Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Fireball planet orbits star in 8.5 hours


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 19,846 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 20 August 2013 - 12:03 PM

A newly discovered Earth-sized world around a distant star completes a full orbit in a matter of hours.

The Register said:

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have discovered a new, Earth-sized exoplanet for which orbiting its star is literally all in a day's work.

Posted Image Read more...



#2    Ryu

Ryu

    Born to fail.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Where you'll never find me

  • Just because I do not agree doesn't mean I don't understand.

Posted 20 August 2013 - 12:10 PM

As close to its star as this planet is, I am surprised the stars gravitational pull didn't suck it right into itself.

Anyways, that was pretty neat to read. Again science learns more and more each day.


#3    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 20 August 2013 - 12:29 PM

View PostRyu, on 20 August 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

As close to its star as this planet is, I am surprised the stars gravitational pull didn't suck it right into itself.

It doesn't work like that. If the orbital velocity is correct then theoretically you could orbit 2 inches above the star. In reality that can't happen. Stars have an atmosphere and if the planet orbits within this then drag will slow the planet and that will cause it to spiral into the star.

Also there is the Roche Limit. If the planet orbits lower than the stars Roche limit then tidal forces will tear it apart.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#4    Ryu

Ryu

    Born to fail.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Where you'll never find me

  • Just because I do not agree doesn't mean I don't understand.

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:37 PM

Yeah, with a velocity like that I suppose the planets orbit can be maintained for quite some time.

But what about the slingshot effect. With a high velocity rate, isn't it possible for the planet to be flung away at some point?


#5    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 20 August 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostRyu, on 20 August 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

But what about the slingshot effect. With a high velocity rate, isn't it possible for the planet to be flung away at some point?

Again it doesn't work like that. If an object is in orbit it means that the force trying to make it fly away from the object it is orbit around (inertia) is balanced by the force trying to pull it into the object it is orbiting (gravity). They will remain balanced unless another force acts on them.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#6    Sundew

Sundew

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:An island by the sea.

  • Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectos Nunc

Posted 20 August 2013 - 02:32 PM

View PostRyu, on 20 August 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

As close to its star as this planet is, I am surprised the stars gravitational pull didn't suck it right into itself.

Anyways, that was pretty neat to read. Again science learns more and more each day.

At our galactic center stars are racing around a black hole as well, and while the BH may be pulling gases off their surfaces and "consuming" the gas, despite the intense gravitation (billions of times that of our sun), they do not just fall into the black hole, they orbit it. It would take some other object, say another star, passing close by to change the orbit of the star in question, in which case it might fall in, be flung away, or merely change its orbit. Just think of the earth's orbit around our own sun, or the moon around the earth, on our time scale, the orbits are very stable. We don't fall into the sun, nor does the moon crash to earth.

I tried to link to a gravity game where you could have "planets" of three sizes orbit one or more "stars". It was quite fun and you could try to have stable orbits of planets in binary or larger star systems, which is not easy. Unfortunately the site is down and I have no idea if it will ever be back up.


#7    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,155 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 20 August 2013 - 02:55 PM

Amazing. I like how, even after being(somewhat out-of-service) that there is more previous data to pour over and examine.

I say "somewhat" because even though 2 out the 4 gyros have failed, I think I heard that they are considering using the onboard mini-thrusters to somewhat stabilize the telescope for additional imaging.

Maybe Waspie has more info on that.


#8    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 20 August 2013 - 04:45 PM

View Postpallidin, on 20 August 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

I say "somewhat" because even though 2 out the 4 gyros have failed, I think I heard that they are considering using the onboard mini-thrusters to somewhat stabilize the telescope for additional imaging.

Maybe Waspie has more info on that.

Basically Kepler's planet hunting days are over. NASA is looking into what useful mission it could now carry out. There is more info HERE.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#9    brlesq1

brlesq1

    Fan Dancer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Music Box

  • Reality is highly overrated.

Posted 20 August 2013 - 10:32 PM

What a great article. Too bad Kepler failed.

Forget what they told you. You want the truth, follow the money.
In this life, things are much harder than in the afterworld. In this life, you're on your own.--Prince

#10    Rolci

Rolci

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 571 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 August 2013 - 01:08 PM

So what WOULDN'T melt on the surface?

Best piece of truth I have found so far: http://llresearch.or...of_one_pdf.aspx
A truly free society: https://sites.google...t-economy-today
The true history of our planet: http://www.floating-...rth_history.htm
Dialogues with The Absolute: unveiledsecretsandmessagesoflight.blogspot (dot) co (dot) uk/2011/08/eon-11aug2010.html
A wealth of metaphysical readings with a surprisingly high ratio of truth content: soulwise (dot) net/index-00.htm

#11    shrooma

shrooma

    Incorrigible Rogue.

  • Member
  • 3,119 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 21 August 2013 - 07:34 PM

View PostRolci, on 21 August 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

So what WOULDN'T melt on the surface?
.
Adamantium.
Superman's underpants.
margaret thatcher's heart.
a frozen 20lb turkey at 11am on christmas morning.....
;-)

sometimes, your signature is worth nothing at all.
.

#12    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:17 PM

View PostSundew, on 20 August 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

At our galactic center stars are racing around a black hole as well, and while the BH may be pulling gases off their surfaces and "consuming" the gas, despite the intense gravitation (billions of times that of our sun), they do not just fall into the black hole, they orbit it. It would take some other object, say another star, passing close by to change the orbit of the star in question, in which case it might fall in, be flung away, or merely change its orbit. Just think of the earth's orbit around our own sun, or the moon around the earth, on our time scale, the orbits are very stable. We don't fall into the sun, nor does the moon crash to earth.

I tried to link to a gravity game where you could have "planets" of three sizes orbit one or more "stars". It was quite fun and you could try to have stable orbits of planets in binary or larger star systems, which is not easy. Unfortunately the site is down and I have no idea if it will ever be back up.
Actually, in the case of the earth and moon the orbit isn't that stable since the earth is rotating faster than the moon is orbiting tidal forces are increasing the orbital velocity of the moon (and slowing the earth's rotation slightly) meaning that one day we will lose the moon.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users