New Exoplanet that has "Suineg is a Moron" written on it by aliens who browse FoH

[Eomer]

1) There is a 1:1000 chance (rare) of catching a billion-year-old planet 1 million years before it going to be destroyed.

That's not the probability of us finding one in general, though. That's the probability of us seeing that particular planet at that stage of it's life. The general probability is much, much lower most likely.

Originally Posted by Phelps

2) It is behaving in odd ways that suggest maybe it is not 1 million years from being destroyed, therefore increasing the chance (not-so-rare) that we would see it.

I didn't get that at all from the articles I've read. They don't really know much about how it's "behaving" yet. The only issue is that it IS pretty lucky that we're seeing a planet so close to it's own destruction, and that's caused them to wonder if perhaps there's something they don't understand, and planets can exist in such a position for longer periods of time than current theory indicates, which would raise the probability and make it more likely, and therefore instead of being a pretty unique discovery, it's actually mundane.

Originally Posted by Grundie

I'm surprised none of these articles have suggested that WASP-18b could of been an orphan planet which the star recently captured.

That's probably even less likely that it just being a planet that's migrated close to it's star, especially given the fact that it's only unique due to how close it is; most of the planets we've found orbit extremely close to their stars. There's not really any need for a more complicated or less likely explanation than this being a rare stage of the typical development of a solar system.

It may even be possible that WASP-18b was/is a brown giant and not a planet at all. I seem to recall reading that Jupiter would not have to be too many times more massive itself to of become a brown giant. This planet according to the article is 10 times more massive than Jupiter.

Brown dwarf. And that doesn't really change anything, a brown dwarf is basically just a really big planet, or a failed star. It still most likely formed from the accretion disc of the star it's orbiting further out, and migrated in. Regardless, there's no strict distinction between really large planets and smaller brown dwarfs, because there's no firm line to delineate them from each other like there is between stars and brown dwarfs (sustained hydrogen fusion).

Originally Posted by Suineg

You take something like this which is supposed to not happen in this billions of years old universe and you need to speculate.

No, you don't need to speculate, because this planet is not doing anything that's unexpected. The only issue here is that the probability of finding such in such a precarious state (on universal time scales) is fairly low, and that might indicate some theories need tweaking or revision.

But again, you're incorrect in stating that it is not supposed to happen.

[Grundie]

Originally Posted by Eomer

That's probably even less likely that it just being a planet that's migrated close to it's star, especially given the fact that it's only unique due to how close it is; most of the planets we've found orbit extremely close to their stars. There's not really any need for a more complicated or less likely explanation than this being a rare stage of the typical development of a solar system.

Oh, it’s certainly more likely that a planet in this proximity to its parent star simply migrated in as you suggest. I’m just offering an alternative possibility.

Originally Posted by Eomer

Brown dwarf. And that doesn't really change anything, a brown dwarf is basically just a really big planet, or a failed star. It still most likely formed from the accretion disc of the star it's orbiting further out, and migrated in. Regardless, there's no strict distinction between really large planets and smaller brown dwarfs, because there's no firm line to delineate them from each other like there is between stars and brown dwarfs (sustained hydrogen fusion).

Thank you for correcting me on that. I agree with you again, it is more likely the planet formed from the accretion disc of the star it currently orbits. I didn’t mean to start a debate on brown dwarves vs. planets, I just meant to suggest there are a lot of billion year old planet sized objects floating around out there which a star could capture.

[Fadaar]

Big
Black
Dildo

[ChewieTobbacca]

Planets are constantly forming and changing across the universe. They've detected planets that are many billions of years older than ours (they found one > 10 billion I think) and there's supposed to be rogue planets that no longer have stars.

Fact of the matter is, in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars - with a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies - the possibilities are infinite so long as they obey the laws of physics in the universe.

Keep in mind that we have sampling bias right now since most of our methods of detecting planets have been confined to noticing gravitational wobble and so in general, it's bigger planets that have been detected, as well as those closer to their suns.

What we do know now though is that planets form a lot more commonly than we thought to the point where we think they are the norm for stars out there.

And who's to say that our solar system didn't have something like this before? For one, if you look at the composition of mercury, which is extremely dense and filled with the materials that typically make up the core of planets, including gas giants, who's to say it wasn't a Cthonian planet at one point in our solar system that ultimately burned up from the Sun til all that was left was a core? We somehow assumed that our solar system was the same as it is today and it's stable..

What any of this has to do with creationism is most certainly:

[CyrusReij]

What would REALLY be interesting, to me at least, is if this planet had indeed been orbiting the star for a billion years, and contained some sort of compound or gas or whatever that allowed it to repel gravity enough to just hold a perfect orbit around its star and simultaneously stop it from burning up. That would be an astounding scientific find (not that this isn't really cool).


Oh wait, Creationism? Uhhh....


There we go.

[Phoenix]

Clearly what this thread needs is some raving raptor jesus;

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Suineg

You take something like this which is supposed to not happen in this billions of years old universe and you need to speculate.

The article I linked was pathetically shitty fluff. I know that, you know that. There is some REAL science out there though that can possibly theorize about the reasons behind this.

So theorize. Celebrindal linked a better article by far.

Last time I thought you were a semi-intelligent life form and suffered from massive mental gymnastics to believe in your god. This is way beyond that...either your knowledge of science is at pre-middle school levels or worse, this grasping at straws from random articles that in no way support creationism is something far beyond the simple acts of mental gymnastics.

A rational person in no way would take this article and even consider creationism as it makes no sense.

Now it could be the obvious, you are mentally challenged, but what is increasingly apparent is that you may have a disease. I don't know you that well but you're completely illogical and utterly ridiculous ideas have come when it has an element closely related to your religion.

Your religious fervor impedes rational thought. It prevents you from being a rational person in this society that believes in conclusions based on what is "real" and not a collection of fairy tails.

This is much worse then other diseases that are treated through medication nowadays like ADHD and even depression in some mild cases.

I don't see why it's not a new field of study. A majority of monotheistic religions seem to cause people to be completely irrational and harm not only themselves but those around them.

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Eomer

That's not the probability of us finding one in general, though. That's the probability of us seeing that particular planet at that stage of it's life. The general probability is much, much lower most likely.

So what is the probability, Egon? Be sure to account for the rate at which we discover new planets. I eagerly await the boring results of your study that warranted debunking my frivolous internet number.

I didn't get that at all from the articles I've read. They don't really know much about how it's "behaving" yet.

Well, I don't know how you interpret:

Originally Posted by TFA

Because it is so big and so close to its star (it is just three stellar radii away), tidal interactions should elongate both planet and star along the line joining their centres. However, both the star and planet are spinning on their respective axes, and the resulting bulges and torques should cause WASP-18b to spiral inwards so that it is engulfed and destroyed by its star in less than a million years
...
This means that the team have either caught the exoplanet at a rare moment in its lifetime – as it is just about to be swallowed by the star – or the star is very bad at dissipating the tidal energy between it and the planet. The latter explanation would significantly increase WASP-18b's lifetime and, if confirmed, would force astronomers to rethink their understanding of tidal interactions in planetary systems and how solar systems evolve.
...
"Or, could something be holding the planet up against the inward drag of tides?" asks Hamilton. "For example, a poorly understood aspect of stellar convection or an unknown subtlety of tides themselves?"

I read that as a possibility that the planet may not be pulled inward as quickly as their models predict, therefore increasing its lifetime and its chance of discovery before it was destroyed.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Im with Suineg...

This could really turn it around for Jesus.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Chewie

What we do know now though is that planets form a lot more commonly than we thought to the point where we think they are the norm for stars out there.

I've always wondered why we ever thought it would be otherwise. Obviously I've only been scientifically aware for the past 15-20 years, but it seems to me even 10+ years ago a lot of scientists weren't just reluctant to postulate about there being a goodish number of planets out there, but they actually felt otherwise, that they'd be fairly rare. Yet as far as I understand it, there was never any real reason to suspect that our solar system was anything other than a pretty common, run of the mill star system in our galaxy.

Was it just scientists being conservative and not wanting to make grand predictions without much evidence? Or was there some theory or common perception that made the thought of planets being common outlandish?

who's to say it wasn't a Cthonian planet at one point in our solar system that ultimately burned up from the Sun til all that was left was a core?

Mercury isn't anywhere near as close as this or indeed most exoplanets found. It's orbit is what, 88 days? This particular planet's orbit apparently is only 3-4 times the radius or diameter of the star it's going around. I don't remember which, but either way that's a pretty powerful mental image of just how close it is, compared to the demonstrations we all saw in grade school using football fields and marbles for our own solar system.

Originally Posted by Phelps

So what is the probability, Egon? Be sure to account for the rate at which we discover new planets. I eagerly await the boring results of your study that warranted debunking my frivolous internet number.

I have no idea how you'd come up with the actual probability. It's not really possible, since we don't know what an "average" planet is, or what their distribution would be.

Simmer down sister, I wasn't trying to pee in your cornflakes, I was pointing out that you made a statement about the probability that in all honesty was completely wrong. You took a billion and divided it by a million, and I figured I'd point out that's not how you'd go about it.

I read that as a possibility that the planet may not be pulled inward as quickly as their models predict, therefore increasing its lifetime and its chance of discovery before it was destroyed.

They have no data to suggest HOW it is behaving currently. All they know is there's a large planet really close to the star. They don't know if it's orbit is decaying as fast as it should be according to current theory, or if it's doing it faster or slower, because they haven't observed it long enough. I think they said within a decade they'd know better.

What your quote says is exactly what I said: because this should be a fairly unique and rare point in the development of a solar system, they are questioning if perhaps theories are wrong and it's actually fairly mundane, and a planet that close could exist that close to a star for a longer period of time than current theories suggest. Without further observation, they don't know either way how the star is "behaving".

[Erronius]

Did someone say "Universe"?



"Makes you feel so...sorta insignificant, doesn't it?"

[cosmic_cs]

Hay gais, I just postEd tis in teh FSR:

[ChewieTobbacca]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I've always wondered why we ever thought it would be otherwise. Obviously I've only been scientifically aware for the past 15-20 years, but it seems to me even 10+ years ago a lot of scientists weren't just reluctant to postulate about there being a goodish number of planets out there, but they actually felt otherwise, that they'd be fairly rare. Yet as far as I understand it, there was never any real reason to suspect that our solar system was anything other than a pretty common, run of the mill star system in our galaxy.

Was it just scientists being conservative and not wanting to make grand predictions without much evidence? Or was there some theory or common perception that made the thought of planets being common outlandish?



Mercury isn't anywhere near as close as this or indeed most exoplanets found. It's orbit is what, 88 days? This particular planet's orbit apparently is only 3-4 times the radius or diameter of the star it's going around. I don't remember which, but either way that's a pretty powerful mental image of just how close it is, compared to the demonstrations we all saw in grade school using football fields and marbles for our own solar system.
.

Lack of data proving the existence of exoplanets + a natural belief in human beings that we're special means that we probably thought we were special. Nobody wants to be considered run-of-the-mill

As far as Mercury goes - again, who can say that it hadn't been much closer to the Sun? After all, the Moon wasn't supposedly formed until something gigantic smashed into the very very young Earth and the Moon is slowly spiraling away from the Earth. So at one point there was a giant body in the solar system that crossed paths with the Earth one day and created a large enough collision to form the Moon (assuming that theory is true) - who's to say our orbits were always that way? Not to mention that Uranus is theorized to be "dead" and tilted due to a collision as well..

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by ChewieTobbacca

As far as Mercury goes - again, who can say that it hadn't been much closer to the Sun?

I believe that a planet getting close enough to a star to have most of it burned off is more or less a one way street, it ain't coming back from the brink. But I'm not an astrophysicist, so I could well be wrong .

As far as the Moon getting farther and farther from Earth, that's well understood and I don't believe that it would apply to a planet that's extremely close to a star. But again, I could be wrong!

But yeah, at this point we really have no idea how solar systems change over time. Are they relatively stable? Or are they constantly changing? Or do they maybe remain stable for long periods, with punctuated periods of rapid reorganization due to passing stars, blackholes etc?

[Picasso]

WASP-18B is where god goes to tan