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: 3
53
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Has had already been said, most of the posts bashing scientists and how we thinking things work is quite simply appalling and at its best, just silly given that the reason this object was even found was because of scientists.

OK to almost copy the posts above, My undergrad was in Physics with Astronomy. It doesn't mean I have any kind of expertise on the subject, however I know quite a lot more than the kinds of fluff you read in popular science texts.

I dont necessarily think it is a new class of object, Brown dwarfs and Super Jupiters are a very very fussy area that cross over a lot. That said it is exceedingly interesting because it probably represents a link somewhere between the two.

How this got there, well as already posted, there would be two main mechanisms of any substance.

1) It simply formed there and represents not really a planet, more of a failed star as said above. The important thing to note being that solar winds do play a role in the formation of planets in that it causes material to be pushed away. There is an important ratio between binaries that theoretically limits 'star forming' capability of the smaller of the two objects. If the ratio is too great, one object will accrete material and starve the other. This might be what has happened here.

2) It is a captured rogue - The object formed naturally either on its own as part of a single stellar system that never got enough mass to fire up as a star proper and ended up somewhere in the middle of the range between Brown dwarf and Super Jupiter. It then got gravitationally bound to HD 106906 later on.

There are many questions to be answered regarding this object, and it will be extremely useful for the field to absorb as much information as is possible.

People should maybe read more than just the headline of the articles... Even when i skim read another article from a different source, It quoted scientists are basically laying out the two above scenarios.




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Thanks Eros. I'm currently and undergrad in Astronomy with a focus on Astrobiology so it's good to know I'm not alone here.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Oh interesting! Must be a very good course though I imagine rather mind bending sometimes
I went to the Dark Side and rather than pursuing Astronomy, did Neutrino Physics. But still, Astronomy was on of the main reasons I went to University.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

ErosA433
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Oh interesting! Must be a very good course though I imagine rather mind bending sometimes


True. I had started to just go into medicine, so I already had a healthy knowledge of biology, astronomy was a hobby until I learned about astrobiology (around the time after the ALH84001 controversy) and got very excited about using my interest in both to perhaps have a career.

I went to the Dark Side and rather than pursuing Astronomy, did Neutrino Physics. But still, Astronomy was on of the main reasons I went to University.


All you physics guys are full of energy.

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 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 




What an arrogant species Man has become.

Mother Nature will shake us off like fleas when she gets ready. No way we will ever know all there is about this Universe or beyond



Well it looks like that goes both ways right? i guess we can say that Mother Nature is a b then, destroying things just because she's on a bad day.

I will never get it how some people think that's awesome and cool, or something that comes from a higher level somewhere, if mother nature is so immature that it destroys everything just because, then who can blame human beings for behaving exactly the same as they "mother"?.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Kaifan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Maybe they should rethink the "expanding Earth theory", which has a lot of evidence backing it.

It wouldn't be too hard to imagine that particles like Neutrinos which pass through the entire Earth effortlessly, or some other unknown particles or energies, somehow reacts to the forces found in the center of the Earth, and actually form matter from the inside, causing planets to grow, and gain mass. In fact, I know of a few underground / alternative scientific theories which could explain such a process.

That could be how this "rouge" planet was formed. Think outside the box for once.
edit on 7-12-2013 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
If a neutrino passes through the Earth effortlessly, how exactly does it depart extra mass? Neutrinos are affected by large concentrated areas of matter in the form of a neutrino oscillation resonance.

The rogue can form very easily, It just needs a few rocks to form a gravitational perturbation, and a nice dusty cloud. Or it can form around another star and be later ejected from that system... this can be caused by a close pass by another stellar system or even another rogue planet.

It should be realized that binary and trinary systems systems are very common and that about 60+% of all stars are in a multiple gravitationally bound system.


Thinking outside the box is fine, but when its so far outside the box that it is an alternative universe is a little bit too out there. Expanding Earth? there is absolutely zero evidence for it.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   

ErosA433
Thinking outside the box is fine, but when its so far outside the box that it is an alternative universe is a little bit too out there. Expanding Earth? there is absolutely zero evidence for it.


^^ This.

BTW Eros (great name by the way), are you still an undergrad?

Regardless of the answer do you read Astrobites? I read a lot of stuff there before diving into the actual papers and digesting what I can at this stage.

astrobites.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

ErosA433
Thinking outside the box is fine, but when its so far outside the box that it is an alternative universe is a little bit too out there. Expanding Earth? there is absolutely zero evidence for it.


Zero evidence? I think not.

www.youtube.com...


ErosA433
If a neutrino passes through the Earth effortlessly, how exactly does it depart extra mass? Neutrinos are affected by large concentrated areas of matter in the form of a neutrino oscillation resonance.


A quote from Nikola Tesla...



Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena. My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment. On my 79th birthday I made a brief reference to it, but its meaning and significance have become clearer to me since then. It applies rigorously to molecules and atoms as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration. -Nikola Tes


Many great minds have agreed. There exists ONE primal force / energy that is responsible for all we experience. It travels at the speed of light, passes through all things, is absolutely frictionless, temperatureless, non-compressable, non-expandable, non-absorbant, non-reflectant, non-resistant, non-refractive; however, it potentially has the ability to create all those qualities in certain conditions.

Just like 1 electron and 1 proton can form all the properties of hydrogen, yet, 10 electrons and 10 protons can form all the properties of water. Two types of particles under different conditions creating two completely different properties they otherwise don't contain themselves. Many great minds agree that electrons, protons, and neutrons are ultimately made of a primal force which, by itself, has the ability to create the properties of electrons, protons, and neutrons.

These same great minds agree, this ONE primal force which is completely massless, has the ability to form what we call mass.

Just like a guitar string by itself does not contain sound, it has the ability to form sound in certain conditions.

You get my drift?

Although mostly all Neutrinos pass through the Earth effortlessly, that doesn't mean some don't get stuck in the dense core of Earth, undergo a yet undiscovered by mainstream science process, and form particles with mass. But let us not focus on Neutrinos. Focus more on the ONE primal force which is responsible for Neutrino's existence, and the existence of Earth and all matter.

...I bet you don't know (without google) what book this image was scanned from...


edit on 7-12-2013 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
so this planet is rocky?

11x's jupiter is pretty dang big!

probably couldn't land on it, anyway!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   

tsingtao
so this planet is rocky?

11x's jupiter is pretty dang big!

probably couldn't land on it, anyway!



It is not a rocky planet, but more like Jupiter. Its more massive than Jupiter obviously. Most likely it is a failed brown dwarf than a captured planet.
edit on 7-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 





"You have failed to demonstrate the self-discipline and restraint that is required of service personnel on operations, and which sets British troops apart from the enemy they fight."


That's exactly what i was thinking.

A captured 'wandering planet'.

There are thought to be many, many of these ejected planets wandering around the galaxy, a very massive planet, way out from it's host star could be one such wandering planet that has been captured by the gravity of the star it currently orbits.

This is quite possible and would explain the 'unexplained' characteristics of this planet / star combo.

Another possibility is that this system could well have been an 'almost' binary system...the planet is massive enough to become a star, but for some reason it didn't, or simply hasn't YET.

This might be a once in several lifetimes view of a 'pre-star' or star-to-be, at just a few tens of millions of years old, it's just a whipper-snapper in the galactic scheme of things, and this might, just might be what the natural process of star formation is.

There may be an as yet unknown process that is yet to happen to this planet, that causes the chain reaction that turns a massive planet into a proto-star.

Wouldn't it be very cool, if it is right on the cusp of metamorphosis...and we actually get to witness it change into a binary star system? Very long shot i know, but what if!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
What do you mean undiscovered process?

You know how neutrinos are observed in detectors around the world right? Heard of Super Kamiokande?
It can occur by charged current and neutral current and charge current quasi-elastic scattering. This is not unknown or mysterious, for you to write it as such is a very big misrepresentation and a clear sign of how much you are simply repeating things you dont really understand.

A neutrino comes in and interacts with the nucleus or atomic shell electrons and it can either scatter something, or it can create a lepton (if the neutrino has enough of the rest mass energy) So yes it is possible for the Earth to accumulate some mass via neutrinos. Though if you were to do a calculation of exactly the rate, I would hazard a guess that it is loosing its atmosphere at a faster rate.


Nope I finished my undergrad many years ago, I got a PhD in Particle Physics (Experimental as opposed to theoretical) and am now a postdoc working on a dark matter experiment



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

The GUT
What we don't know is light-years away from what we do know, eh?

Scientific knowledge is cool...but its arms are too short.


and the materialists will say "well I only believe things that are proven by hard science" and then you say "well science doesn't know everything" and then they say back "yeah well science knows more than you do" and my reply to that would be "there are things that science can not detect and those are the things those people can't begin to understand". Science is linear: point A to point B to point C = point D but reality is not, so how can science ever detect reality? and it follows that those linear thinkers will never be able to know reality.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

ErosA433
The rogue can form very easily, It just needs a few rocks to form a gravitational perturbation, and a nice dusty cloud. Or it can form around another star and be later ejected from that system... this can be caused by a close pass by another stellar system or even another rogue planet.
If there's any accuracy to this computer model, you can see how easy it is for a rogue planet to be ejected as the solar system forms:

Planetary System Formation Simulation (200 AU View)
www.youtube.com...

Several proto-planets appear to be ejected right before the end of the video.


WeAre0ne
Zero evidence? I think not.

www.youtube.com...
That doesn't provide the one piece of evidence needed to give it any credibility, which is a plausible mechanism. Even Maxlow admits he can't come up with a plausible mechanism.

In addition, the efforts to fit the continents together work pretty well from the Eastern Americas to the Western Europe and Africa because this is also consistent with plate tectonics. However where the fit fails most miserably is around Alaska, and the Bering strait, and the continents below that. If you ever study people trying to make that area fit, it just doesn't.

Plus, there is even more evidence of some very rare mineral matchups that are consistent with plate tectonics that would not be explained by a simple expanding Earth theory. So not only is there little evidence for it (other than the evidence which also supports plate tectonics) but there is lots of evidence against it, and even the guy in your video admits he can't say what causes expansion.
edit on 7-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

MysterX

A captured 'wandering planet'...This might be a once in several lifetimes view of a 'pre-star' or star-to-be, at just a few tens of millions of years old,



what kind of scenario could account for what we know? the planet is in orbit around a host star farther away than Neptune is to its star. that's pretty far to be only 13 million years old and still hot from forming. Supposedly the heavy stuff is closer in and if the planet just recently coalesced into such a huge sphere where is the afterbirth so to say? if it became a wandering planet (it is not big enough to turn into a star) it basically should still have its umbilical cord pointing to at least the solar system it wandered away from shouldn't it? otherwise what could have perturbed it from its original spot that is not apparent? I say it was ejected from its own star. I'll bet stars give birth to their own planets and spit them out into orbit. That is opposite from coalescing from a gaseous disk. My bet is the star creates its surroundings and not the other way around.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

bottleslingguy
it basically should still have its umbilical cord pointing to at least the solar system it wandered away from shouldn't it?
There is no umbilical cord in the video I posted of rogue planets being ejected.


otherwise what could have perturbed it from its original spot that is not apparent?
See the video for the answer.


I say it was ejected from its own star. I'll bet stars give birth to their own planets and spit them out into orbit. That is opposite from coalescing from a gaseous disk. My bet is the star creates its surroundings and not the other way around.
The Earth and our solar system is thought to be the result of previous supernovae due to the abundance of heavy elements like uranium etc which may only form during supernovae, so this is a means by which dying stars can give birth to other planets so to speak.

But I don't know of any mechanisms by which stars can give birth to their own planets, do you? Gravity is pretty tenacious in a star and it would take something pretty awesome to overcome gravity enough to eject a planet...maybe a collision with another star but I would not draw an analogy between that and giving birth. A supernova is able to overcome the star's gravity to eject planets but besides supernovae or collisions with other stars, how could a star give birth to a planet? Remember the star's gravity is trying to pull things in, not push them out. What do you say to a birthing mother? "PUSH!"

I see how the mother pushes but I don't see how the star can do that. Dark energy is a pushing force, but it's insignificant on the scale of a solar system, so that can't be the pushing force. What would do it?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


the video is actually what I was thinking as far as the planets being thrown off or ejected from the host star and not created in an eddy during a gas cloud accretion contraction when the star was formed (if they are formed that way to begin with)

the blue arms in your video is what I was thinking about in reference to an umbilical cord



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Good find there Arbitrageur,

I think what is kind of evident in these discussions is that there is a misconception to the amount of order scientists believe there is to the universe. Things explained in textbooks are always the simplest and thus when something like this comes along people (not pointing any fingers and just a general statement) love to do a kind of "HaHA! didn't see that one coming did you dumb ass!"

The simulation in the video seems to show what would be attempts to generate large planets close to the host star, which was a little bit of a confusion to astronomers when they observed jupiter+ sized planets right next to hosts as the 'calm and peaceful' style of planetary formation that we had mostly been working out didn't fit that.

Lets be realistic here, We humans live in a solar system composed of many objects. We have been looking at it for a long time and trying to figure out how it happened. We have some very good ideas which appear to fit observables. It is no coincidence that the sun has planets orbiting all of which are in direct orbits, and some of the planets that orbit have similarly looking satellites that also in direct orbits where the orbits of the planets appear to fit certain integer ratios (ALL BUT I think 2 or 3) this appears to fit together very well if the planets formed out of a rotating disk like cloud of gas. When the sun ignites it pushes out the gas in the inner solar system out to around where the asteroid field is... that advances the formation of what is now jupiter, and disrupts the formation of the planet between Mars and Jupiter (creating the asteroid belt)... If you take a look at the angular momentum of the planets they all form up rather closely as described by a rotating disk cloud gravitationally bound to a central object.
www.geol.umd.edu...




There are many many many things, scientists didn't just pull it out of their backsides, as much as you think they did. Even the fact that the sun, that should by all accounts have higher angular momentum than what we observe can be explained by what we have seen other stars doing.


Formation of the objects in the video seems to be a much more chaotic system, which is also possible, I would hazard a guess that our solar system is not that uncommon, but more systems probably formed in a more chaotic manner (my opinion) and do show clearly how matter can be ejected from a proto-planetary disc.

The ability to 'generate' surrounding planets, a star would have to violently throw off mass, the trouble with this is that although the planets formed and are rocky, taking a random chunk of the atmosphere of the sun and tossing it into space, wouldn't give you a planet like object, it would give you a fuzzy cloud that would dissipate or be thrown out to the ice line because of the stellar winds. Our solar system I dont think can have formed like this, Like the angular momentum argument... it is conserved, and i think it would be a rather difficult mathematical problem to prove the theory that a star creates its surrounds.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

snarky412
Not sure if this has been posted, did a search but it came up blank.

Astronomers from the University of Arizona have discovered a distant exoplanet with a set of characteristics so bizarre that they say it should not even exist.


With a mass about 11 times that of Jupiter and an orbit about 650 times greater than the average Earth-Sun distance, newfound planet HD 106906 b, the UA astronomers say, is throwing a wrench into existing planet-formation theories.

"This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," said research leader Vanessa Bailey, who is a fifth-year graduate student at UA's Department of Astronomy.

Bailey and her colleagues' research on planet HD 106906 b has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.



Massive Newfound Planet Defies Traditional Planetary Formation Theories

The existence of planet HD 106906 b does not coalesce with leading planet formation theories.
The planet is too far from its star to have formed from colliding asteroid bodies as the star was first coming to life, and the planet is too massive to have formed from gasses in the primordial disk of its forming star - typically the primordial disk, at such a distance from the star itself, does not have enough material to support the formation of such a large planet.

It is thought that planets close to their stars, like Earth, coalesce from small asteroid-like bodies born in the primordial disk of dust and gas that surrounds a forming star. However, this process acts too slowly to grow giant planets far from their star. Another proposed mechanism is that giant planets can form from a fast, direct collapse of disk material. However, primordial disks rarely contain enough mass in their outer reaches to allow a planet like HD 106906 b to form.

This new planet is estimated to be about 13 million years old and this young planet still glows from the residual heat of its formation.
Where Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago.



The team was able to confirm that the planet is moving together with its host star by examining Hubble Space Telescope data taken eight years prior for another research program. Using the FIRE spectrograph, also installed at the Magellan telescope, the team confirmed the planetary nature of the companion. "Images tell us an object is there and some information about its properties but only a spectrum gives us detailed information about its nature and composition," explained co-investigator Megan Reiter, a graduate student in the UA Department of Astronomy. "Such detailed information is rarely available for directly imaged exoplanets, making HD 106906 b a valuable target for future study."



Read more at: phys.org...





edit on 5-12-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)


ILL BITE!!! GRR !!

OK Ready

A good Possible explanation !!

Seven or Eight Dwarf Galaxies Discovered Orbiting the Milky Way
Jan 09, 2007

phys.org...

Milky Way Collision
by NICHOLOS WETHINGTON on JANUARY 5, 2009


Read more: www.universetoday.com...
www.universetoday.com...

Beast With Four Tails: Milky Way Devouring Neighboring Dwarf Galaxies
Jan. 3, 2012 — The Milky Way galaxy continues to devour its small neighbouring dwarf galaxies and the evidence is spread out across the sky.
www.sciencedaily.com...


DNA Upgrade through the Merging of Galaxies
Upplagd av Gun-Britt Lund den 9 Augusti 2012 klockan 10.30
varnyavarld.ning.com...





(ATS)
We’re Not From The Milky Way Galaxy! We’re Sagittarians, Say Scientists! What Of Earth's Future
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The New Star Map showing our Solar System (yellow circle) to be
at the exact nexus crossroads where two galaxies are actually joining.
Univ of Virginia



Rouge Planets and Stars ! is a Possible Answer for the Out of Place planets!! IMO!

Well like this


Nemesis (hypothetical star) as not Confirmed as of yet!
en.wikipedia.org...(hypothetical_star)

but this was !

90377 Sedna

90377 Sedna is a large trans-Neptunian object that was, as of 2012, about three times as far from the Sun as Neptune. Spectroscopy has revealed that Sedna's surface composition is similar to that of some other trans-Neptunian objects, being largely a mixture of water, methane and nitrogen ices with tholins. Its surface is one of the reddest in the Solar System. It is probably a dwarf planet.

en.wikipedia.org...

What funny is as it looks first thing come to mind is NIbiru LOL but not quite ...

A out of Place Dwarf Planet ( of how did it get there boggles the Mind of some )

Mysterious Sedna
Astronomers have discovered a mysterious planet-like body in the distant reaches of the solar system.
science1.nasa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join