Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 182 posts

Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

#21

Post by skookumchuck »

senectus1 wrote: post #2

I wonder what happens to the planets in the solar system when a rogue planets gets sucked into the star (sun) ? I mean, yeah it'd be bad if a rogue planet smashed into us, or even came close enough to mess with our gravitational pool (or the moons). but I imagine if an earth sized or bigger slammed into the sun, that we'd feel the effects of this. massive solar flare roasting our planet alive? a shower of ejecta from…

Remember when that comet crashed into Jupiter? Not much happened, even on Jupiter's surface.

Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

#23

Post by havemylife »

perl4ever wrote: post #19

Based on the inverse correlation between star size and frequency, this doesn't surprise me at all. It seems like there is an obvious further inference to make - people have debated whether life originated on earth or not. Given that the vast majority of planets do not have a star, and given that we know there are chemotrophs even on Earth that prove it is possible to live without a sun, it seems overwhelmingly likely…

I'm not discounting the possibility of life on Earth originating from somewhere other than Earth. However, why would the early conditions of Earth not be sufficient for life to begin over say any other object in space with the base elements for life?

How life began is obviously still an unanswered question, but if the conditions for self replicating molecules were sufficient early on for Earth, I'm not sure why billions of years would be needed for life to form versus several hundred million years.

Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

#25

Post by baxtr »

beamatronic wrote: post #9
drdeadringer wrote: post #6

I can't help but think of how the various Star Trek series handled rogue planets... and then later on how IRL science delved into rogue planets as more of a reality than previously realized.

Could you provide an example? I don’t recall such an episode.

“It is unclear how plant life could survive on Dakala. One scene, however, shows the surface covered in the dim light of a nearby star, perhaps supplying enough energy for some form of photosynthesis. Another theory, from the Star Trek Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 177), is that the plant and animal life was supported by the surface heat from volcanic vents.“

From http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Dakala

Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

#27

Post by qubex »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #20
senectus1 wrote: post #2

I wonder what happens to the planets in the solar system when a rogue planets gets sucked into the star (sun) ? I mean, yeah it'd be bad if a rogue planet smashed into us, or even came close enough to mess with our gravitational pool (or the moons). but I imagine if an earth sized or bigger slammed into the sun, that we'd feel the effects of this. massive solar flare roasting our planet alive? a shower of ejecta from…

Napkin math (aka pure speculation) suggests that unless the rogue planet hit the star directly and at an angle that could send ejecta our way, the results would be more observational than catastrophic. The Earth is roughly 333,000 times less massive than the Sun. Think of it this way, If an asteroid hit the Earth that was, in relative terms, the size of the earth relative to the sun, it would be about 1/3 the size of…

Thumbs up for Coronal Breaking Manoeuvre!

Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

#28

Post by toong »

havemylife wrote: post #23
perl4ever wrote: post #19

Based on the inverse correlation between star size and frequency, this doesn't surprise me at all. It seems like there is an obvious further inference to make - people have debated whether life originated on earth or not. Given that the vast majority of planets do not have a star, and given that we know there are chemotrophs even on Earth that prove it is possible to live without a sun, it seems overwhelmingly likely…

I'm not discounting the possibility of life on Earth originating from somewhere other than Earth. However, why would the early conditions of Earth not be sufficient for life to begin over say any other object in space with the base elements for life? How life began is obviously still an unanswered question, but if the conditions for self replicating molecules were sufficient early on for Earth, I'm not sure why billi…

Earth needed ~ 2 billion years for life to start. Frequent solar winds - especially in the first few billion turbulent years of the universe - basically sterilize planets and the whole 2-billion-year counter gets reset to 0.

Planets that exist without a solar system, but do retain sufficient heat, might have been out of solar winds harm ?

Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars

#30

Post by gnulinux »

redler wrote: post #8
senectus1 wrote: post #2

I wonder what happens to the planets in the solar system when a rogue planets gets sucked into the star (sun) ? I mean, yeah it'd be bad if a rogue planet smashed into us, or even came close enough to mess with our gravitational pool (or the moons). but I imagine if an earth sized or bigger slammed into the sun, that we'd feel the effects of this. massive solar flare roasting our planet alive? a shower of ejecta from…

Watch the film “Melancholia” for a dark take on the effect of a rogue planet.

I was about to suggest this movie, but since someone else suggested it, I might as well note that Melancholia has more to do with other things than "a planet crashing into earth". It's more of an existential catastrophe than a terrestrial catastrophe.
Post reply on HN