Slashdot Mirror


Probable Rogue Planet Spotted

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."

155 comments

  1. Maybe their eagles by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Funny

    can reach earth before they get too far?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Maybe their eagles by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

      ... wut?

    2. Re:Maybe their eagles by macraig · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Maybe their eagles by macraig · · Score: 4, Informative

      Poorly executed name-drop of Space:1999

    4. Re:Maybe their eagles by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Maybe their eagles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also doesn't help that the moron put the content of their post split between the subject and body.

  2. Fleet of Worlds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Fleet of Worlds? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    2. Re:Fleet of Worlds? by tylutin · · Score: 2

      Ring World reference! Now we're taking!

    3. Re:Fleet of Worlds? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So... where are the other four planets?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    4. Re:Fleet of Worlds? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Only the one is populated enough not to need a sun. The others are probably nearby.

    5. Re:Fleet of Worlds? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Go back and read it again.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. That's no moon! by quangdog · · Score: 1

    It's a rogue planet!

    1. Re:That's no moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:That's no moon! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:That's no moon! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      It's a rogue planet!

      Indeed. From TFA:

      An international team went on a vast hunt for the planets using the Canada France Hawaii Telescope on Hawaii's Mauna Kea and the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile and came up with just one candidate.

      "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 neighbourhood."

      They seemed surprised there was just the one... but there's always one isn't there?!

  4. homeless by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    we only found one homeless planet in our neighborhood

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

    1. Re:homeless by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

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

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:homeless by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:homeless by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'm over my little anger day.

    4. Re:homeless by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      we only found one homeless planet in our neighborhood

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

      Cue the anti-Obama "jokes"...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. That's not a rogue planet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the DEATH STAR!!

  6. Genesis? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Genesis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Genesis? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      No its not Genesis it is s Nemesis 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.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  7. How's that? by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:How's that? by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:How's that? by Zephyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exoplanets use a different set of definitions according to the IAU

    3. Re:How's that? by emho24 · · Score: 1

      I would like to know this as well.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    4. Re:How's that? by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?)

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    5. Re:How's that? by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:How's that? by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:How's that? by HPHatecraft · · Score: 1

      ...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?

    8. Re:How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    9. Re:How's that? by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      (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.

    10. Re:How's that? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?"

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    11. Re:How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    12. Re:How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pound for a brown?

    13. Re:How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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..

    14. Re:How's that? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Maybe it used to be a planet.

    15. Re:How's that? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      It's a "sub-brown dwarf".

      Kinky, Just what this dom-night elf was looking for...

    16. Re:How's that? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

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

      Maybe it wasn't there the last time anyone looked in the same place.

      I'm no astronomer, but that seems fairly straightforward.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:How's that? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      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..

      I agree: but you shouldn't have capitalised All.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. 10Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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!

  9. I wonder if it's He ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.....

    1. Re:I wonder if it's He ? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      "For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky"

      or

      "Miramanee!!"

  10. Why hope? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:Why hope? by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Why hope? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Why hope? by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      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... ;)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Why hope? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Why hope? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...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

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    6. Re:Why hope? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      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..."

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    7. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    8. Re:Why hope? by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      ...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.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    9. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    10. Re:Why hope? by jittles · · Score: 1

      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!

    11. Re:Why hope? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:Why hope? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    13. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    14. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we'll have great hair.

    15. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, pessimist ;)

    16. Re:Why hope? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      The world won't end 12/21/2012

      It will RE-BOOT!

    17. Re:Why hope? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      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!

    18. Re:Why hope? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      ...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

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    19. Re:Why hope? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And nails!!!

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    20. Re:Why hope? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:Why hope? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

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

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    22. Re:Why hope? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      A Black Dwarf is not actually a gas giant which was never a star, but rather the end point of evolution of a white dwarf (which is itself the post-fusion remnant of main sequence stars like the sun), when it cools off and is no longer emitting significant amounts of light (even in infrared). None of these are thought to exist because it's going to take much longer than the current age of the universe (as in 10,000 times the current age of the universe or more) for the white dwarfs to cool off to that degree.

      A Brown Dwarf is a sub-stellar object, i.e. something that was never a star undergoing sustained fusion, and while the larger ones would be expected to glow in the low visible range (red), and of course infrared, the smaller ones at around 500K may not glow in visible light at all yet are still classified as brown dwarfs instead of planets. The boundary is a little fuzzy. In any case, though, they'd never appear "brown" from their emitted light.

      Dwarf terminology is weird.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:Why hope? by Maow · · Score: 1

      First, in the summary you forget to identify the distance: 100ly.

      Oh. Shit. I thought I had that, as it is rather important. I guess I was too tired and too fascinated that this thing may not have coexisted with the last of the dinosaurs as it's so "young".

          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 ;) )

      Talk about the Mayan "prophecy" will be unavoidable around the end of December, but if there's an up-tick now and it lasts until xmas it will have become beyond funny. I'll have been all mocked-out long before then.

      And, that doomsday nonsense will spill over to all kinds of places where we will not want to encounter it. Like here? At least it provided some interesting comments today.

      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.

      I don't see the problem there, actually.

      Stellar evolution: gas, condensation, kinda maybe planet, yet more condensation, fusion ignites, eventually iron core, death of some sort depending on size. So they find the tricky part determining if it's "evolved" enough gas condensation to be a brown dwarf as I understand it.

      What's wrong with that?

      --
      Serenity is a +5 Insightful post with 0 replies.

      PS, I like your sig and (mis-)quoted it to someone on the phone when I got my first +5 with no replies.

    24. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As any MMO gamer will attest to: Scheduled downtime is a bitch. But at least you can see it coming.

    25. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, by the time they realise they'll need it after all, they will no longer have the money to buy it back from you. After all, they didn't need it...

    26. Re:Why hope? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      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.

      I don't see the problem there, actually.

      Stellar evolution: gas, condensation, kinda maybe planet, yet more condensation, fusion ignites, eventually iron core, death of some sort depending on size. So they find the tricky part determining if it's "evolved" enough gas condensation to be a brown dwarf as I understand it.

      What's wrong with that?

      A few things, some nitpicky, some major:

      Nitpicky:
      Use of the term evolution in that context, but it's not terribly inaccurate.
      'Failed star' As if it tried, but just couldn't pull it off.

      Major:
      A decent article shouldn't call something a Brown Dwarf star and define it to be a 'star' which failed to achieve fusion. If it failed to achieve fusion, then it isn't a star, but ... a planet ;)

      Sure, it may not be much fusion, it may only be deuterium, but it is still fusion. A brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore isn't a 'failed to become a star' star, but a star which has ceased fusion. Not hot enough to be a white dwarf, and cooling to become a black dwarf.

      The odd phrasing tripped me up, but the definition was a bit silly.

      For example, if you go by their definition of brown dwarf star being a mass which failed to achieve fusion, then a brown dwarf star which isn't in orbit around another star would be 'A ROGUE PLANET', thus the whole premise of trying to differentiate a this object from a brown dwarf star would be utterly meaningless.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    27. Re:Why hope? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you're not supposed to tell them that, right?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    28. Re:Why hope? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      SYSTEM CRASH: RESTART Y/N?

      YES

      RESTORE Y/N?:

      YES

      "Warning: Incoming Data."

      "Thank the User! We are saved!"

      stupidlamefilterstupidlamefilterstupidlamefilter stupidlamefilterstupidlamefilter

    29. Re:Why hope? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Use of the term evolution in that context, but it's not terribly inaccurate.

      If you accept that part of the evolution of a star is the process of accreting enough material to reach the minimal stellar mass, then it's accurate to say that a brown dwarf got farther along that path than a planet before it stopped. And yes "evolution" is the correct term in this context.

      'Failed star' As if it tried, but just couldn't pull it off.

      Exactly right. It accreted mass from a cloud of gas and dust and got pretty big, but just couldn't collect enough for whatever reason to sustain fusion and become a star. A "failed star". It's poetic, but accurate. Even Jupiter is sometimes described this way.

      A decent article shouldn't call something a Brown Dwarf star and define it to be a 'star' which failed to achieve fusion. If it failed to achieve fusion, then it isn't a star, but ... a planet ;)

      They don't call it a "Brown Dwarf star", they call it a Brown Dwarf, because "Brown Dwarf star" is not a thing since Brown Dwarfs are by definition sub-stellar objects. They may undergo some fusion, but not sustained fusion and so will steadily cool over their lifetime, unlike a star. Other differences are that a brown dwarf will be fully convective with no chemical differentiation by depth, unlike a star.

      The line between brown dwarf and planet is fuzzy, and not dependent on the presence or absence of fusion at any point. Very large gas giants -- perhaps even Jupiter -- could have had some fusion occur.

      So the correct nitpick would be that they didn't say "sustained fusion", implying that fusion never occurred.

      A brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore isn't a 'failed to become a star' star, but a star which has ceased fusion.

      No, a brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore is a brown dwarf, which is a "failed to become a star".

      Not hot enough to be a white dwarf, and cooling to become a black dwarf.

      A white dwarf is not a really hot brown dwarf and a black dwarf is not a really cool brown dwarf. A white dwarf is the remnant of a Main Sequence star that wasn't big enough to form a neutron star after its fusion-burning life is over. It's electron-degenerate matter. A black dwarf is a what white dwarfs will eventually become in something like 10^15 years when they finish cooling.

      A White dwarf or black dwarfs is a has-been.

      A Brown dwarfs is a never-was.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    30. Re:Why hope? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      And clean telephones.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    31. Re:Why hope? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      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,

      If you must talk to them, do it in a context where you are attempting to sell them something. Chances are, they will buy.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    32. Re:Why hope? by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      How can this be called a planet anyway? According to the smartasses who demoted Pluto, one of the requirements to be a planet is that the object must clear its orbit of any other significant objects. Since this object is "rogue", it does not have an orbit to clear.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    33. Re:Why hope? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Some would say that going from "least of the planets" to "king of the comets" is a promotion.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    34. Re:Why hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown dwarves are red and not very luminous. Brown is dark red, so it's a good name.

    35. Re:Why hope? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Brown is dark yellow, but okay, I buy it. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    36. Re:Why hope? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      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 ;)

      Do you think it will really be over? I'm sure a few people will claim it was a miscalculation.

    37. Re:Why hope? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      First, in the summary you forget to identify the distance: 100ly. Well, that pretty much rules out any worry of a collision

      Ha! Cling to your out-dated "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" comfort blanket if you like. That's just what THEY want you to do.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    38. Re:Why hope? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      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..."

      It's probably less time consuming just to buy some Rohipnol.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:Why hope? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      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.

      If, by pure dumb luck, the world does end in 2012, you aren't going to have to worry about a few stupid people, or indeed anything else.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    40. Re:Why hope? by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      If you read the quote directly, you'll note that they say "failed star". They also mention, "further along in stellar evolution," which implies that it once was a star which burned off its mass. Ignoring that they used "further" instead of "farther" for a physical timescale.

    41. Re:Why hope? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I figured by now all the Ark B folks had moved on, this being more than 60s old.... ;)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    42. Re:Why hope? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      which implies that it once was a star which burned off its mass.

      It doesn't imply that. Brown dwarfs were never stars. Fusion may occur, but not in a sustained fashion like in a star. The rate of fusion will just drop and drop along with the temperature of the brown dwarf. Stars on the other hand maintain a more-or-less steady rate of fusion for millions or billions of years.

      What's interesting is that the smaller a star is the longer it lasts, and the least of the actual stars, the red dwarfs, are expected to be burning their hydrogen fuel for trillions of years, so the universe isn't close to old enough for any of them to have ceased fusing. Making a stark contrast between the least of stars, and the greatest of brown dwarfs.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    43. Re:Why hope? by tomofumi · · Score: 1

      it still make sense. Because it is not just call a "planet" but a "rogue planet". As Pluto is now a "dwarf planet" (with modifier)

  11. You can talk to me about the mayan by geekoid · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:You can talk to me about the mayan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel so Melancholic now.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Name by Konster · · Score: 1

    Rogue planet all by its lonesome?

    Let's name it Han Solo.

    1. Re:Name by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about xXLoneWolf-Snipr420Xx

    3. Re:Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already has a name: Dakalaw.

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

    4. Re:Name by Talderas · · Score: 1

      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....

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  14. too primitive for my tastes.. by smitty97 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let me know when they discover a nethack planet.

    --
    mod me funny
    1. Re:too primitive for my tastes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:too primitive for my tastes.. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The first image and spectrograph from the Very Large Telescope Array of the possible nethack planet shows what scientists say appears to be "a purple lower-case 'h'".

      "It may just be a type of dwarf," the lead scientist on the project said, "and it does not appear to be heading towards us. There's no reason to be alarmed."

      In related news the head of NIS was forced to resign yesterday, when in the aftermath of this discovery he advocated the development of Scroll of Genocide technology "as a necessary and prudent precaution."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  15. may or may not be the first by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    For details we turn to our usual correspondent...

  16. 100 Light Years Away by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:100 Light Years Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:100 Light Years Away by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:100 Light Years Away by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:100 Light Years Away by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      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 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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:100 Light Years Away by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      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! :)

    6. Re:100 Light Years Away by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      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.

      How dare you besmirch the heroic memory of Bruce Willis by implying that he never saved the Earth from destruction. Goddam it, that man died that we might all be saved!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. NUKE IT !! NUKE IT NOW !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Robin Gibb is dead !!

  18. Cause of ejection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Cause of ejection? by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    2. Re:Cause of ejection? by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    3. Re:Cause of ejection? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Density is profoundly affected by mass because of gravitational compression. Earth has a higher density than Mercury, despite being composed of intrinsically less dense materials, because of this compression. The effect is even larger in gas giants... that's why Jupiter's density is only 1/5 of Earth's, despite hydrogen (0.0899 g/L at STP) being its prime constituent.

      Density variations between bodies are also much smaller than mass variations. While this planet is warmer than any of our gas giants, it has a lot more mass and is likely to be denser than any of ours due to its mass.. Even if we imagine it has a lower density (say 1/10 or 1/20 of Earth's), you now have to consider it has 1200 to 2100 times as much mass as Earth. That's one big gravity well.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  19. Quick! Someone go call Leeloo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know the Mondoshawan area code?

  20. Thundarr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Thundarr by ItGoesToEleven · · Score: 1

      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!

  21. Made me think of a fun sci-fi short story by MetricT · · Score: 2

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

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

    1. Re:Made me think of a fun sci-fi short story by MetricT · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can read all the shorts here:

      http://localroger.com/

      Good times too. Reminds me a bit of Niven.

  22. Will this replace Pluto as our 9th planet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  23. obligatory jack handey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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."

  24. Japanese Anime covered this by flogger · · Score: 1
    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.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
  25. Homeless planets in our neighborhood by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. What keeps it at that temperature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:What keeps it at that temperature? by mister_playboy · · Score: 2

      It's heat from the planet's formation. It's estimated to require about 12 Jovian masses to start ignition, and this is only 4-7 Jovian masses.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  27. That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  28. Kolob abandoned Mitt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  29. why not call it orphan instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:why not call it orphan instead by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yeah, we should stop anthropomorphising planets. They get really upset by it.

      *rimshot*

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  30. Rouge planet by AwesomeMcgee · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Rouge planet by tnyquist83 · · Score: 1

      It's a planet without a cause!

  31. inb4 nibiru by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    you know someone's gonna say it

    1. Re:inb4 nibiru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Nibiru supposed to be inhabited or on fire?
      Couldn't we see that?

  32. Starting your sentence by Xtifr · · Score: 2

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

  33. Space 1999 by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    2. Re:Space 1999 by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I last saw the show in its original airing and when I was 6. I thought it was great, at the time.

    3. Re:Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though to be fair it was a product of it's time, and notably less ridiculous than say: space Lincoln (that's right Abraham Lincoln, in space), or the woman from the "green universe" (she was green FYI).

  34. It's name is: by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Mongo! Ming is coming!

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  35. You're just jelous by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    that you didn't get to post a Space 1999 FP line on Slashdot. Resistance is futile...

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:You're just jelous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me. I am just jealous I couldn't have Maya back then...

    2. Re:You're just jelous by isorox · · Score: 1

      that you didn't get to post a Space 1999 FP line on Slashdot. Resistance is futile...

      I've never been a fan of historical documentaries

  36. 400C temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know why it is so hot?

    1. Re:400C temperature by pz · · Score: 2

      Off the top of my head -- heat of accretion, radioactive decay, partial nuclear ignition delaying cooling, tidal heating from it's previous orbit before it was ejected, . . .

      But that's all speculation rather than applicable knowledge.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  37. Personally... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...I'm holding out for the Shaman planet.

  38. But the temperature? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    What's keeping it at 400C? Or is it almost a brown dwarf - though Jupiter doesn't get to that sort of temperature on my understanding.

    1. Re:But the temperature? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Probably gravitational collapse. Note that locally Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune all put out excess heat which is considered due to them still collapsing.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  39. Finally we found it... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Planet X...... The X stands for the unknown as to where it came from and where it is going. But when we figure that out it won't be Planet X anymore. It will be Planet With a plan.

  40. It's Solaris!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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.

    What remains unclear is just how the planet came to be - the tiny beginnings of a star, or planet launched from its home?"

    Let's Go!

  41. Why wait til January? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyRvTlkmzwA

  42. Rogue planet or Death Star? by chandar · · Score: 1

    Fire up the X-wings. S-foils locked in attack position. When 45 years old you are, look as good you will not.

    1. Re:Rogue planet or Death Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be Zonama Sekot.

      They make excellent ships there... but watch out for any Yuuzhan Vong.