Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
For some unknown reason, this report, sends shivers...
Too much SF I imagine.
2. "Interstellar planet" is not a term that I have ever heard any reputable astronomer use. "Free-floating planet" is the standard terminology.
3. Those guys aren't astronomers. They're no more experts on the subject than you are. They're doing ridiculous extrapolation and have no plausible formation mechanism.
4. Wikipedia is not a source for this sort of thing.
Really? We're going to bite someone's head off for that? ( And, er, don't look now, but it's in Oxford University Press' Astronomy Encyclopedia http://books.google.com/books?id=4mzvAAAAMAAJ&q=%22interstellar+planet%22&am... )
Does anyone know how fast the earth would cool if we were ejected? How soon would we be in "A Pail Full of Air" situation?
I'm saying that any source that uses "interstellar planet" isn't going to be an authoritative one. People can use whatever terminology they like, but using non-standard terminology is indicative of not being familiar with the field. There's no way Mr. Durick could have known this, of course, and I don't blame him for not picking up on the clue.
I think there's a nebula by that name, yeah. Names tend to be pretty ad-hoc, even if terminology for classes of objects tend to be established so that people know that they're talking about. (As a case in point, because "interstellar planet" is not standard terminology, until Mr. Durick posted the link I had no idea if he was referring to extrasolar planets or to free-floating planets. It helps if everyone involved in a conversation uses the same words to refer to the same things.)
I followed the Wikipedia link and ended up reading the actual MNRAS paper, and I'm no more likely to believe it than I was at the time. The arguments are, as I said, wild extrapolation without data, although the "interstellar planet" nomenclature seems to be the fault of the publicizers rather than the scientists.
I just realized that Mr. Durick may not know that I'm a former astronomer, and in this narrow area I actually do know that I'm talking about.
Edit: I see now that Mr.Durick also caught the typo. (Don't even ask about the time I almost sent what called itself an "e-maul.")
Also I guess this increase the possibility of a "Nemesis" rogue brown dwarf or slightly smaller headed in our direction!
Dyson tree, possible interstellar plant? Traveling with it own brown dwarf energy source? ;-)
Sounds like a good idea to me. The only problem is, if it were a good idea, with the age of the universe, we'd already have been visited by joyriding aliens. :)
There is just no way that the 'quadrillion' number is remotely plausible. I'm sorry. Y'all can believe it if you want, but it defies all the evidence. Personally I think the actual claims that are supported by real science are pretty damn cool, but I'm obviously in the minority.