Why would we visit forbes.com to learn about astronomy?
Is there a specific reason we shouldn't, do you think?
Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
31–40 of 182 posts
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#32Interstellar travel now seems a lot more hazardous than it did before. To quote one of my TAs in college, "it's the stuff you can't see that gets you" ...
The article states that planets may outnumber stars 100,000 to 1.
The Milky Way has 4E^11 stars.
It has an upper estimate of 4E^16 planets.
It has a lowest estimate diameter of 100kly.
It has an estimated thickness of 2kly.
It's lower estimate volume is 63,000 kly^2.
-----------------------------
If planets are uniformly disrupted (they surely aren't), there are ~17 planets in every cubic light year. Sure, that's a hazard.
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
FYI, you're just quoting some technobabble.
Back in reality there were popular magazines like Discover that would have flashy covers about things like ROUGE PLANETS! Mostly just sensationalism.
Some semi-unemployed Hollywood writer would be paging through these while smoking out and get inspiration for a script. That is Star Trek's scientific insight.
And I'm a trek fan. OP probably just doesn't know a lot of this stuff was "ripped from the headlines" (of popular science magazines).
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#34New 4x games should now include plenty of planets between star systems. Cold and still, but potential mining boons and refueling bases.
And I demand Star Trek TNG be reran with scientifically appropriate visits to rogue planets. /s
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
Life on Earth started within a few hundred million years, not 2 billion years.
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#36Interstellar travel now seems a lot more hazardous than it did before. To quote one of my TAs in college, "it's the stuff you can't see that gets you" ...
I did no math to confirm this but intuitively it seems incredibly unlikely to hit a rogue planet if you shoot something to a star randomly. How's it any different than shooting something inside Solar system and accidentally hitting an asteroid?
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#37I 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…
Both the sun and the distance's involved are massive, so besides the scientific observations nothing will change. You would need something massive like a brown dwarf that's already near the fusion point to really screw up the sun The voyage the planet takes through the solar system might drag some asteroids with it however, which could lead to some fun
And that (near critical mass rogue planets smashing into stats) sounds like a cool angle for visual simulations.
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#38Interstellar travel now seems a lot more hazardous than it did before. To quote one of my TAs in college, "it's the stuff you can't see that gets you" ...
Planets can be detected by their gravity field.
Collision with planet sized object in space would be extremely rare. Even if you would travel blind it would be very unlikely that you would hit star or plant while traveling trough galaxy.
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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
FYI, you're just quoting some technobabble. Back in reality there were popular magazines like Discover that would have flashy covers about things like ROUGE PLANETS! Mostly just sensationalism. Some semi-unemployed Hollywood writer would be paging through these while smoking out and get inspiration for a script. That is Star Trek's scientific insight. And I'm a trek fan. OP probably just doesn't know a lot of this st…
Yes, you’re right. I think it’s fun though :-) sci-fi is by its nature just technobabble, see the annoying protomolecule stuff in “The Expanse”
Re: Space Is Full of Planets, and Most of Them Don't Even Have Stars
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
I'm by no means well informed on these topics, but I'm unsure where you're getting your 2 billion year estimate. Furthermore I thought that Earths magnetic field shielded from solar radiation, and additionally that there's a significant amount of radiation in space anyways.
Further questioning I have though is, does solar radiation penetrate through ocean water?
What radiation is between solar systems or what rogue planets would likely encounter, and how that effects single cell life, amino acids, organic compounds, and any other building blocks to life?