myster0n,

There are NO planets that don’t orbit stars : once they don’t orbit a star they don’t follow the modern definition of a planet anymore

very_well_lost,

The modern definition of “planet” only includes things that orbit the sun.

Honestly, the IAU’s definition of a planet is pretty useless.

Olhonestjim,

Rocky planets, gas giant planets, ice giant planets, dwarf planets, super Earth planets, hycean planets, lava planets, rogue planets…

some_guy,

We’ll not have science in this discussion about science!

some_guy,

Very interestingly, they found that systems with fewer planets tend to exit their “ejection” phase after about 100 million years, but systems with 10 planets are still unstable even after a billion years. They also found that these more bountiful systems actually eject the majority of their planets, losing 70 percent after a billion years. Most of the ones ejected are lower-mass, as expected.

Wonder how many sibling planets we had when our solar system first formed. This sort of topic is always fascinating to me.

thegr8goldfish,

I flat out don’t accept the notion that some starts have no planets. As far as I am concerned, if we have 8 major plantes and on average, 40% of planets are ejected, we should assume the average number of starting planets is 11.

Neverclear,

This is like saying, “If a carbon atom has 12 electrons, and on average it forms 4 covalent bonds, we should assume all atoms start with 16 electrons.”

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy,

nice sample size of one you have there

  • Wszystkie
  • Subskrybowane
  • Moderowane
  • Ulubione
  • astronomy@mander.xyz
  • esport
  • rowery
  • sport
  • muzyka
  • fediversum
  • Technologia
  • test1
  • NomadOffgrid
  • slask
  • retro
  • Spoleczenstwo
  • krakow
  • giereczkowo
  • MiddleEast
  • Blogi
  • Gaming
  • Pozytywnie
  • tech
  • informasi
  • Psychologia
  • FromSilesiaToPolesia
  • niusy
  • Cyfryzacja
  • lieratura
  • ERP
  • kino
  • shophiajons
  • warnersteve
  • Wszystkie magazyny