Leading Planet Formation Theories under question?

  • 4 Replies
  • 1579 Views
?

Adolf Hipster

Leading Planet Formation Theories under question?
« on: December 07, 2013, 09:24:10 AM »
http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/planet-has-been-discovered-that-should-not-be-there/

A planet known as HD 106906 b has been discovered. However, it shouldn't be there because it has a mass 12x that of Jupiter, yet it has an orbit 650x bigger than the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

This means it is too far from its central star to have been created from any striking asteroid bodies when the star was first coming to life. The planet itself is much too large to have come from vapors in the ancient disk of its personal star.

This defies leading Planet Formation theories.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 10:11:40 AM by Adolf Hipster »

Re: Leading Planet Formation Theories under question?
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2013, 05:44:17 PM »
http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/planet-has-been-discovered-that-should-not-be-there/

A planet known as HD 106906 b has been discovered. However, it shouldn't be there because it has a mass 12x that of Jupiter, yet it has an orbit 650x bigger than the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

This means it is too far from its central star to have been created from any striking asteroid bodies when the star was first coming to life. The planet itself is much too large to have come from vapors in the ancient disk of its personal star.

This defies leading Planet Formation theories.

I saw that too.  Pretty cool.

It gets the gears turning in your head asking, "Okay how could that have happened?"

Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44146
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Leading Planet Formation Theories under question?
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2013, 12:25:07 PM »
I like all the Doctor Who comments on the article.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Leading Planet Formation Theories under question?
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2013, 02:04:50 PM »
I'm going to predict that it was either captured by the star, or migrated away from the parent star.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Moosedrool

  • 342
  • Ice Wall Guardian
Re: Leading Planet Formation Theories under question?
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2013, 07:52:59 AM »
I'm going to predict that it was either captured by the star, or migrated away from the parent star.

Most likely. In fact it's extremely difficult to find planets and have astronomers focus on the stars rather. When and only when a planet passes in front of a star fluctuating it's light intensity by a tiny amount can a planet be recognised. A planet can however drift away from it's system as the host star will start to deplete either resulting in a super nova or if it's smaller, drop it's density to later turn into a red giant. The gravitational hold becomes weaker and weaker thus causing its orbital planets to shoot off into the dark abyss known as outer space. Normal orbits and even massive elliptical orbits can still happen such as comets have if it's recaptured by a new host star or other heavy object again.
I'm not trying to disprove gravity. I've succeeded in disproving it. It's called denpressure.