The Milky Way likely hosts billions, and possibly trillions, of unbound planets, some of which may have atmospheres thick enough to support bacterial life. Loose planets may even outnumber stars in the galaxy, but a more precise count awaits future telescopes such as WFIRST and LSST. [Caltech / NASA]
How likely is a loose planet to have any atmosphere?
It’s pretty cold in interstellar space...
To us accretionist’s the concept of a loose planet is heresy.
All planets are accreted.
The concept of a Fluke (loose) planet is however interesting
Has the vast expanse between Pelosi’s ears been explored?
I wonder if the mass relative to “loose” planets - whose travels do not seem to be (yet) among the calculated mass of the star systems, or the calculted gravitational forces affecting star systems’ travels in their own galaxies - could actually be part of the hypothetical “dark matter” needed to explain current accepted theories of the universe.
These planets could loosely be termed homeless planets.
Quotation is from "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones, page 195
What is the definition of a planet?
I don’t think an object just out there somewhere qualifies.
So I propose “loose planets” be called Vagi.
I’d always assumed there would be plenty of nomads. It may even explain retrograde orbits of some planets.
I doubt the number is that high.
To start with, while there can be a multitude of reasons that a planet went rogue, once they are out of the powerful gravity of a star, most people would assume Newton’s first law would apply, and the rogue would continue in a straight line in whatever its last vector was when it left orbit.
If that was the case, indeed there would be a lot of rogue planets.
However, Newton’s first law would indeed apply, in that, while it was no longer under the control of its star, it would still be under the control of the forces of the galaxy itself.
These forces are formidable in their own right. They have to be to keep the galaxy from flying off in all directions.
This means that in whatever direction the rogue planet was hurled, it would not be in a straight line, but a gradual arc, over time becoming more and more influenced by this continual force.
So the question becomes one of different effects in different directions. That is, is the rogue heading with or opposed to the flow of the galaxy, toward its edge or center, or its “top” or “bottom”, or a vast number of possible vectors between some of these. Also, where in the galaxy it started from.
This gets even more complicated because while, for example, our Sun takes 250 million years to rotate the galaxy, there is also the density wave theory, that the galaxy also has sections of the galactic disk that have a 10-20% greater mass density, which would strongly affect the arc change of a rogue planet when it passed through them.
Eventually, in most cases, the vast majority of rogues would be slung around until they were captured and destroyed, the vast majority in the center of the galaxy. And while it might take a billion years, it would still cull most of them.
I was taught there were only 9 planets and that one found in another solar system would be called something else besides a planet. A planet used to be a large body orbiting around our sun. Who changed the rules?
Word is Venus is one "Slutty Ho'" and is always trying to hook-up with Uranus...
KIPAC? Is that near K-PAX?
Well I’ve heard Pluto puts out on the first date.
The definition doesn’t even work for planets in our own solar system. If Pluto is not a planet because it hasn’t cleared its orbit, then neither is Jupiter.
Jupiter’s orbit happens to contain two clusters of asteroids called Trojans. They lie 60 degrees ahead and 60 degrees behind Jupiter, right smack in Jupiter’s orbit. So this criteria also disqualifies Jupiter as a planet.
They clearly did not think this through!
