Nearby Star May Have More Planets Than Our Solar System 102
The Bad Astronomer writes "HD 10180 is a near-twin of the Sun about 130 light years away. It's known to have at least six planets orbiting it, but a new analysis of the data shows clear indications of three more, for a total of nine! This means HD 10180 has more planets than our solar system. And whether you think Pluto is a planet or not, all nine of these aliens worlds have masses larger than Earth's, putting them firmly in the 'planet' category."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly what I was thinking, now quit wasting time, lets go and steal a planet, so we got more.
Yes, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Researchers claim that the increased number of planets makes this star far more interesting than its companion, HD 7120.
However, it takes sophisticated equipment to detect the additional planets; most amateur astronomers can't see the difference with their smaller telescopes.
Re: (Score:3)
However, most interstellar travel only goes to HD 7120, getting service to HD 10180 is much more rare.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
HD 1080i has only half the planets of HD 10180, it just looks the same as it's an interlacing solar system.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
So, how many of you saw HD 1080i
Sorry, my telescope only does 720p.
I'll have enough saved to upgrade in a month or two, though.
Then we must attack! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No plant gap, the Sol system has 13 planets, this other one seems to only have 9
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot stand by and allow this "planet gap" to continue! Earthlings unite!
We once had nine planets too. Till some @*&! just had to kill Pluto.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I have Planet Envy (Score:3)
Maybe we can let NDT take a look and demote some?
So it's finally come down to this... (Score:4, Funny)
Planet envy
mass? (Score:3)
I thought Pluto was 'degraded' of its planet status because it wasn't orbiting the sun in the same plane as the other planets, not because of its mass...
Re:mass? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Note that Pluto's debris disk, the Kuiper belt, overlaps the orbit of Neptune, which is about 10000 times as big as Pluto. We'd say that Neptune accreted Pluto, not the other way around.
Re:mass? (Score:5, Informative)
The current IAU definition is (c/o Wikipedia)
Pluto fails because it hasn't cleared its orbit.
Many people don't like the definition for many reasons. Among them, that what constitutes a "clear" orbit is not specified and is arbitrary (no planet has an orbit 100% free of other objects), that the point of 'hydrostatic equilibrium' is also unspecified and arbitrary, and that it only applies to the Solar System ("The Sun" is in there).
Re: (Score:1)
I think most folks would agree it fails 1b as well
Re: (Score:3)
Not really; as far as we can tell Pluto is roughly spherical, and has sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.
Re:mass? (Score:5, Funny)
Not really; as far as we can tell Pluto is roughly spherical, and has sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.
So are my neighbors. In addition they've cleared a debris field that encompasses 'the neighborhood' (McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's and both grocery stores).
Should i report them to the IAU?
Re: (Score:2)
Well in contrast to bodies in space, their inability to clear their debris field is most likely a direct consequence of their great mass. So calling them "dwarf humans" would be highly inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they also need to have celestial bodies, each to his own but I wouldn't describe those as heavenly...
Re: (Score:1)
The amount of mass needed to self-round is far below the amount possessed by Pluto.
Saturn's moon Mimas [wikipedia.org] would be our best cutoff example found.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people don't like the definition for many reasons. Among them, that what constitutes a "clear" orbit is not specified and is arbitrary (no planet has an orbit 100% free of other objects), that the point of 'hydrostatic equilibrium' is also unspecified and arbitrary, and that it only applies to the Solar System ("The Sun" is in there).
Those people ignore that there's a five order of magnitude difference [wikipedia.org]
between the least of the planets is, versus the greatest of the dwarf planets.
The line between Europe and Asia is arbitrary. The line between Eurasia and the Americas is absolutely not -- you could draw the line with a brush a thousand miles wide. The situation in our solar system is the latter case.
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing arbitrary about a 5-orders-of-magnitude difference in gravitational dominance. It's an obvious difference between objects in our solar system that should be acknowledged. Ignoring it would be stupid.
"People" don't like that Pluto got demoted; their objections to the definition are reverse-engineered from that emotional fact, as evidenced by not even trying to understand the physical reality that informs it.
Well guess what, Pluto fans? You're not much of a Pluto fan if your love is based a
Re:mass? (Score:4, Insightful)
Arbitrary means that the line has been drawn at a certain point because... we decided to draw the line at that point.
Well they didn't draw the line at a certain point because they didn't have to. The extant gap between bodies' orbit-clearing ability was already there and ridiculously huge. It's no more arbitrary than the distinction between the Americas and Eurasia. You might not be able to exactly where one begins and the other ends, but you don't have to because there's a gigantic gap where neither of them are.
Complaining "Why did you pick exactly that point?" when no point was picked, the 5-order-of-magnitude gap makes such a thing unnecessary, is missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
But again, that might not work for extra-solar star systems.
That's why limiting the definition to our solar system is actually a feature. :)
I use the dwarf planet / planet distinction, don't get me wrong. I also like dividing the bodies into 'region'-based categories. Inner planets, inner dwarf planets (asteroid belt planetoids), gas giants, ice dwarfs.
Which is great. As Neil Tyson said in an interview once, to him the important thing wasn't whether you called something a planet, it was what the properties of the object were. You have a big table of the objects and their properties, and if what you're interested in is icy bodies that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium but not cleared their orbits, then you get a set of bodies that match that. And so on.
To me personally,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:mass? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there is a 5-order-of-magnitude gap in our solar system, but there are other systems, and they may have celestial bodies that fall within that gap, so clearer terms might be useful.
Since we don't yet know the composition of these other systems (though I think most would grant they should exist), shouldn't the defining be similarly deferred? Make the definition as useful as it needs to be now, tighten it up later when it's clearly inadequate. It's an imperfect process, but it worked before and it will work again (Pluto controversy notwithstanding). "Planet" is a name for a class of objects, and perhaps overly broad, but right now it usefully defines what we know. When we know more, we'll muck with the definition to fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeay, it's car analogy time!
So imagine a new rule is passed for a particular road which that states "Only motorized vehicles of car size or larger are permitted"
While the rule of "motorized" is arbitrarily drawn, arguing pluto is still a planet is akin to arguing that your roller skates should be allowed because they both have wheels and the human body is a motor.
You then follow by presenting evidence your roller skates should be labeled a motor vehicle because they are technically more like a jeep, and the
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-Plutites are absurd, even as they deny it is a planet, they simultaneously admit it is, by calling a dwarf planet. A dwarf mammoth is still a mammoth, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
"People" don't like that Pluto got demoted; their objections to the definition are reverse-engineered from that emotional fact, as evidenced by not even trying to understand the physical reality that informs it.
Indeed. Not only is Pluto no longer a plant, it no longer can claim Charon as its moon. Pluto and Charon orbit a common center of mass outside of both bodies, making them a binary planet with a further two (or possibly more) small moons.
Re: (Score:2)
But in that sense the definition isn't arbitrary: Pluto and Mars are clearly in a different category.
Different from the rest of the solar system? Yes. Neither Pluto nor Mars clears its own orbit. Phobos, Deimos, Nix and Hydra are good evidence of that - they're captured debris that wouldn't have been there in the first place if the orbit had been cleaned.
I think a more reasonable definition is what a passing alien would see. In which case the answer would likely be four or six planets. Two gas giants, two ice giants, and perhaps two rocks. The rest is various smaller debris, which includes satellit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pluto fails because it hasn't cleared its orbit.
So get in there and clean your room, or you'll never amount to anything!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like it because the IAU aren't the most qualified scientific organization to construct a definition.
But... but.... (Score:2)
...but [i]we[/i] have nine planets [i]too[/i]!
Justice for Pluto!
Re: (Score:2)
Damn those bb forums and their tags, and damn those previews for letting me click through them without retyping the whole message!
Re: (Score:2)
We also have Ceres, Eris, Makemake and whatever the other one is called, Haumea or something. And maybe Charon, if you roll that way.
are they all in the habitable zone? (Score:3)
Could this be the place we escape to when the earth is uninhabitable? Will we live in a space western?
Re: (Score:1)
I think the formula for creating & perpetuating "life" is (in part) a function of star-radiation/planetary-gravity, within a certain range. You can be a little closer and a little smaller, or a lot further & a lot larger, than Earth. We are kinda near the inner limit, with our mass. I mean, it's just a theory...
Re: (Score:3)
Could this be the place we escape to when the earth is uninhabitable? Will we live in a space western?
No, it's the place prepared for our afterlife.
If you're good, you get to float around the clouds of the gas giants playing a harp. If you're bad, you spend all eternity assembling smartphones on one of the scorching inner planets.
Firefly System? (Score:2)
You're asking if this is the planetary system from Firefly.
Re: (Score:2)
ding ding ding ding.....
I know there are fewer planets than in Firefly, but still....It took that long for someone to get it?
HD 10180 Nearby? (Score:2)
Re:HD 10180 Nearby? (Score:4, Interesting)
When did 130 ly become nearby? Did someone invent a FTL drive while I wasn't paying attention?
Light coming from it is only a 130 years old not millions or billions of years old. I think the general unspoken idea of nearby is that they may still have the same technology if there were intelligent life that they did a 130 years ago so there's the potential for contact if a civilization was detected. There is a likely window of a few hundred years to a few thousand years where contact would be possible. There is no set standard for nearby but I think that would be the closest I could come, any star with the potential for contact. 130 light years is definitely in that range and with multiple large planets it'd be a solid candidate for life.
Re:HD 10180 Nearby? (Score:5, Insightful)
When did 130 ly become nearby?
As soon as the context became the stars.
Re:HD 10180 Nearby? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think any object that no human being can visit in their lifetime without defying the laws of physics can be truly said to be "nearby".
You *can* visit it in your lifetime without violating the laws of physics, its just that you cannot visit it in the lifetime of the people observing you from Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is a human lifetime the only meaningful context? Because we're human? That doesn't stop us from thinking about contexts where a human lifespan is too tiny a blip to even notice.
Re: (Score:3)
It is among the nearest .000001% of all stars.
Huh, I guess I'll be the first (Score:1)
...to bring up Firefly and its "dozens of worlds" in one solar system.
Yes, I know it's horribly inaccurate with respect to pretty much every detail on this solar system. I don't care; it's better than stupid resolution jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 9 (8) planets in our solar system with an additional 20 large moons and a good 100+ smaller ones. After that, there's a good number of solidly large asteroids. A single (or binary) solar system with dozens of worlds doesn't really seem that far-fetched when you consider how many we have right here. Admittedly a good number of them are so far from the sun that the local temperatures measure in the double digits on the Kelvin scale.
Nibiru to the rescue! (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah but when nibiru comes back around, we'll be up a planet and then who'll be laughing?
Re: (Score:2)
Now is the time to make Ceres a planet. Our fragile, blue-speck egos need it.
only Solar System can have planets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You narcissistic xenophobe. Sol is not superior to other suns.
End Solar Supremacy! We demand equal treatment of all planetary systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, there goes former planet Jupiter... (see: Trojans)
Re: (Score:2)
"Cleared it's neighborhood' means that if a planet sized object is in an asteroid belt, then it's just a big asteroid. To be a planet it has to have cleared out any such debris near it's orbit.
No, that's not what it means. In the paper which coined the term, it was noted that the eight planets dominated the rest of the mass in their "orbital shell", the spherical shell centered on the Sun with inner and outer radii the object's closest and most distant approach to the Sun with several orders of magnitude gap between those planets and "dwarf planets". And it's worth noting that there still isn't an official definition of the term (despite the definition being coined six years ago).
Re: (Score:2)
That's a definition, not the definition of a planet. And it's the IAU at that, who are hardly experts in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd actually say it's under attack on a lot of fronts. It made NPR last week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Exoplanets are not a subset of planets, they are a different class of objects altogether.
Troll harder
Here comes wads of funding! (Score:2)
Now you KNOW there's gonna be a jump-start in the government throwing big bucks into NASA. If they did it during the Communist vs. Capitalist dick-waving that went on for decades, how are they going to tolerate the idea that there are other planets out there, ones that MIGHT get to other exoplanets first? The fear, anger, propaganda... I can see Obama now...
"By 2419, we will send a man to 51 Pegasi b!"
It'd be better in a Boston accent, but hey, let's get our light-speed on!
Re: (Score:2)
That's the IAU definition. They are not planetary experts, and should not be consulted when constructing a planetary definition.
More Great Work from Kepler (Score:4, Informative)
---
Extra Solar Planets [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
pluto is a planet (Score:2)
After all, who decides? An astronomer, who studies stars, or a planetary scientist who studies planets? Answer: planetary scientists. And they are in consistent agreement: pluto is a planet.
Re: (Score:2)
What can be done about this? (Score:2)
All Population I stars have planets (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, they do unless they're binary stars where the planets were so huge they condensed into a star. And the planets go from so close they're in danger of being consumed, to so far out that the the material they would have been made of was flung out of the stellar system instead - in orbits of the maximum closeness that you couldn't fit another planetary orbit between them. Since every reasonable sized star has a habitable zone, and given the distribution of mass, between 2 and 4 planets have to be in it. Time makes the orbits regular. If the planet in the right spot is too large for Men, it will have a moon of the appropriate size.
This is obvious from the distribution of prestellar masses and the forces that cause stars and planets to form. Who doesn't know this? It's Bode's Law.
See those stars in the sky? They have planets. All of them, near enough as makes no difference. And all of them have planets where liquid water could form. And water is so common that there is water on all of them. And so the Fermi Paradox becomes more intriguing. The stars in the sky where Men cannot live are passing rare - if we can get there.
Let's go already.
let's bomb them (Score:1)
And they are all planning to invade us! (Score:2)
Unless we get there first! After all there may be oil!
Go go go!