Nasa has found a planet that wanders through the universe without a star

OK, sorry.

It's under the influence of the galaxy itself. Just like all the other stars ranging from tiny but dense neutron stars to blue supergiants. As far as this "planet" being "captured" by a higher density object? I'm not so sure. There's so much "space" out there that we can't fathom it properly.

It's a Júpiter-like reddish planet extremely Young, only 12 MY, and it's around 80 LY from the Sun... It has been called PSO J318.5-22... It's a lonely wanderer, but it seems it was formed in the Beta Pictoris star group...

EXCELLENT INFORMATION, OP!

Last Edited by Inerrancia on 10/10/2013 09:32 AM

Astronomers Discover a Free-Floating Planet.

[link to scitechdaily.com]

That was my initial reaction also

Old news!

It doesn't appear to be going anywhere because its coming straight at us !

It's notable that our ancestors spent their time building observatories because they were scared shitless of another one of those recurrent cataclysms happening (due to some deadly star approaching?) and now we see how our modern societies are falling again into the same neurosis. Debunkers may say what they want but I think humanity's fate has been defined by heavenly phenomena, we carry it in our collective subconscious (as Velikovsky correctly remarked).

I agree!

This only doesn't make sense if you assume that planets are just lumps of inert, non-sentient matter.

In the case of earth, it's alive, (Gaia) and so must this other one be.

Maybe he's been searching for her all this time?

Aw, planetary love.

Yah!

Women...

poor planet, i hope it finds a sun to orbitate around. some gravity love is good for everyone.

And if they reclassify brown dwarfs as "stars" rather than planets, this thread would suddenly become unremarkable.

Behold, the power of words and labels.

Without Sun and Moon too? You are the (heaven and the) earth. Maybe you have not yet aware of your sun, moon, stars? Without the light, we can't "see" the truth of things clearly, it's like having eyes but can not see.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

Aren't every stars in a certain galaxy supposed to orbit around the galaxy center?

They do. I think the current definition of a "star" is a celestial body that radiates more energy than it absorbs, or something like that.

I don't seem to remember that, Zack.

There may have been some posters who you considered "debunkers" who made that statement, but I never read where Duncan, Idol, Johnathan Latimer, Bored Huge Krill, myself, etc., and more recently Dr. Astro ever made such a statement.
Indeed, we've always said free-floating planets were possible and theoretically guaranteed.
In fact, virtually all solar system evolutionary models show many planets forming early with many ejected and many more colliding and merging.

As a PXer you must remember ejection (and a very scrambled solar system) was one of our arguments against PX.

As I said a couple years ago when this news first came up on GLP radar...
'What the hell do you people think we meant when we said that any massive object like PX/NibbleU that came into the inner solar system with a high eccentricity (>.99) would most likely get ejected from the solar system along with a number of planets it had ripped out of their orbit?'
What do you think we meant by "ejected"?
Where do you think we meant they were ejected to? ... Nirvana?

Interstellar space is where.


R.

You are correct.

It has been theorized for nearly a century.
By the 1950s accretion models and theories were showing that it was possible for planets and brown dwarves to form all by their lonesome selves... not ever being bound to any sun.
It is a very mature science.

We are now finding them... no surprises.

Zack is very confused.


R.