕΙ'' Hrakleitos)
stating you know everything is a blashemy to nature


You will not find one scientist of any credibility that states they know everything.

If we knew everything we wouldn't NEED science.

I don't understand why some people don't understand that. I guess it is because basic science education is poor in many places.
edit on 6-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
K-PAX - A hidden gem of a film. Anyone who has not seen it should do so ASAP.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Not enough material in the outer reaches of the system?

That cannot be true because binary systems must of had plenty of material for two stars to form in one system.

I think the most likely explanation is this "planet" was borderline being large enough to become a star and create a binary system but it's mass fell short of this so what we have here is a star and dwarf star/supergiant planet as it's "companion" in what was almost a binary system.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

JadeStar
You will not find one scientist of any credibility that states they know everything.

If we knew everything we wouldn't NEED science.

I don't understand why some people don't understand that. I guess it is because basic science education is poor in many places.
I agree. I find many of the responses in this thread appalling with regard to what people say about scientists, who apparently don't know any real scientists, because as you correctly say, scientists don't think they know everything, and they wouldn't become scientists if they didn't think we had more to learn.

Back to the OP topic, it seems more a case of binary star formation (failed) and we have lots of binary star systems so it shouldn't be surprising that some binaries don't have enough mass of the right type for fusion to occur.


JadeStar
It may be that they found an exceedingly rare object: A captured orphan.
I see you go on to present the more plausible failed binary star idea which is good. Yes it would be rare to capture an orphan planet and it doesn't take a lot of physics to understand why. First the distances between stars is so immense orphan plants can travel long distances without ever making close approaches to stars, but even in the rare event they do, far more likely than being captured is some kind of "slingshot" interaction away from the star in some other direction. NASA has used many of these slingshot interactions between their satellites and planets in our solar system to alter their course, change the velocity, etc.

The truth is we don't really know how rare it is because we really haven't found a good example of a captured planet yet:

www.sciencedaily.com...

Astronomers haven't detected any clear-cut cases of captured planets yet.
As that article confirms it is an idea that shouldn't be ruled out but it also explains the clues we would look for to confirm it, such as whether the orbital plane is different from the orbital plane of other planets formed from the protoplanetary disk.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


Maybe the planet was captured by the star?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 


Not sure that I understand what are you suggesting?

Should scientist stop with research as there might be something elsewhere that might prove it wrong?!

Interesting approach, thankfully our ancestors did not think that way or we still would wonder if there is some other way to create fire...



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


Observing the formation of quasars, they appear to be ejected from galactic cores - I theorise they are torroidal plasma formations. These plasma objects accelerate surrounding plasma and begin to form new galaxies.

I think that this plasma formation, the stable torus is the foundation of all celestial objects. Galaxies, stars and planets are all formed by the ejection of a stable plasma from a larger body. This plasma accelerates surrounding plasma through it along its axis, and its magnetic field then captures the charged particles as a corona around the central plasma.

Through the process of plasma sputtering the trapped corona of a planetary sized object creates more complex elements, gasses, liquids and solids. The aggregation of more complex elements causes cooling, and finally planetary formation.

So a planet is formed from a central hot plasma ejected from a star or larger planet, it forms as an empty sphere, and slowly cools from the outside. I believe this is what planets are, they are all formed 'hollow' and those with a magnetic field still have a high energy plasma at their cores.

This is based on electric universe theory, and also my own theory of space as a matrix of a left hand and right hand helical vectors (electrostatic force and magnetic force).
edit on 6-12-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
the answer is right in front of you:

"However, primordial disks rarely contain enough mass in their outer reaches to allow a planet like HD 106906 b to form."

RARELY does not mean NEVER, it means its RARE BUT DOES HAPPEN.

So there you have it, it rarely happens but it indeed happened in this case.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
You people are all overlooking the patently obvious.

It's Nibiru.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
As mildly interesting as this is, I just dunno if we should be wasting (?) time and resources on espying these far-off, esoteric parts of the cosmos that we can never realistically interact with and that only have minimal value in understanding the universe in a practical sense. This, while the likes of China are about to colonise our own Moon...

When your focus is too far off into the future, you risk losing the peripheral view of the present.
edit on 6-12-2013 by iLemming because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

JadeStar

Dr1Akula
Thats why we should have an open mind as scientists...
Nothing is stationary, everything evolves (''ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΡΕΙ'' Hrakleitos)
stating you know everything is a blashemy to nature


You will not find one scientist of any credibility that states they know everything.

If we knew everything we wouldn't NEED science.

I don't understand why some people don't understand that. I guess it is because basic science education is poor in many places.
edit on 6-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


I guess what you do not understand is the scientists are using the BEST science education that they have, as a model for things they clearly should not.

I don't understand why when I am talking to university professors about this stuff, why I have to re-educate them continuously as to why they can NOT use theories they subconsciously believe to be fact!

Science in its present form is being held in a state of un-imaginable darkness, and the robotic scientists will never admit that , because they are not allowed to, question is, by WHOM ?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
they are just now getting around to telling people about the planet that wasnt there?
heck it was back in 1971 (I think)
Spock turned and said Caption theres sa planet that shoudlnt be here .
Him kirk mcoy and a couple securty guys deamed down .
and POP planet was going .Scottys like OOO lord JIMMMMM!!!
meen wile back on earth POP kirk mcoy and securty guy show up in egypt and spock In new england.
Well theres more known contact the fedaration Of planets in saN FRANSISCO 67996-344 space time index 11.7765 . FOR MORE INFO.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Most of the stars in our galaxy are binaries

Probably not. That's an obsolete notion.

In this Letter I compare recent findings suggesting a low binary star fraction for late-type stars with knowledge concerning the forms of the stellar initial and present-day mass functions for masses down to the hydrogen-burning limit. This comparison indicates that most stellar systems formed in the Galaxy are likely single and not binary, as has been often asserted. Indeed, in the current epoch two-thirds of all main-sequence stellar systems in the Galactic disk are composed of single stars. Some implications of this realization for understanding the star and planet formation process are briefly mentioned.

iopscience.iop.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
"Shouldn't be there" - really, what do we know? (i'm quoting the story.. not you OP
)

Us humans are so blindly egotistical. We're gonna get shocked/confused on a regular basis because we no so little.

Thanks for the post though! interesting and exciting!



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Jupiter size!
could be very very very old.
from a star that went Nova.
then re formed in to a star again.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

smithas05
Just goes to show that the current paradigm in astronomy really doesn't explain everything. I have always had an inkling of a thought that a large portion of the currently accepted theories about space and the universe should be held in that regard... theories. until we can traverse the cosmos (farther than earth orbit) we will never really know if these theories are right.

There are alot of people (that i know, and on ATS) who take the current theories as 100 percent proof. I guess when people with Ph'D's and the like say something their word is law.

I'm sorry but that statement is more a sad reflection on the narrow minded people you know. Intelligent people know the difference between a fact and a theory. However, your post is quite clearly an anti science rant.......sad.......

The ONLY people I know who relate a theory as 100% fact/proof are those with who don't believe the theory and use such distortions as a means to show how bad evil and wrong science is.....according to them.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Arbitrageur


Back to the OP topic, it seems more a case of binary star formation (failed) and we have lots of binary star systems so it shouldn't be surprising that some binaries don't have enough mass of the right type for fusion to occur.


It's pretty exciting because this may be an entirely new class of object. Not quite a brown dwarf, but not a traditional planet either.

We're gonna need a new name for it if that turns out to be the case? Any ideas?

Grey dwarf or Black dwarf gets my vote.




JadeStar
It may be that they found an exceedingly rare object: A captured orphan.




ArbitrageurI see you go on to present the more plausible failed binary star idea which is good. Yes it would be rare to capture an orphan planet and it doesn't take a lot of physics to understand why. First the distances between stars is so immense orphan plants can travel long distances without ever making close approaches to stars, but even in the rare event they do, far more likely than being captured is some kind of "slingshot" interaction away from the star in some other direction. NASA has used many of these slingshot interactions between their satellites and planets in our solar system to alter their course, change the velocity, etc.

The truth is we don't really know how rare it is because we really haven't found a good example of a captured planet yet:

www.sciencedaily.com...

Astronomers haven't detected any clear-cut cases of captured planets yet.
As that article confirms it is an idea that shouldn't be ruled out but it also explains the clues we would look for to confirm it, such as whether the orbital plane is different from the orbital plane of other planets formed from the protoplanetary disk.


Agreed.

The failed brown dwarf idea makes a lot more sense given its semimajor axis being 650 AU.
edit on 6-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
13 MILLION? Holy cow that planet is young. One part of my imagination tells me there is no way there could be any sort of native life on that planet at all, let alone be a planet, yet another part is saying who says the life has to be native?

Pretty interesting. Pretty freaking interesting...
edit on 6-12-2013 by mr10k because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join