Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Probable Rogue Planet Spotted

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the omarion-nebula dept.

Space 155

Maow writes with news of a sighting of a rogue gas giant: "'This object was discovered during a scan that covered the equivalent of 1,000 times the [area] of the full moon,' said study co-author Etienne Artigau of the University of Montreal. 'We observed hundreds of millions of stars and planets, but we only found one homeless planet in our neighborhood.' This planet appears to be an astonishingly young 50-120 million years old. The original paper is on the arXiv. Here's hoping the Mayan End-of-World-2012 people don't seize upon this as some kind of impending rogue planet on a collision course with Earth, but one can expect it'll be bantered about on such forums." From the article: "The team believe it has a temperature of about 400C and a mass between four and seven times that of Jupiter - well short of the mass limit that would make it a likely brown dwarf."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Maybe their eagles (4, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41982345)

can reach earth before they get too far?

Re:Maybe their eagles (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 2 years ago | (#41982871)

... wut?

Re:Maybe their eagles (4, Informative)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41982927)

Poorly executed name-drop of Space:1999 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Maybe their eagles (5, Informative)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41982897)

You should have at least capitalized Eagles to give people a better hint that you were referring to Space: 1999. The way you did it was just kinda cruel to younger geeks and SF nerds.

Re:Maybe their eagles (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 2 years ago | (#41983765)

On first parse 'their' looked like a mistaken 'they're' and the subject of the second part remains a mystery. Who are 'they' who are going too far? The eagles?

Remember kids, whilst first post will earn you great kudos for about ten minutes, you need to be certain it's a valid sentence.

Starting your sentence (2)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41983929)

in the subject line is confusing and annoying. We need a "-1 poor communication skills" mod option! :)

Fleet of Worlds? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982351)

Spotted it! Those puppeteers are going to have to come up with a new plan now, or give me one million stars to not reveal the secret.

Re:Fleet of Worlds? (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41982599)

Well, you're bought easily. I'd have the information in a hundred scattered dead drops and ask for a General Products hull franchise.

Re:Fleet of Worlds? (2)

tylutin (2575251) | about 2 years ago | (#41983563)

Ring World reference! Now we're taking!

That's no moon! (1)

quangdog (1002624) | about 2 years ago | (#41982359)

It's a rogue planet!

Why hope? (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 2 years ago | (#41982491)

First, in the summary you forget to identify the distance: 100ly. Well, that pretty much rules out any worry of a collision even if at such a distance the alignment would be astronomically unlikely to be one which would allow for a collision.

Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )

My problem isn't any of that however. My problem is THIS travesty from the article:

One tricky part is determining if rogue planet candidates are as massive as the "failed stars" known as brown dwarfs, further along in stellar evolution but without enough mass to spark the nuclear fusion that causes starlight.

It's so freaking wrong I can't even parse it to bitch about it in any specific manner. And to me, that's the worst thing that could happen. If I can't complain, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Re:Why hope? (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41982587)

You are part of the problem. Let me explain.

", I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
should be:
", I don't want them to live on this planet anymore."

Think Ark B.

Re:Why hope? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982989)

You are part of the problem. Let me explain.

", I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
should be:
", I don't want them to live on this planet anymore."

Think Ark B.

You're talking as if the GP or you would be on Ark A or Ark C. Remind me again what happened to them after Ark B left...

Re:Why hope? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 2 years ago | (#41984325)

There was no Ark A or Ark C.....

Re:Why hope? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 2 years ago | (#41983413)

Awesome reference! Maybe we can get most of the ACs on Ark B too.

Re:Why hope? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983731)

At least we'll have great hair.

Re:Why hope? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 2 years ago | (#41984311)

And nails!!!

Re:Why hope? (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41982671)

The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over

The bad news is that, by January, the next end of the world nonsense will begin.

Re:Why hope? (2)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#41982805)

The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over

The bad news is that, by January, the next end of the world nonsense will begin.

Optimist... ;)

Re:Why hope? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983953)

No, pessimist ;)

Re:Why hope? (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | about 2 years ago | (#41984063)

The world won't end 12/21/2012

It will RE-BOOT!

Re:Why hope? (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41982815)

Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )

No, such people don't adjust their beliefs to match reality. There will be endless theories about how it really meant 2013, how the calendar is off by a little, or how we're just reading it wrong.

In fact, I expect them to spend a lot of time defending their position and trying to adapt their broken theory so it isn't quite so broken (according to their logic that is).

Expect this bit of silliness to drag on for years.

Re:Why hope? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983673)

If I recall correctly, I remember reading that the Mayan calander IS mis-aligned with the 2012 thing. The "end" was supposed to have been decades ago if it were correctly aligned.

Re:Why hope? (4, Insightful)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about 2 years ago | (#41982919)

...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )...

I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Why hope? (2)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 2 years ago | (#41982985)

Or

"Yeah, it's really terrifying to think about the end of the world and wonder what will happen. We've got to do some crazy life-affirming stuff while we still have the chance..."

Re:Why hope? (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#41983061)

...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )...

I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.

Cheers, Dave

Personally i find reality tv a much better argument for the world ending soon than the Myan calendar.

Re:Why hope? (1)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about 2 years ago | (#41984301)

...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )...

I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.

Cheers,
Dave

Personally i find reality tv a much better argument for the world ending soon than the Myan calendar.

That's why I said:

"Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary."

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Why hope? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 2 years ago | (#41983513)

You just reminded me of something far scarier than the 2012 Mayan doomsayers when nothing happens.

What if, by pure dumb luck, something DOES happen? You know, I'd almost welcome Armageddon because there would be no living with them then.

Re:Why hope? (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about 2 years ago | (#41984453)

Better suggestion. Offer to buy their house. Car. Or other valuable item.
They are not going to need it. :)

Re:Why hope? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983195)

How is it wrong? A brown dwarf can't sustain fusion and fusion expels photons which cause starlight.

Re:Why hope? (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about 2 years ago | (#41984163)

If they did not emit visible light they would be called black dwarves, otherwise known as gas giant planets. If the rogue gas giant is large enough, the heat caused by it's initial collapse will be sufficient to cause it to glow like a stove element for a very long time because of Blackbody Radiation. Hence the term 'brown' still applies. At 400k, which is not much hotter than a boiling pot of water, there would be no visible light, and this object was obviously found using infrared detection techniques. So 'brown' does not apply here. It's a big planet!

Re:Why hope? (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41983261)

First, in the summary you forget to identify the distance: 100ly. Well, that pretty much rules out any worry of a collision even if at such a distance the alignment would be astronomically unlikely to be one which would allow for a collision.

I can't believe you are doubting the Mayans. You watch, that planet will move those 100 light years faster than you can blink. Dec 21 is only a month away!

Re:That's no moon! (5, Funny)

gapagos (1264716) | about 2 years ago | (#41982561)

No, it's Cowboy Neal's mom. She's so big, she can't even stay into orbit.

Re:That's no moon! (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41983329)

Yo' momma's so fat that she was visible from 100 light years away!

Re:That's no moon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983119)

It's Pluto's big brother coming to put the beat down on us for teasing the little guy and telling him he couldn't be in our club anymore.

why not call it orphan instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983635)

Orphan sounds more appropriate than rogue. Rogue is like it's out to do some damage, which is mathematically not very feasible for it anyway.

homeless (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41982373)

we only found one homeless planet in our neighborhood

Either the galactic economy is going well, or they are good at hiding the problems.

Re:homeless (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about 2 years ago | (#41982735)

that's pretty good. Wish I had some karma to share.

Re:homeless (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41982823)

we only found one homeless planet in our neighborhood

Either the galactic economy is going well, or they are good at hiding the problems.

Perhaps we're living in a Potemkin galaxy but no one bothered to tell us.

That's not a rogue planet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982385)

It's the DEATH STAR!!

Genesis? (2)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 2 years ago | (#41982387)

Have they found Genesis? Genesis allowed is not! Is planet forbidden!

Re:Genesis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982503)

Man, I wouldn't mind if they found Genesis. I've been hankering for some old-school Sonic games.

Re:Genesis? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41982751)

No its not Genesis it is s Nemesis [wikipedia.org] they will find a small habitalabe moon orbiting the planet with little vegetation no animals and lots of mycelium like organism covering the planet surface.

Quick! Put a tax on it before it moves! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982391)

Government's gotta SPEND!

How's that? (4, Interesting)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#41982405)

Given that the definition of a planet is dependent on the relationship between objects (planet and star, planet and moon, planet and other objects in the same orbit), how can something be classified as a type of planet if there are no observations of that object in relation to other objects in a planetary system?

Re:How's that? (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#41982477)

And how do you determine the age of some random rocky mass that you can't even image?

Re:How's that? (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about 2 years ago | (#41982547)

I would like to know this as well.

Re:How's that? (4, Informative)

Walking The Walk (1003312) | about 2 years ago | (#41982685)

And how do you determine the age of some random rocky mass that you can't even image?

According to the BBC article, they simply guessed the age. The sub-brown dwarf or rogue planet seems to be travelling with a group of stars, and they've estimated the age of the stars to be 50 - 120 million years. It's a form of extra-solar profiling: That thing over there isn't a star, but it's hanging out with those other stars, so it must the same age as them. (Which is apparently OK to do for stars, but not people?)

Re:How's that? (2)

GodInHell (258915) | about 2 years ago | (#41983029)

(Which is apparently OK to do for stars, but not people?)

Don't tell that to the dataminers, you'll destroy their minds. That's basically the only reason Facebook and the other networks have value - the ability to infer the traits of unknown individuals from the expressed traits of their connections.

Re:How's that? (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 2 years ago | (#41983117)

Not only is it ok to do with people, it's also pretty helpful. In fact, it's pretty much the basis for any demographical assumption.

Hang out at the mall, typically around 4pm-8pm, with a bunch of people aged 14-17 and I can be fairly sure that your texting plan is well utilized.

Take a look at a bus headed towards a slots 'casino'. You can see everyone in the bus but the driver is 60+ years old. Want to wager on the age of the person in the lavatory?

Stop by the maternity ward of a hospital. Glance through the glass and take a guess at the age of the person in the third crib from the right.

The nursery example above I like because for these new stars, there are regions where stars tend to be of similar age, composition, dispersal density. If you look at a region of space where everything is roughly the same age, or same type, or composition, it would be exceptionally odd to find something that was different.

A perfect situation to apply Occam's Razor in my opinion. If everything else is pretty much normal to the region, then you would need a special case to describe something not normal to the area. For example:

1. Planet formed elsewhere, and wandered in just as the stars formed. (Requires extra steps for this to be true, and the original hypothesis to be false)

2. Planet formed before the stars in the region and the stars formed later. (Requires the planet to acquire enough gas to become large, but somehow stopped aggregating matter in a region which has enough to form stars, long enough for OTHER gravitationally strong objects to amass enough to becoem stars)

I can go on, but it gets complex.

A planet forming elsewhere would have an extremely high velocity relative to the velocity of the stars in the region. If you can detect it now, then you can detect it later. And 100 LY is close enough that you wouldn't have to wait long to determine the magnitude of that motion. You would know if it was 'just passing through', and since it is a rogue planet, by definition it isn't caught up with any of the stars and thus 'just passing through means it must be at least as old as the distance from the 'formation region' / velocity. But if it is travelling with the stars of that region, then it is very unlikely that it originated elsewhere and thus the question of "How could a very massive planet form in a region with enough matter to form fully fledged stars PAUSE in it's aggregation of matter?"

Re:How's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983523)

The paper states only an 85% chance the planet is actually in the cluster.

Re:How's that? (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41982813)

Based on a quick scan of the paper, it looks like they did a spectral and photometry analysis based on it's estimated size, compared it to their atmospheric models, and determined a probable age. They did image it, BTW, just not very clearly since it is pretty far away (sticks out like a proverbial sore thumb on infrared, thanks to it's warmth). They also matched that to probable origins based on it's path and determined a likely group to which it belongs, which helps confirm the age slightly. Note that this estimate is rather tentative, since it's hard to say exactly.

Re:How's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983599)

I'm sorry, but someone needs to say this: All but one of your "it's" should have been "its". Yes, I know this makes me an annoying pedant, but we all have to contribute in some way to fixing the Internet..

Re:How's that? (4, Informative)

Zephyn (415698) | about 2 years ago | (#41982533)

Exoplanets use a different set of definitions according to the IAU [wikipedia.org]

Re:How's that? (5, Informative)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#41982775)

...and it should be noted, by the IAU definition, this "rogue planet" is not a planet at all. It's a "sub-brown dwarf".

Re:How's that? (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about 2 years ago | (#41982921)

...and it should be noted, by the IAU definition, this "rogue planet" is not a planet at all. It's a "sub-brown dwarf".

are you sure you aren't reading that from the "personals" section in the classified pages of your free, local newspaper?

Re:How's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983001)

I think they prefer the term "sub-brown Little People" these days.

Re:How's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983545)

Pound for a brown?

10Six (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982415)

Soon we will discover there is a new and exceedingly valuable element on the rogue planet and rush to mine it. Project Visitor at last!

re: brown dwarf (-1, Offtopic)

Phusion (58405) | about 2 years ago | (#41982421)

I made a brown dwarf after my second cup this morning, small universe.

I wonder if it's He ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982479)

Blish (who is completely out of favour as an SF writer - too intellectual) pointed out that drives which manipulate gravity or space need not be attached to a vehicle - they can just be attached to anything that you want to move. His "Cities in Flight" series describes whole commercial cities which specialise in specific services - often mining or refining - traveling the galaxy looking for work.

At one point a small planet is provided with propulsion in this way. Perhaps.....

Re:I wonder if it's He ? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 years ago | (#41982677)

"For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky" <clutches head, slumps over, dead>

or

"Miramanee!!"

You can talk to me about the mayan (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41982553)

prediction of the end of the world all you want. But on the next day you must promise to never, ever, talk about the end of the world.

Re:You can talk to me about the mayan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983333)

I feel so Melancholic [imdb.com] now.

Name (1)

Konster (252488) | about 2 years ago | (#41982581)

Rogue planet all by its lonesome?

Let's name it Han Solo.

Re:Name (1)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | about 2 years ago | (#41982617)

It has one moon, named Chewie. And something else that isn't quite a moon...

Re:Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982983)

How about xXLoneWolf-Snipr420Xx

Re:Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983179)

It already has a name: Dakalaw [memory-alpha.org] .

Kidding aside: It already has a name: VCFBDSIR2149-0403.

Re:Name (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#41983469)

I thought the definition of a planet required that the entity have cleared it's orbit. If this entity has no orbit then it has no orbit to clear and since it can't clear an orbit it can't be a planet....

too primitive for my tastes.. (3, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | about 2 years ago | (#41982601)

Let me know when they discover a nethack planet.

Re:too primitive for my tastes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41984031)

There are dwarf planets already, maybe one of them has a fortress.

may or may not be the first (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#41982641)

For details we turn to our usual correspondent [wikipedia.org] ...

100 Light Years Away (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41982723)

The good news: It is 100 light years away from Earth so there's no way for it to reach us in time.

The not so good news: 100 light years is nothing cosmic-distance-wise. If our detection capabilities can let us spot a Super-Jupiter sized object 100 light years away, are there smaller object that are closer, but still pose a threat? This is completely unrelated to the Mayan Apocalypse nonsense. We should improve our detection abilities mainly to spot asteroids headed our way in time to prevent a catastrophe.

Re:100 Light Years Away (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982891)

A light year is so far as to be practically infinite distance from a "worrying about things happening in your grandchildren't lifetime" point of view.

The asteroids that can hit Earth are pretty much all inside the orbit of Jupiter, and detection in that range is waaaaaay easier than detecting things over multiple light years distance.

Re:100 Light Years Away (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41982893)

Well, it depends. We can detect this because it is large enough to emit quite a lot of heat. A smaller rocky body (like an asteroid or Earth-type planet) would be undetectable until it was much, much closer, close enough for us to see the reflected sunlight from it. That's why there is speculation about a fairly large planet somewhere in the Kepler belt even today. It's impossible to see something that isn't emitting light or heat, and isn't close enough to reflect a significant amount from another body (like the sun). Thankfully, Jupiter tends to act as a clean-up machine, pulling in anything that might get close enough to threaten us, so I wouldn't spend any time at all worrying about it. It's very unlikely that anything would hit us.

Re:100 Light Years Away (2)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#41982901)

The good news: It is 100 light years away from Earth so there's no way for it to reach us in time.

The not so good news: 100 light years is nothing cosmic-distance-wise. If our detection capabilities can let us spot a Super-Jupiter sized object 100 light years away, are there smaller object that are closer, but still pose a threat?

Given a 100 light year sphere, "trillions" would be an understatement of the number of smaller than Super-Jupiter size objects within it, but large enough to be a threat if they were on the right trajectory.

We should improve our detection abilities mainly to spot asteroids headed our way in time to prevent a catastrophe.

That's certainly true, but utterly unrelated to this finding. There ain't jack-shit we could do about a "rogue planet" headed for Earth, other than throw a few awesome end-of-the-world parties.

Re:100 Light Years Away (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41982975)

If our detection capabilities can let us spot a Super-Jupiter sized object 100 light years away, are there smaller object that are closer, but still pose a threat?

Of course there are. Scientists point out new discoveries of these all the time, and show the near misses. There's loads of things we haven't seen yet, which is why you can still get new comets being discovered that have hugely elliptic orbits.

We should improve our detection abilities mainly to spot asteroids headed our way in time to prevent a catastrophe.

I think this has already been best answered [wikiquote.org] with "Well, our object collision budget's about a million dollars a year. That allows us to track about three percent of the sky, and begging your pardon sir, but it's a big-ass sky."

If we truly had one incoming on a collision course ... I'm pretty sure we have nowhere near the technology to do anything about it. People occasionally float a new idea, but so far if something big comes along, we're screwed. Same if the Vogons show up.

Re:100 Light Years Away (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41984067)

are there smaller object that are closer, but still pose a threat?

Who cares? There are larger objects that are closer but still pose a threat. Actual stars! Dozens of them within a 100 light-year radius. Get down and cower now! :)

NUKE IT !! NUKE IT NOW !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982759)

We don't want no rogue planets around here !!

Robin Gibb is dead !!

Cause of ejection? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982793)

Of the two possible origins of planets like this, the first would be that it's a star that didn't get enough mass to ignite. This seems to make the most intuitive sense to me.

The other possibility is that it was somehow ejected form it's parent star. This seems less likely, but then I'm not an astrophysicist. What would it take to eject a planet that large from it's solar system?

What kind of event would it take to say, eject Jupiter? Would it take a huge rogue Nemesis kind of star, or could something smaller perturb it's orbit just enough to eject it?

Assuming it was ejected, could you not interpolate from the planets velocity just where it came from, work backwards to find it's old parent star, and perhaps even figure out what other stellar body it interacted with that caused the planet to be ejected?

Re:Cause of ejection? (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about 2 years ago | (#41983101)

Well not being an astrophysicist either, all i can do is speculate. Obviously everything in space has mass. I've heard of galaxies colliding together so why not solar systems? Assuming you introduced a strong enough gravitational force that wasn't able to capture a planet due to inertia, merely alter its course, than it's reasonable to believe that an orbiting body could be flung away for the gravitational influence of its star.

Re:Cause of ejection? (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about 2 years ago | (#41983185)

Sorry I didn't cover this in the first reply. Im a posting this at work. Anyway, with gravitational forces you have to factor in quite a few things. Orbital velocity, Mass, and all other gravitational interactions. While it's true that objects with mass pull each other closer, obviously the object with the most mass will be doing most of the pulling. Gas giants are deceiving in the fact that for all their size, they aren't dense, therefore not as much mass and they will have a deceivingly low gravitational pull. So a smaller celestial body could knock it out of obit.

Quick! Someone go call Leeloo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982835)

Anyone know the Mondoshawan area code?

Thundarr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982849)

Eighteen years too late to be prophetic, and still way too far out, but... hey, if I get my own Mok, who cares?

Re:Thundarr (1)

ItGoesToEleven (1256512) | about 2 years ago | (#41983141)

The year: 2014. From out of space comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon, unleashing cosmic destruction! Man's civilization is cast in ruin!
Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn...
A strange new world rises from the old: a world of savagery, super science, and sorcery. But one man bursts his bonds to fight for justice! With his companions Ookla the Mok and Princess Ariel, he pits his strength, his courage, and his fabulous Sunsword against the forces of evil.
He is Thundarr, the Barbarian!

Made me think of a fun sci-fi short story (2)

MetricT (128876) | about 2 years ago | (#41982909)

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/12/21/17846/757 [kuro5hin.org]

LocalRoger wrote several shorts based in this universe. I though they were great, and am still waiting for a book.

Re:Made me think of a fun sci-fi short story (1)

MetricT (128876) | about 2 years ago | (#41983003)

Actually, you can read all the shorts here:

http://localroger.com/ [localroger.com]

Good times too. Reminds me a bit of Niven.

Will this replace Pluto as our 9th planet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41982997)

When and if it starts orbiting our sun, or is it another quasi-planet or whatever Pluto is called nowadays

obligatory jack handey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983049)

"I wish I lived on a planet that had two suns---regular sun and 'rogue' sun. That way, when somebody asked me what time it was, I'd say, 'Regular time?' And they'd say, 'Yeah.' And I'd say, 'Sorry, all I have is rogue time.' It'd be fun to be a stuck-up rogue-time guy."

Japanese Anime covered this (1)

flogger (524072) | about 2 years ago | (#41983053)

Movie was called Final Yamato. From the wikipedia article:

Final Yamato Main article: Final Yamato Premiering in Japanese theaters on March 19, 1983, Final Yamato reunites the crew one more time to combat the threat of the Denguilu, a militaristic alien civilization that intends to use the water planet, Aquarius, to flood Earth and resettle there (having lost their home planet to a galactic collision). Captain Okita, who was found to be in cryogenic sleep since the first season, returns to command the Yamato and sacrifices himself to stop the Denguili's plan. Susumu and Yuki also get married. The story is set in the year 2203, contradicting earlier assumptions that its predecessor, Yamato III, took place in 2205. Having a running time of 163 minutes, Final Yamato retains the record of being the longest animated film ever made.

Homeless planets in our neighborhood (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 years ago | (#41983067)

Great. Just great. Homeless planets orbiting around the neighborhood, pushing a giant shopping cart, talking to themselves, collecting cans, hanging around stoplights washing windows... Shit. There goes the neighborhood.

What keeps it at that temperature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983187)

Is there some nuclear fusion going on, even though the planet is less massive than a brown dwarf, or is it just residual heat?

That's no moon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983441)

We can only hope that they haven't detected us yet...

Kolob abandoned Mitt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41983561)

Rouge planet (1)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about 2 years ago | (#41983723)

We better all keep our eyes on it, it's already rogue, you never know if it might get all mavericky on us.

inb4 nibiru (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about 2 years ago | (#41983817)

you know someone's gonna say it

Space 1999 (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 2 years ago | (#41984099)

Sounds like something right out of Space 1999, which was considered very pseudoscience.

Re:Space 1999 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41984427)

It's still very pseudoscience: an explosion powerful enough to eject a spacial body with the mass of our moon at the speeds implied by the rate at which they fly through neighboring star systems is far beyond the capability of every nuclear weapon ever made, combined, and would have likely vaporized not only the moon, but Earth and the rest of the solar system right along with it. Even if the rock somehow miraculously survived the explosion and extreme acceleration, the people on board would not -- that scene where they were all pinned to the floor would have actually resulted in them all being instantly reduced to small puddles of goo, followed quickly by the complete collapse of all man-made structures to around the height of an average encyclopedia. And let's not even start on all the weird bullshit that happened when they met other races, like the time somebody installed and then removed an atmosphere from the rogue moon...

It's name is: (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | about 2 years ago | (#41984441)

Mongo! Ming is coming!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?