PDA

View Full Version : What are planets in interstellar space called?



Tom Mazanec
2004-Aug-27, 03:07 PM
There are likely objects in interstellar space between a large comet and a small brown dwarf, due to interaction of planets ejecting a planet, some formation in a nebula, stars coming cloe enough to "pull" a plant out of orbit, WHATEVER. Since they do not orbit a star, what are they called?

SciFi Chick
2004-Aug-27, 03:12 PM
Objects?

gritmonger
2004-Aug-27, 03:13 PM
There are likely objects in interstellar space between a large comet and a small brown dwarf, due to interaction of planets ejecting a planet, some formation in a nebula, stars coming cloe enough to "pull" a plant out of orbit, WHATEVER. Since they do not orbit a star, what are they called?

X-treme planets.
They mostly have surfers, skydivers, and skateboarders as denizens.


No, seriously- there is contention in calling them "stars" in some cases, or "wandering planets" as they don't really have a solar system and are "free" bodies. That's the term I'd heard, but I don't know if there is a classification system just yet beyond "interstellar medium" for molecular gas, and brown dwarfs (L and T class stars)

milli360
2004-Aug-27, 03:39 PM
Wanderer world?

Lost and lonely land?

Loose spheres?

B.A.R.? (R stands for Rock, the BA does not stand for Bad Astronomy)

I like "planet perdue."

WHarris
2004-Aug-27, 04:03 PM
Rogue planets.

ToSeek
2004-Aug-27, 04:59 PM
Rogue planets.

Don't call them that - the woo-woos will freak!

KILLER ROGUE PLANETS ONLY A FEW LIGHT YEARS AWAY AND HEADING FOR US!!

Cougar
2004-Aug-27, 05:25 PM
Dark Matter.

eburacum45
2004-Aug-27, 05:41 PM
Following John Dollan, the author of the Planetary Classification list used by many distinct groups of worldbuilders, I generally call them Stevensonian type planets;
See this wikipedia entry about David Stevenson, who has suggested some interesting ideas about this type of planet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_planet

junkyardfrog
2004-Aug-28, 12:11 AM
Rogue planets.

That term certainly has been used before....

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/10/06/space.planets.reut/


Rogue planet find makes astronomers ponder theory

October 6, 2000
Web posted at: 8:03 AM EDT (1203 GMT)


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eighteen rogue planets that seem to have broken all the rules about being born from a central, controlling sun may force a rethink about how planets form, astronomers said Thursday.

They said they found a planet-rich region -- near a star in the constellation Orion -- where stars, brown dwarfs and large, gassy planet-sized objects all exist without the discipline of a solar system.

Instead of orbiting neatly around a central star, they drift along in a loose collaboration, the team of Spanish, American and German researchers report.

"They look like giant gas balls," Maria Rosa Zapatero-Osorio of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena (Caltech) and of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias in Tenerife, Spain, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.

The stars nearby are relatively young -- just one million to five million years old, as opposed to the sun which is more than five billion years old and the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old.

Brady Yoon
2004-Aug-28, 02:12 AM
Wanderers? Because that's what a planet means and they are wandering..

Kaptain K
2004-Aug-28, 03:33 AM
Rocks! :o

lyford
2004-Aug-28, 04:48 AM
Solar System Challenged.

Anonymous
2004-Aug-29, 03:19 PM
Tom Mazanec wrote:

“Since they do not orbit a star, what are they called?”

Rogue planets and ‘free floaters’ are two terms I’ve encountered.

Kullat Nunu
2004-Aug-29, 06:26 PM
Tom Mazanec wrote:

“Since they do not orbit a star, what are they called?”

Rogue planets and ‘free floaters’ are two terms I’ve encountered.

Also the term "cluster planet" is sometimes used.

Launch window
2004-Aug-29, 07:46 PM
I've heard the ' Rogue planets ' and ' Rogue Moon ' terms before, but don't know how correct these terms area

Anonymous
2004-Aug-30, 01:00 AM
Kullat Nunu wrote:

“Also the term "cluster planet" is sometimes used.”

Do you know if the term is restricted to ‘unbound planets in globular clusters’ or is it broad enough to include wayward planets associated with stellar nurseries?

Argos
2004-Aug-30, 03:20 PM
Etymologically, planets around the Sun are not "planets". "Planeta" is the Greek for "wanderer". The planets around the Sun are not "wandering" in any way, since they follow strict trajectories. I think Interstellar and Intergalactic objects are the real "planets", since they do "wander" without direction. We have to find another classification for the ones that orbit the Sun.

ToSeek
2004-Aug-30, 03:24 PM
Etymologically, planets around the Sun are not "planets". "Planeta" is the Greek for "wanderer". The planets around the Sun are not "wandering" in any way, since they follow strict trajectories. I think Interstellar and Intergalactic objects are the real "planets", since they do "wander" without direction. We have to find another classification for the ones that orbit the Sun.

Well, the planets were named that by the Greeks because they move relative to the fixed stars and as such may be said to "wander."

Russ
2004-Aug-30, 03:34 PM
Solar System Challenged.

Stellar system challenged! Stellar system challenged!

Our star and its' inventory of planets and other junque is the "Solar System" because one of the names of our star is Sol, hence SOLar System.

Other stars with their inventory of planets and junk are stellar systems. Or, Rigalar System, Anteresal System, Polaral System etc.

Some people cringe and writhe at the sound of chalk squeeking on a black board. I do the same for "...other solar systems..." AAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

How many other stars are named Sol????!!!! :roll: :o :roll: :evil: :evil:

Argos
2004-Aug-30, 03:48 PM
Well, the planets were named that by the Greeks because they move relative to the fixed stars and as such may be said to "wander."

It´s known, but it doesn´t change the fact that it is an errouneous perception that we have inherited. As astronomy grows in complexity, I think one should be more careful in naming the entities.

Of course this is just a nit-pick, as it isn´t reasonable to imagine that the convention will ever be changed. As Shakespeare used to say: what´s in a name? 8)

Edited for clarity

ToSeek
2004-Aug-30, 06:05 PM
Well, the planets were named that by the Greeks because they move relative to the fixed stars and as such may be said to "wander."

It´s known, but it doesn´t change the fact that it is an errouneous perception that we have inherited. As astronomy grows in complexity, I think one should be more careful in naming the entities.

Of course this is just a nit-pick, as it isn´t reasonable to imagine that the convention will ever be changed. As Shakespeare used to say: what´s in a name? 8)



And the word "galaxy" is based on the word for "milk." Do you want to change that, too? ;)

John Dlugosz
2004-Aug-30, 09:19 PM
Stellar system challenged! Stellar system challenged!

Our star and its' inventory of planets and other junque is the "Solar System" because one of the names of our star is Sol, hence SOLar System.

Other stars with their inventory of planets and junk are stellar systems. Or, Rigalar System, Anteresal System, Polaral System etc.


Or what about people who study the rocks of planets other than Earth? Certainly not a GEOlogist! "gelogia" is Latin for "The study of earthly things." We need a Marsologist and Titanologist and a Lunologist, etc. for each body and a planetologist is what you call them all collectively, right?

And an "Astronaut" is not someone who goes into space, but a crewman on a vessel named The Astro. We should call them spacemen, after seamen who go to sea. The people who went to the moon were Appolonauts.

And don't get me started about "Jumbo Shrimp".

--John

Andreas
2004-Aug-30, 10:56 PM
I, for one, impatiently await the establishment of a proper name for "atoms". After all, it is known that they aren't indivisible for a long time already. 8)



Alternatively, we just have to deal with it.

Jorge
2004-Aug-30, 11:39 PM
some name may now be incorect but why change it?
It will get cofusiong a a whil, for example a old paper on atoms may than be refuring to something else witch would not be correct

John Dlugosz
2004-Aug-31, 01:23 AM
some name may now be incorect but why change it?
It will get cofusiong a a whil, for example a old paper on atoms may than be refuring to something else witch would not be correct

Today, looking for a diagram on how to solder a connector for a PC serial port, I found out that it's emphatically NOT a "DB-9" connector. It's a DE-9 connector. B is a long one, so it's a DB-25. But making it shorter makes it no longer a B. Now I'll forever be annoyed when looking it up. Ignorance is bliss.

Argos
2004-Aug-31, 01:32 PM
I, for one, impatiently await the establishment of a proper name for "atoms". After all, it is known that they aren't indivisible for a long time already. 8)

I think you didn´t understand what I meant. But never mind...

I´m not an idiot.

Grand Vizier
2004-Aug-31, 11:08 PM
David Stevenson, who has done the most to promote these objects, has called them 'interstellar planets', so I should have thought that his term would stick.

But I am fascinated by the possibility of these dark worlds (I'm amazed that SF writers have not made more use of them, given that they may outnumber the number of stars in the Galaxy. Stevenson even uses the phrase 'interstellar waystation' once, but, perhaps sensibly in a science paper, does not expand on it.)

Two points:

1) I understand from Stevenson's original paper that dark 'earths' would radiate veeeery faintly in the microwave area of the spectrum. Do we have any equipment, current or projected, that might be able to detect them from this? Or might they show themselves by occultation, as is possible with some Kuiper belt objects?

2) I remember much speculation a while back too, about interstellar gas giants, which Stevenson does not deal with. Are these out of fashion because current theories of planetary formation do not suggest that gas giants are ejected in the same fashion? They should be a lot easier to detect than interstellar 'earths'...

CERDIP
2004-Sep-01, 01:13 AM
"Little Orphan Planet"

Launch window
2004-Oct-31, 05:04 PM
Tom Mazanec wrote:

“Since they do not orbit a star, what are they called?”

Rogue planets and ‘free floaters’ are two terms I’ve encountered.


nice terms, wonder what name will stick ?

Evan
2004-Nov-01, 01:05 AM
Dark matter? They will radiate in the infrared, and not all that feeble. A good proportion of the internal heat of our Earth is from the energy of gravitational collapse of the original masses and radioactive decay, especially uranium. That will continue for a very long time. Just fire up the FLIR.

crateris
2004-Nov-01, 04:35 PM
Very cold?

:lol:

C.

Evan
2004-Nov-01, 05:32 PM
No, not very cold. Jupiter radiates four times more heat than it receives from the sun. What we need is a large infrared telescope on the lunar farside. It would likely answer a good many questions. A Jupiter size wandering planet would stand out like a light bulb compared to the CBR.