NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/bigpic.jsp?photoid=20040913WAS97.jpg&this=0&searchpage=photosearch.jsp&cap=European+Southern+Observatory&w=ap+or+reuters&max=8&first=&fs=&floc=wn-np

Its the small red one to the left.

Wow, that's cool. :D

My astronomy teacher mentioned something about this in my class today. Pretty spiffy.

Cool.

woah, i wonder if my prof will say something about it tomorrow.


and this comes as i'm doing my astro homework too.

woah, i wonder if my prof will say something about it tomorrow.


and this comes as i'm doing my astro homework too.

My professor was saying that this discovery pretty much throws everything astronomers thought they knew about planetary development into question.

why? because it's orbiting a brown dwarf?

why? because it's orbiting a brown dwarf?

No, because it was previously thought that gravitational forces would prevent a gas giant from forming so close to a star.

well, a brown dwarf isn't a proper star.

and they keep finding gas giants orbiting close to stars, that's how most of the extrasolar planets have been so far. although they've been finding a fair number of solar systems like our own lately.

but yeah, they've been coming up with theories to explain it for some time now, they think it's possible that the giant planets formed far out in the solar systems and then moved in closer, which would eradicate all smaller planets on the way in.

well, a brown dwarf isn't a proper star.

and they keep finding gas giants orbiting close to stars, that's how most of the extrasolar planets have been so far. although they've been finding a fair number of solar systems like our own lately.

but yeah, they've been coming up with theories to explain it for some time now, they think it's possible that the giant planets formed far out in the solar systems and then moved in closer, which would eradicate all smaller planets on the way in.


True.

That's what I was saying though. All these extrasolar planets they're discovering are invalidating the way they thought solar systems developed. They thought the solar system would be the rule; it's looking more and more like we're the exception.

if its circling a brown dwarf is it really a planet or just a moon 5 times larger than jupiter. also i thought alot of the planet they had found were giants in real tight orbits around their stars, that old theory of solar system developement seems to have been out the door for a few years at least.

That's what I was saying though. All these extrasolar planets they're discovering are invalidating the way they thought solar systems developed. They thought the solar system would be the rule; it's looking more and more like we're the exception.

well, it coudl have something to do with the sun developping in a quiet area of the galaxy without much interference from the gravity of other stars.

i mean, what kind of object would knock something like jupiter into the inner solar system? i'm guessing a close encounter with another star would do it, and the sun is relatively isolated.

and as i said, now they're starting to discover more solar systems that are similar to our own. i think they had one with two gas giants out about where our jupiter and saturn are that they found a while ago.

and another thing is that there are a hell of a lot of stars out there, and we've only looked at a very small bit of them, it's silly to start guessing what's average in the galaxy with such a small sample.

well, it coudl have something to do with the sun developping in a quiet area of the galaxy without much interference from the gravity of other stars.

i mean, what kind of object would knock something like jupiter into the inner solar system? i'm guessing a close encounter with another star would do it, and the sun is relatively isolated.

and as i said, now they're starting to discover more solar systems that are similar to our own. i think they had one with two gas giants out about where our jupiter and saturn are that they found a while ago.

and another thing is that there are a hell of a lot of stars out there, and we've only looked at a very small bit of them, it's silly to start guessing what's average in the galaxy with such a small sample.

That's true also. Isn't it also true that binary star systems are the norm in our galaxy and single star systems are a rarity? Maybe this new system was originally a binary star system, but they broke apart for whatever reason. It would explain why the planet was pushed so close to the star.

yeah, there are more multiple stars than single stars, but if you look at where stars come from in the first place it makes sense. basically you start with a giant dust cloud and for whatever reason (there are a number of reasons why it happens) it starts to condense and usually forms a cluster because chunks of the dust break into their own little dust clouds which condense to form individual stars. i'm sure you're familiar with pleides, that's a star cluster of newly formed stars (well, relatively new at least) but yeah, actually i can't recall myself why there are more double stars than single ones... i know it has something to do with the stars starting to form near each other and all...

but yeah, the thing is that stars move around, they're not stationary, so it's possible that when the planet was on the far side of the brown dwarf or star or what have you, the brown dwarf made a close pass by another star and the combined gravity of the two pulled it in closer...

i dunno though, there are many misteries left in the universe and hey, if there weren't then i'd be screwed for a job when i'm done school, so perhaps it's best that there are still questions left to answer. :)

i dunno though, there are many misteries left in the universe and hey, if there weren't then i'd be screwed for a job when i'm done school, so perhaps it's best that there are still questions left to answer. :)

Yeah, given that we've looked at like 1% of the galaxy, there's still plenty of work to be done.

So, you're going into astronomy? Anything specific?

if its circling a brown dwarf is it really a planet or just a moon 5 times larger than jupiter.

well, i'm not sure what differentiates a moon from a planet, but i think it has something to do with a planet directly orbiting a star while a moon orbits a planet that is orbiting a star.

if there's no star for the brown dwarf to orbit, then the jupiter sized planet would be a planet.

i think. they're not very good at defining everything for some reason. for isntance, they're not even sure whether to call pluto a planet or an asteroid. (there are other asteroids with moons that aren't circular) but then of course if you just define a planet as a circular object orbiting a star, then i think there were a bunch of other big asteroids as well that shoudl be given the same recognition.

Yeah, given that we've looked at like 1% of the galaxy, there's still plenty of work to be done.

So, you're going into astronomy? Anything specific?

well, i'm in an undergraduate physics program and i think i'm going to try for a phd in astrophys if i get the grades for it.

if not, then i'll see if i can inspire the love of physics in highschool kids. :D

well, i'm in an undergraduate physics program and i think i'm going to try for a phd in astrophys if i get the grades for it.

if not, then i'll see if i can inspire the love of physics in highschool kids. :D

Any ideas for a paper topic for my astronomy class? I want to write about something that not alot of other people are going to write about. A paper on black holes is so cliched.

Any ideas for a paper topic for my astronomy class? I want to write about something that not alot of other people are going to write about. A paper on black holes is so cliched.

well, stellar nucleosynthesis isn't a very difficult subject and the term alone has enough "wow" factor...

basically it's the process by which all elements heavier than hydrogen were made. you get to cover a bit of the big bang, nuclear fusion, supernova explosions, planetary nebulae, stellar structure, the future of the sun et c all in one convenient paper. you can even add stellar classifications too.

i'm not sure how big of a paper this is, but there's more than enough material out there for you to get a pretty good chunk of information.

and well, string theory is always good, worm holes, white holes (those last two are strictly theoretical) theory of relativity (spacetime curvature and all) big bang, development of the copernican system, kepler's laws, if you've got a telescope or binoculars and some clear sky you can do some observational kinds of things, astrophotography is always fun as well, there are lots of astronomical kinds of subjects that aren't just black holes.

Any ideas for a paper topic for my astronomy class? I want to write about something that not alot of other people are going to write about. A paper on black holes is so cliched.
how about the possibility of quark stars, as a transitional state between nuetron stars and black holes.

It’s not a gas giant, it’s the death star. It just destroyed a planet and is headed right for us.

No, because it was previously thought that gravitational forces would prevent a gas giant from forming so close to a star.

Well, the picture seems to imply that the two are 55 AU's apart...

Well, the picture seems to imply that the two are 55 AU's apart...Yeah, I was a bit surprised that anyone managed to resolve a planet. And at 70 parsecs a 15 m telescope would still be diffraction-limited to a resolution of an A.U. (the article didn't mention how big the telescope was).

BTW, the image of a "blurry red ball" is all blur, no ball. Whatever it is is far too small to resolve into a disc.