A rogue object so strange, scientists aren’t sure what to call it.
justOnePersistentKbinPlease - 6day
So, my understanding is that the Simp is all alone?
137
This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥 - 6day
Just like me fr
40
justOnePersistentKbinPlease - 6day
If you are being serious, please find some local in person hobby groups that interest you and join them. It's absolutely worth it.
6
a_non_monotonic_function @lemmy.world - 5day
I think it was a joke.
2
a_non_monotonic_function @lemmy.world - 5day
Pretty normal for simps. Sorry.
2
X - 6day
Being that size can be really fucking intimidating to others.
32
Captain Aggravated - 6day
So, my understanding of auroras is, the planet's magnetic field draws particles emitted by the sun toward the poles, and as those particles interact with the atmosphere they glow. So without a star and thus without solar wind, where do the aurora come from?
65
Gust - 6day
I mean, it has a magnetic field 6 or 7 orders of magnitude higher than ours. Id guess that extra strength allows it to pull particles from much further away and possibly from sources much more reticent to give up their particles than solar wind
46
deranger @sh.itjust.works - 6day
Both the magnetic field strength and charged particle flux fall off proportional to the square of the distance from the planet / star respectively, so I doubt it gets much of anything even with a strong magnetic field unless it’s also near a star.
I’d also point out that the particles aren’t really attracted by the earths magnetic field, we’re just in the pathway, and the magnetic field funnels them to the poles. It’s more guidance than attraction.
36
merc @sh.itjust.works - 6day
If the rogue planet is truly all alone in space, you're definitely right. 4 million times is a lot, but space is really, really big, and solar radiation falls off with 1/r^2.
Let's assume the auroras are proportional to the size of the magnetic field. That's probably not true, it's probably actually proportional to the square root of the magnetic field because field strengths fall off with 1/r^2, but let's give it the best possible chance of having huge auroras. That would mean that a planet with 4x the magnetic field of Earth would have the same Aurora brightness at 2x the distance. So, something with 4 million times the magnetic field would have the same brightness at sqrt(4,000,000) the earth-to-sun distance, or 2000x the distance. If it were in our solar system, or even just near our solar system, it would be bright. But, space is big.
Since the earth is about 500 light-seconds from the sun, 2000 earth-distances is about 1 million light seconds, or about 11.5 days. By comparison, the closest star to Sol is Proxima Centauri at 4 light years. So, these Auroras would only be earth-like if the rogue planet were very close to some star. It wouldn't have to necessarily be in orbit of that star, but it would have to be pretty close. If it were out in the space between the stars, there's just nothing there for the magnetic field to interact with.
6
Tinidril @midwest.social - 5day
But there are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way, some of which are hundreds of solar masses, not to mention the Accretion disks of black holes all kicking out radiation. That's gotta add up to something, even with the inverse-square law fall off. The galactic core has unfathomable levels of radiation and puts out its own galactic wind, and some stars have observable bow shocks with it.
2
merc @sh.itjust.works - 4day
That's gotta add up to something, even with the inverse-square law fall off
No, it doesn't, precisely because of the inverse square law.
3
Gust - 6day
I dont think you're quite understanding how big 6 orders of magnitude is. 4000000/r2 still falls off way slower than 1/r2.
Also the funnel diagram of the earth's magnetic field you're referring to is a near field effect. In the far field regime the only field components that stay strong enough to be relevant are those parallel to the axis of the dipole; a dipole is functionally identical to a bar magnet if you're measuring it from far enough away. If my understanding of solar wind is correct and the aurora refers to an interaction that occurs between the earth's magnetic field and particles near the sun, we're definitely in the far field regime
-2
deranger @sh.itjust.works - 6day
I don’t think you’re quite understanding the distances involved in what I’m getting at. The particle flux is minuscule, and it’s not the magnetic field that’s attracting particles. It’s only guiding the particles that were already headed towards the planet.
This planet would have great aurorae if it were near a star, but it’s not, so the magnetic field strength is kind of a moot point.
7
plyth @feddit.org - 6day
From how far could the planet guide particles into its aurora?
1
Gust - 6day
The absolute distance is strictly irrelevant given this is a relative comparison between two magnetic fields. The one that is 6 orders of magnitude higher will maintain that 6 orders of magnitude difference exactly the same at a distance of 100m as it will at a distance of 100au. That means that the stronger field will maintain the minimum strength required to "guide" particles towards the dipole at a greater distance than the weaker magnetic field would. I feel you if you're only trying to argue that it would still need to be within some neighborhood of some star to produce an aurora, but your posts read like you're claiming 6 orders of magnitude on the magnetic field makes no difference on how close that object would need to be to produce an aurora, which is flatly incorrect.
0
wewbull @feddit.uk - 5day
No star = no charged particles = no lights. Doesn't matter how big the magnetic field is.
That's all he's saying.
4
deranger @sh.itjust.works - 5day
The absolute distance is extremely relevant to how many particles reach the planet, which in turn is extremely relevant to how bright the aurora is.
2
Gust - 5day
That is correct. It also has nothing to do with the original claim I made and you disagreed with, which is that the object with the greater magnetic field would be able to attract particles from farther away.
1
baggachipz @sh.itjust.works - 6day
I see cheap MRIs
5
we are all - 6day
Im guessing it only occurs when it is in a cloud or trail of charged particles.
or perhaps there is a local (climatic?) cycle that sends charged particles to the poles.
11
untorquer @lemmy.world - 6day
The Wikipedia linked in these comments says it is likely from electron precipitation. Basically the magnetic field traps free elections and thus "wiggles" as they interact with the field. This can make a (pulsed) radio jet shooting from the pole, which is how this planet was observed. These electrons can fine from atmospheric phenomena such as lightning or large storms.
Earth has the same but much weaker phenomenon, the Van Allen belt, which was a difficult challenge to handle in the early days of space exploration.
7
KingGimpicus @sh.itjust.works - 5day
Kind of, but not really.
Auroras dont necessarily need a stars radiation. Any old radiation will do, so long as there are charged particles floating around. Jupiter, for example, has gigantic continuous aurora around the magnetic poles. If auroras only came from the sun, and the earth is much closer to the sun than Jupiter, wouldn't earth have a bigger aurora than Jupiter?
No, obviously. The size of the aurora depends on the size of the magnetic field interacting with charged particles and the number of those charged particles.
In the case of supermassive planets like Jupiter and this rogue planet, they produce way more of their own radiation than they recieve from the sun or space. This rogue "planet" in particular is so massive that it could actually fuse deuterium down in the core just with the pressures and temperatures of gravity crushing all that matter down. If you pumped enough hydrogen in there to quadruple the mass, it would probably ignite into a star quite comparable to our sun.
For that reason, it's better to think of this as more of a baby star that didn't quite eat enough wheaties than a planet in the traditional sense we think of here in our solar system.
With the crazy physics that come with suns and near dwarfs with similar mass, it's no surprise that it generates a titanic magnetic field, and as a bonus, it produces its own radiation. It creates all the necessary ingredients it needs to make it's own spectacular auroras with no actual outside interaction.
Tl;dr it makes it's own aurora
6
Fedizen @lemmy.world - 6day
The theory seems to be captured radiation (electron) fields. Earth even has one. A stray planet and its halo of interstellar objects might have a very large and complex radiation belt system.
3
m4xie @lemmy.ca - 6day
Just what I was wondering.
3
MousePotatoDoesStuff @lemmy.world - 6day
SIMP? More like PGTOW (Planets Going Their Own Way)
This planet is no orbiter.
65
ObliviousEnlightenment - 6day
I hate that I laughed at that
13
Lemminary - 6day
Planets Gone Wild
8
rice_nine - 6day
Orbs Gone Wild.
1
Cyberflunk @lemmy.world - 6day
wtf,they have several classifications.
free-floating planetary-mass object
exoplanet
rogue planet
brown dwarf
welcome to science where theres names, AND acknowledgement that things change with new data
We have discovered over 6000 exoplanets in total, and over 100 in this year. I'd be surprised if you knew of all of them
36
LanguageIsCool @lemmy.world - 6day
Oh you wanna be an astronaut, kid? Name every exoplanet
11
Matriks404 @lemmy.world - 6day
I mean... it's definitely possible, I have seen a person naming every subdivision of the world, which is a bit less than the amount of exoplanets we know (~4000 vs. >6000), but only by 2000, so eventually some person will just do that.
1
belluck @lemmy.blahaj.zone - 6day
Galaxy, not Solar System. There are a lot of planets in our galaxy that you’ve probably never heard of
16
prettybunnys - 6day
Yep
6
BeigeAgenda @lemmy.ca - 6day
Interesting, I just finished reading Rendezvous With Rama.
If a massive object like that was to pass through our neighbourhood I think it could fling planets out of the solar system.
27
Clent @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 6day
Even with this mass this planet would have to pass one of the outer planets extremely close and quite slowly to have a chance of dragging a planet out of the solar system.
This is the same sort of idea as when galaxies merge. There is little chance of our solar system being effected in that scenario. There is just too much space to space.
25
MohamedMoney @feddit.org - 6day
Aren’t we currently galaxy merging?
3
Tollana1234567 @lemmy.today - 6day
2-5bn years with andromeda, not even close.
11
MohamedMoney @feddit.org - 6day
Thank you but I didn’t mean andromeda. I think heard something about merging with a dwarf galaxy or something
You are correct! Here's a really good video on the topic.
3
Victor - 6day
You'd think we would be able to see a dwarf galaxy approaching close to our galaxy at night? Or how dwarfey are we talking?
2
MohamedMoney @feddit.org - 6day
I don’t know why you bring up being able to see the dwarf galaxy at night as a qualifier. The dwarf galaxy I’m talking about seems to be Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
3
Victor - 6day
I don’t know why you bring up being able to see the dwarf galaxy at night as a qualifier.
Because a whole ass galaxy should be visible, I would think, but I also asked how small we're talking — maybe it wouldn't be visible. You know?
Anyway,
The Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, a small satellite of the Milky Way that is leaving a stream of stars behind as an effect of our Galaxy’s gravitational tug, is visible as an elongated feature below the Galactic centre and pointing in the downwards direction in the all-sky map of the density of stars observed by ESA’s Gaia mission between July 2014 to May 2016.
Scientists analysing data from Gaia’s second release have shown our Milky Way galaxy is still enduring the effects of a near collision that set millions of stars moving like ripples on a pond. The close encounter likely took place sometime in the past 300–900 million years, and the culprit could be the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy.
Seems like it was only a near collision eons ago, but maybe it's still on a an absorption path to be consumed by The Milky Way in the future. Cool, didn't know about that.
5
Clent @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 6day
Our galaxy is capturing smaller galaxies but there won't be a merge of equal sizes for a couple billion years with andromeda.
4
reddit_sux @lemmy.world - 6day
Yes we are in middle of a multi million year process of merging of the bigger Andromeda galaxy and our Milky Way galaxy.
2
Nythos @sh.itjust.works - 6day
With Andromeda, yes
2
Victor - 6day
Haven't even begun colliding though. We can still see it way in the distance. It's millions/billions of years away until colliding.
Imagine the night sky far in galactic future when Andromeda is like directly overhead at night. What an amazing view. Shame earth wouldn't be around to see it.
3
MintyFresh @lemmy.world - 6day
Only a few short galactic years off!
3
Victor - 6day
Oh god. Thanks for that midlife crisis!
2
Clay_pidgin - 6day
That's one of my very favorite books. It's fantastic at setting the mood. The further books are ok but not as much to my taste.
10
MonkeMischief @lemmy.today - 6day
I still need to read the book! My main familiarity with RAMA is the 199(5?) PC game that was mind bogglingly obtuse with math puzzles but the world was SO fascinating! I need to figure out how to play it again with my grown up brain...
That's awesome! Thanks SO much for pointing me to that! I too wonder what the 2GB size is. It looks like they have two different sets of packages, one being a "source archive" that's just a raw CD dump.
I can see it, since the game was on like, 4 or 5 CDs back then, and involved a lot of heavily compressed video!
I have a fun feeling that maybe I can run this really well in Bottles, it ScummVM alone doesn't do the trick. :D
Here's a link I found to the soundtrack in "CD Quality", with a download link, if you're interested.
That 90's crystal-synth is the most gorgeous thing...it reminded me very much of the soundtrack to Journeyman Project 2: Buried in Time. :D
2
[object Object] - 2day
ScummVM should work swimmingly and better than Wine. I used it on an Android tablet — though one game crashed at a particular point, thankfully not far into it.
3
Clay_pidgin - 6day
There's also an audio play which was neat.
2
MonkeMischief @lemmy.today - 2day
Oh that's really cool! I'm gonna search for that! Maybe my library has it, or I can bug them to get it. :)
EDIT: Is it the BBC one you're talking about?
2
Clay_pidgin - 2day
It is. I found it interesting!
2
Evil_Shrubbery - 6day
Oh, I absolutely loved all of them, but it's def a different kind of sci-fi (less human-techy) compared to the first book.
4
Evil_Shrubbery - 6day
I love that whole series, amazing books!!
But yes, this simp is basically a failed star that was prob flung out of some nursery.
5
Melllvar - 6day
You may enjoy Fritz Leiber's short story, "A Pail of Air", which involves the Earth being ejected.
Let's not. I like the solar systems orbits exactly as they are
5
Lemminary - 6day
Well, there's a stronger case being made every day for flinging ourselves into the sun.
3
beejboytyson @lemmy.world - 6day
Ofc the simp is cucked in the corner not allowed to join the orgy of planets.
23
Rcklsabndn @sh.itjust.works - 6day
Doh!
2
Zier - 6day
Borg Sphere Model 2025
22
Victor - 6day
So how come there's an aurora when there's no star to spray it with electromagnetic radiation?
17
KingGimpicus @sh.itjust.works - 6day
Because the planet produces its own radiation. That much mass means this is less a "planet" and more of a proto star. It's actually large enough to fuse deuterium if the right conditions arise. Pour enough hydrogen in there to raise the mass three of four times what it has now and it'd be comparable to our sun.
13
Victor - 6day
Cool, thanks for that!
2
Digestive_Biscuit @feddit.uk - 6day
Would this be a star which wasn't big enough and fizzled out into a big planet?
2
Tinidril @midwest.social - 5day
Every planet is a star which wasn't big enough. Some are just more challenged than others.
2
RampantParanoia2365 @lemmy.world - 5day
So it's like smoke or burning embers before a flame ignites?
2
GreenKnight23 @lemmy.world - 6day
better question, is a star required for EMR?
4
Victor - 6day
Nah, that's a yes or no question, that's a worse question. I want to know what's causing the aurora, if not a star.
2
Fedizen @lemmy.world - 6day
Name seems wrong but you do you, SIMP 0136
13
pruwyben - 6day
He's just jealous 'cause the dorks on Earth called him a failed star.
12
BaroqueInMind - 6day
Likely a brown dwarf or magnetar
12
Naz @sh.itjust.works - 6day
Looks like a brown dwarf, especially from the Wiki page
7
Brave Little Hitachi Wand - 6day
I was going to say, I read somewhere at uni that if Jupiter was 14 times as large, it would have become a brown dwarf.
6
Bazell @lemmy.zip - 6day
Lonely queen.
10
DeICEAmerica @lemmy.world - 6day
Welcome to 2016. Mike brown and Konstantin Batygin basically proved that the only way we could explain the orbits of Pluto and other KBO was a massive 9th, yet to be discovered rogue planet more than likely ejected from our inner solar system during planet formation.
10
TigerAce @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 6day
That's looks like a picture of Jupiter, or an artists impression of it, and there's a star needed for an aurora to happen.
Any scientific sources to back this story up?
7
Midnitte @beehaw.org - 6day
No it is indeed an artists impression of the planet - it's on the wiki page.
I'm assuming that aurora only needs solar wind to happen on earth - or that solar wind outside the heliosphere is strong enough you don't need a star for it to happen.
In 2018 astronomers said "Detecting SIMP J01365663+0933473 with the VLA through its auroral radio emission, also means that we may have a new way of detecting exoplanets, including the elusive rogue ones not orbiting a parent star ...
The picture is definitely just some artist's conception, but it's not claimed to be a photo or meant to be anything other than what it is, an artist's conception. You're right that for the most part, a star is needed for aurora, at least for the kind of aurora we have on Earth since it depends on the solar wind interacting with the planet's magnetic field. But if there is anything that can be said about what we've discovered astronomically in the last century or so it's that there are always exceptions to every supposed rule.
The authors attribute the auroras to SIMP-0136’s magnetic field being vastly more powerful than Jupiter’s (750 times stronger according to a previous study). Electrons (presumably stripped from atoms by internal processes) would flow with the field and hit atmospheric molecules fast enough to make them glow, they conclude.
Aside from the aurora part though, none of this is exceptional or rare (and maybe even the aurora part isn't rare either). Rogue planets are probably extremely common, possibly even more common than planets that are gravitationally bound in a star system. And objects of this size, which is really around where we'd start calling it a brown dwarf, are also very common, with more of them than there are main sequence stars.
12
TigerAce @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 6day
Thanks
1
very_well_lost @lemmy.world - 6day
Simping for magnetism
My new band name
7
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 6day
simp 0136 really needs love. seriously!
6
REDACTED @infosec.pub - 4day
But is it chasing stars?
4
I_am_10_squirrels @beehaw.org - 12hr
Nope, waterfalls
1
RizzRustbolt @lemmy.world - 5day
I remember this Mainframe cartoon!
4
SlartyBartFast @sh.itjust.works - 4day
ReBoot and Beasties' less-popular younger brother
2
huppakee - 6day
Just call it an URO and be done with it.
3
Seth Taylor - 5day
Follow internet tradition and call it Planet McPlanety-Face ?
fossilesque in science_memes
A rogue object so strange, scientists aren’t sure what to call it.
So, my understanding is that the Simp is all alone?
Just like me fr
If you are being serious, please find some local in person hobby groups that interest you and join them. It's absolutely worth it.
I think it was a joke.
Pretty normal for simps. Sorry.
Being that size can be really fucking intimidating to others.
So, my understanding of auroras is, the planet's magnetic field draws particles emitted by the sun toward the poles, and as those particles interact with the atmosphere they glow. So without a star and thus without solar wind, where do the aurora come from?
I mean, it has a magnetic field 6 or 7 orders of magnitude higher than ours. Id guess that extra strength allows it to pull particles from much further away and possibly from sources much more reticent to give up their particles than solar wind
Both the magnetic field strength and charged particle flux fall off proportional to the square of the distance from the planet / star respectively, so I doubt it gets much of anything even with a strong magnetic field unless it’s also near a star.
I’d also point out that the particles aren’t really attracted by the earths magnetic field, we’re just in the pathway, and the magnetic field funnels them to the poles. It’s more guidance than attraction.
If the rogue planet is truly all alone in space, you're definitely right. 4 million times is a lot, but space is really, really big, and solar radiation falls off with 1/r^2.
Let's assume the auroras are proportional to the size of the magnetic field. That's probably not true, it's probably actually proportional to the square root of the magnetic field because field strengths fall off with 1/r^2, but let's give it the best possible chance of having huge auroras. That would mean that a planet with 4x the magnetic field of Earth would have the same Aurora brightness at 2x the distance. So, something with 4 million times the magnetic field would have the same brightness at sqrt(4,000,000) the earth-to-sun distance, or 2000x the distance. If it were in our solar system, or even just near our solar system, it would be bright. But, space is big.
Since the earth is about 500 light-seconds from the sun, 2000 earth-distances is about 1 million light seconds, or about 11.5 days. By comparison, the closest star to Sol is Proxima Centauri at 4 light years. So, these Auroras would only be earth-like if the rogue planet were very close to some star. It wouldn't have to necessarily be in orbit of that star, but it would have to be pretty close. If it were out in the space between the stars, there's just nothing there for the magnetic field to interact with.
But there are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way, some of which are hundreds of solar masses, not to mention the Accretion disks of black holes all kicking out radiation. That's gotta add up to something, even with the inverse-square law fall off. The galactic core has unfathomable levels of radiation and puts out its own galactic wind, and some stars have observable bow shocks with it.
No, it doesn't, precisely because of the inverse square law.
I dont think you're quite understanding how big 6 orders of magnitude is. 4000000/r2 still falls off way slower than 1/r2.
Also the funnel diagram of the earth's magnetic field you're referring to is a near field effect. In the far field regime the only field components that stay strong enough to be relevant are those parallel to the axis of the dipole; a dipole is functionally identical to a bar magnet if you're measuring it from far enough away. If my understanding of solar wind is correct and the aurora refers to an interaction that occurs between the earth's magnetic field and particles near the sun, we're definitely in the far field regime
I don’t think you’re quite understanding the distances involved in what I’m getting at. The particle flux is minuscule, and it’s not the magnetic field that’s attracting particles. It’s only guiding the particles that were already headed towards the planet.
This planet would have great aurorae if it were near a star, but it’s not, so the magnetic field strength is kind of a moot point.
From how far could the planet guide particles into its aurora?
The absolute distance is strictly irrelevant given this is a relative comparison between two magnetic fields. The one that is 6 orders of magnitude higher will maintain that 6 orders of magnitude difference exactly the same at a distance of 100m as it will at a distance of 100au. That means that the stronger field will maintain the minimum strength required to "guide" particles towards the dipole at a greater distance than the weaker magnetic field would. I feel you if you're only trying to argue that it would still need to be within some neighborhood of some star to produce an aurora, but your posts read like you're claiming 6 orders of magnitude on the magnetic field makes no difference on how close that object would need to be to produce an aurora, which is flatly incorrect.
No star = no charged particles = no lights. Doesn't matter how big the magnetic field is.
That's all he's saying.
The absolute distance is extremely relevant to how many particles reach the planet, which in turn is extremely relevant to how bright the aurora is.
That is correct. It also has nothing to do with the original claim I made and you disagreed with, which is that the object with the greater magnetic field would be able to attract particles from farther away.
I see cheap MRIs
Im guessing it only occurs when it is in a cloud or trail of charged particles. or perhaps there is a local (climatic?) cycle that sends charged particles to the poles.
The Wikipedia linked in these comments says it is likely from electron precipitation. Basically the magnetic field traps free elections and thus "wiggles" as they interact with the field. This can make a (pulsed) radio jet shooting from the pole, which is how this planet was observed. These electrons can fine from atmospheric phenomena such as lightning or large storms.
Earth has the same but much weaker phenomenon, the Van Allen belt, which was a difficult challenge to handle in the early days of space exploration.
Kind of, but not really.
Auroras dont necessarily need a stars radiation. Any old radiation will do, so long as there are charged particles floating around. Jupiter, for example, has gigantic continuous aurora around the magnetic poles. If auroras only came from the sun, and the earth is much closer to the sun than Jupiter, wouldn't earth have a bigger aurora than Jupiter?
No, obviously. The size of the aurora depends on the size of the magnetic field interacting with charged particles and the number of those charged particles.
In the case of supermassive planets like Jupiter and this rogue planet, they produce way more of their own radiation than they recieve from the sun or space. This rogue "planet" in particular is so massive that it could actually fuse deuterium down in the core just with the pressures and temperatures of gravity crushing all that matter down. If you pumped enough hydrogen in there to quadruple the mass, it would probably ignite into a star quite comparable to our sun.
For that reason, it's better to think of this as more of a baby star that didn't quite eat enough wheaties than a planet in the traditional sense we think of here in our solar system.
With the crazy physics that come with suns and near dwarfs with similar mass, it's no surprise that it generates a titanic magnetic field, and as a bonus, it produces its own radiation. It creates all the necessary ingredients it needs to make it's own spectacular auroras with no actual outside interaction.
Tl;dr it makes it's own aurora
The theory seems to be captured radiation (electron) fields. Earth even has one. A stray planet and its halo of interstellar objects might have a very large and complex radiation belt system.
Just what I was wondering.
SIMP? More like PGTOW (Planets Going Their Own Way)
This planet is no orbiter.
I hate that I laughed at that
Planets Gone Wild
Orbs Gone Wild.
wtf,they have several classifications.
welcome to science where theres names, AND acknowledgement that things change with new data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMP_J013656.5%2B093347
Strangely Independent Massive Planet - Simp
Strangely attracted to distant stars yet unable to establish a stable orbit, Simp 0136 is condemned to a lonely existence.
Whoa, that's deeper than deep space, bro. *exhales*
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f11e72e6-45f0-461c-b8ec-c29a49790273.gif
wait is this real or a joke? do we have a new planet that I've never heard of??
This planet isn't in our solar system. We've found 6,053 exoplanets already, so it's a safe bet that there's lots more of them than you're aware of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet
We have discovered over 6000 exoplanets in total, and over 100 in this year. I'd be surprised if you knew of all of them
Oh you wanna be an astronaut, kid? Name every exoplanet
I mean... it's definitely possible, I have seen a person naming every subdivision of the world, which is a bit less than the amount of exoplanets we know (~4000 vs. >6000), but only by 2000, so eventually some person will just do that.
Galaxy, not Solar System. There are a lot of planets in our galaxy that you’ve probably never heard of
Yep
Interesting, I just finished reading Rendezvous With Rama.
If a massive object like that was to pass through our neighbourhood I think it could fling planets out of the solar system.
Even with this mass this planet would have to pass one of the outer planets extremely close and quite slowly to have a chance of dragging a planet out of the solar system.
This is the same sort of idea as when galaxies merge. There is little chance of our solar system being effected in that scenario. There is just too much space to space.
Aren’t we currently galaxy merging?
2-5bn years with andromeda, not even close.
Thank you but I didn’t mean andromeda. I think heard something about merging with a dwarf galaxy or something
https://youtu.be/xZUYtRF_pw0
You are correct! Here's a really good video on the topic.
You'd think we would be able to see a dwarf galaxy approaching close to our galaxy at night? Or how dwarfey are we talking?
I don’t know why you bring up being able to see the dwarf galaxy at night as a qualifier. The dwarf galaxy I’m talking about seems to be Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
Because a whole ass galaxy should be visible, I would think, but I also asked how small we're talking — maybe it wouldn't be visible. You know?
Anyway,
Seems like it was only a near collision eons ago, but maybe it's still on a an absorption path to be consumed by The Milky Way in the future. Cool, didn't know about that.
Our galaxy is capturing smaller galaxies but there won't be a merge of equal sizes for a couple billion years with andromeda.
Yes we are in middle of a multi million year process of merging of the bigger Andromeda galaxy and our Milky Way galaxy.
With Andromeda, yes
Haven't even begun colliding though. We can still see it way in the distance. It's millions/billions of years away until colliding.
Imagine the night sky far in galactic future when Andromeda is like directly overhead at night. What an amazing view. Shame earth wouldn't be around to see it.
Only a few short galactic years off!
Oh god. Thanks for that midlife crisis!
That's one of my very favorite books. It's fantastic at setting the mood. The further books are ok but not as much to my taste.
I still need to read the book! My main familiarity with RAMA is the 199(5?) PC game that was mind bogglingly obtuse with math puzzles but the world was SO fascinating! I need to figure out how to play it again with my grown up brain...
The soundtrack was INCREDIBLE...
Apparently ScummVM supports the game, though idk what's with the size of this particular upload.
That's awesome! Thanks SO much for pointing me to that! I too wonder what the 2GB size is. It looks like they have two different sets of packages, one being a "source archive" that's just a raw CD dump.
I can see it, since the game was on like, 4 or 5 CDs back then, and involved a lot of heavily compressed video!
I have a fun feeling that maybe I can run this really well in Bottles, it ScummVM alone doesn't do the trick. :D
Here's a link I found to the soundtrack in "CD Quality", with a download link, if you're interested.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbSFnTrLHtkp8Yj7bSdaN_jQUy7iOXscq
That 90's crystal-synth is the most gorgeous thing...it reminded me very much of the soundtrack to Journeyman Project 2: Buried in Time. :D
ScummVM should work swimmingly and better than Wine. I used it on an Android tablet — though one game crashed at a particular point, thankfully not far into it.
There's also an audio play which was neat.
Oh that's really cool! I'm gonna search for that! Maybe my library has it, or I can bug them to get it. :)
EDIT: Is it the BBC one you're talking about?
It is. I found it interesting!
Oh, I absolutely loved all of them, but it's def a different kind of sci-fi (less human-techy) compared to the first book.
I love that whole series, amazing books!!
But yes, this simp is basically a failed star that was prob flung out of some nursery.
You may enjoy Fritz Leiber's short story, "A Pail of Air", which involves the Earth being ejected.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51461
Maybe we could attract it with an OnlyFans subscription.
You mean OnlyPlanets
Planets Only - Adult Swim
Young, dumb, and not-orbiting a sun... ;)
Let's not. I like the solar systems orbits exactly as they are
Well, there's a stronger case being made every day for flinging ourselves into the sun.
Ofc the simp is cucked in the corner not allowed to join the orgy of planets.
Doh!
Borg Sphere Model 2025
So how come there's an aurora when there's no star to spray it with electromagnetic radiation?
Because the planet produces its own radiation. That much mass means this is less a "planet" and more of a proto star. It's actually large enough to fuse deuterium if the right conditions arise. Pour enough hydrogen in there to raise the mass three of four times what it has now and it'd be comparable to our sun.
Cool, thanks for that!
Would this be a star which wasn't big enough and fizzled out into a big planet?
Every planet is a star which wasn't big enough. Some are just more challenged than others.
So it's like smoke or burning embers before a flame ignites?
better question, is a star required for EMR?
Nah, that's a yes or no question, that's a worse question. I want to know what's causing the aurora, if not a star.
Name seems wrong but you do you, SIMP 0136
He's just jealous 'cause the dorks on Earth called him a failed star.
Likely a brown dwarf or magnetar
Looks like a brown dwarf, especially from the Wiki page
I was going to say, I read somewhere at uni that if Jupiter was 14 times as large, it would have become a brown dwarf.
Lonely queen.
Welcome to 2016. Mike brown and Konstantin Batygin basically proved that the only way we could explain the orbits of Pluto and other KBO was a massive 9th, yet to be discovered rogue planet more than likely ejected from our inner solar system during planet formation.
That's looks like a picture of Jupiter, or an artists impression of it, and there's a star needed for an aurora to happen.
Any scientific sources to back this story up?
No it is indeed an artists impression of the planet - it's on the wiki page.
I'm assuming that aurora only needs solar wind to happen on earth - or that solar wind outside the heliosphere is strong enough you don't need a star for it to happen.
The picture is definitely just some artist's conception, but it's not claimed to be a photo or meant to be anything other than what it is, an artist's conception. You're right that for the most part, a star is needed for aurora, at least for the kind of aurora we have on Earth since it depends on the solar wind interacting with the planet's magnetic field. But if there is anything that can be said about what we've discovered astronomically in the last century or so it's that there are always exceptions to every supposed rule.
Aside from the aurora part though, none of this is exceptional or rare (and maybe even the aurora part isn't rare either). Rogue planets are probably extremely common, possibly even more common than planets that are gravitationally bound in a star system. And objects of this size, which is really around where we'd start calling it a brown dwarf, are also very common, with more of them than there are main sequence stars.
Thanks
Simping for magnetism
My new band name
simp 0136 really needs love. seriously!
But is it chasing stars?
Nope, waterfalls
I remember this Mainframe cartoon!
ReBoot and Beasties' less-popular younger brother
Just call it an URO and be done with it.
Follow internet tradition and call it Planet McPlanety-Face ?
Looks fake
It's an artists impression. Here's the real thing
https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/e8603488-8a63-4e7b-9afd-29844225cb16.jpeg
how do we know it has auroras?
https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-rogue-exoplanet-simp-j01365663-0933473-magnetic-field-aurora-brown-dwarf
ty
Isn't this a screenshot from Star Control 2?