/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5258242
>implying exoplanets are planets

ty niel.

>>5258246
>implying they arent
lel

>>5258246
What?

>>5258246
0/10

>>5258248
>>5258250
>>5258252

I spelt his name wrong.

>>5258246
>there are only 8 planets in the universe
wtf am I reading?

>>5258246
What the fuck? Are you stupid?!

>>5258246

Look, son. Look at him and laugh.

>entire thread devoted to called one dumb fuck out on his dumbfuckery
>mfw

>>5259879
Enjoying your first week on 4chan?

>>5258242
orphaned planets sound badass
they just fly the fuck around goin wherever the fuck they want
ain't no orbit gonna hold them back
ain't no star gonna tie them down

Wait, is it not more humorous that the op is apparently implying that anyone in this thread is ever going to another planet with a star?

>>5259893
That's not out of the scope of science is it?
Imagine telling people you were going to broadcast images on lcd screens through the air powered by electricity 500 years ago.

>>5259889
im a proud black planet who dont need no gas giant. i gots six moons and a seventh one is collectin inerta in my southwest quadrant, and aint nobody gonna tell me i cant feed my babbies. and dont you even think about snatchin me and my darlins up in your gravity well, honey. that theres slavery and id demand compensation in form of light rays

>>5260402
...but the closest exoplanet would take like 180,000 years or something like that for us to get too traveling at 40,000 mph. i think we see the big picture exponentially better than we did 500 years ago and we understand enough to know thats never happening

>>5260470
>can't think of anything else but using chemical rockets for interstellar travel
>"never"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx2V-D-Xdq8

>>5260508
sooo... what else? the ion engines they are designing would still take 45-50 thousand years. are you workin on some inter-stellar space ship in your basement or somethin?

>>5260508
>notsureiftrollorretarded.jpg

What planets don't have stars in their skies? You mean without a sun?

>>5260566
rogue planets. they form around a star but got ejected from their original orbit

>>5260568
>>5260566
and OP's post didn't say no stars in there skies, "starless" meaning not orbiting a star. the Sun is the star we orbit, other stars aren't referred to as suns except on dumbed down discovery channel specials or shit like that

>>5260568
Or planets that formed in the absence of a star, it is possible.

>>5260568
How does the ejection happen?

What is and isn't orbit? Does any body have two suns like in movies?

>>5260564
>>5260563
Not this >>5260508 retard but.....

Bitches don't know bout my pusher plate. Alpha Centauri Bb in 10 years using 70s tech.

Why would I want to go to a rogue planet? They would be cold as balls.

>>5260609
Orbits are inherently unstable. The planets did not form in there current positions. These tugs can cause planets to be ejected from there solar system by other planets. We probably had over 20 planets early in the solar system s formation. We know every planet still in the solar system has collided with another planet sized body at least once.

The answer to your other question is yes planets can form in binary star systems. Our closest exoplanet neighbour we know of Alpha Centauri Bb is in a triple star system

What are the odds that space is actually rather full of unadopted planets?

>>5260617
but that technology never panned out
the ion engine is far more likely to work
so we're still lookin at 45,000 years of travel time

>>5260637
overwhelmingly high

>>5260637
Nearly 100 %

Ejected planets are a normal part of solar system formation.

>>5260652
>never panned out
It was never even tested. The theory is sound, someone just needs to make it happen.

>>5260625
depends. a planets sized brown dwarf near the end of its life cycle could theoretically still be burning enough fuel to keep it a comfy 80-90 degrees. sure, technically its a star, but on the other hand jupiter just hasn't accrued enough mass to become a star yet

>>5260652
The tech works. It is just a little dirty to use in atmosphere. When and if these things get built it will be in space where to fallout from hundreds of nukes won't give everyone cancer.

>>5260660
>>5260656

"never panned out" wasn't the right way to word it. getting this fucked out into space far enough away to start its engine is a logistical nightmare

>>5260661

Everything worth doing is a logistical nightmare.

>>5260661
Not really. Using the right kind of bomblets the fallout could be minimized even when launching from the ground using main engines.

And that's just one option. A medium sized craft could be launched high enough into the atmosphere by shuttle SRBs that when the main engine kicks in, the fallout would be diluted so much it wouldn't be an issue.

And of course the bomb-drive is just ONE type of nuclear engine. Granted that it's very efficient, but there are dozens of different schemes, some of which provide a high specific impulse without venting radioactives outside the drive housing.

>>5260659
jesus thats a weird thought

>luke warm brown dwarf, basically giant swimming pool with super gravity, probably filled with sightless seabeasts.

I go to starless planets half the time I trip on DMT, in fact, I have conjured up several from scratch in the outer reaches of a distant galaxy.

>>5258242
k

they might be a bit too cold for us

>>5260692
Why would there be water?

Or was that just an analogy?

If it was, the temperature would of course increase the further down you went, so depending on the particulars, it might not be all that nice.

Besides, thinking of a planet that never receives any sunlight and where even the meager starlight is absorbed by the atmosphere, raises in me the same kind of terrors as thinking of the Batholithic civilization.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4f43b87a30aae

>>5260637

Most figures point to planets being more common than stars.

>>5260852
but even if they were 10x more common than stars, that would be in line with our solar system and would not imply that there are many planets that don't orbit stars

>>5260895
I'd set limits of 0.01 to 2 rogue planets per star.

But "filled with" is a subjective expression.

>>5260899
Any other arbitrary numbers you want to assign to things we have no way of detecting or measuring?

>>5260921
Yes. The use of "filled with" is about 8778.3451341 Giga-Bronskies on the Harfatum-Bronski uselesness-scale.

>>5260926
so what is the point of replying to useless statements with outright lies instead of simply seeking clarification with questions that would demonstrate the ignorance inherent in the question that makes it a not even wrong thing to ask?

>>5260939

>>5260954
You have literally been wrong about everything you have posted what makes you think I am not giggling at your ignorance and feeling suave from making good points and winning debates?

>>5260956
>implying that's one person

>>5260939
What is the point of the Drake equation?
The amount of rogue planets is currently unknowable.

If there's one or two rogue planets to every star, that can be considered lots. Or not.

>>5260956
You are now arguing with at least three different people.

>>5260956
> giggling at your ignorance and feeling suave from making good points and winning debates

>>5260967
I don't think you understand what an argument is.

One person is spouting memes, one person is agreeing with me, and one person is just making self centered false statements since they are the samefag as the meme zombie.

>>5260971
>they are the samefag as the meme zombie
Also, 'to argue' does not necessarily mean that you are having an academical argument.

In this case it just means that you are for some reason being hostile to many different people for some reason.

>>5260810
>http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4f43b87a30aae
Dude. This is sweet. Thanks for the link.

>>5260975
see
>>5260954

>>5260810

>That entire site

So much autism.

I love it.