Evidence for planet X? (BBC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent star
found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to the
distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to the
conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or one did
have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star is within 10AU?
Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun. So
translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual orbit'???

Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to
the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to
the conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long way
from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to explain was
that there is no evidence of these planets being associated with a parent
star, as no optical (or infrared?) object could be found associated with
their location. But they can't prove absolutely that none of them are
orbiting some sort of star that they haven't detected due to extreme
faintness, for example, so they used the word "most".

The existence of free-floating planetary objects had been suspected on
theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is the best
confirmation yet.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to
the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to
the conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long way
from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to explain was
that there is no evidence of these planets being associated with a parent
star, as no optical (or infrared?) object could be found associated with
their location. But they can't prove absolutely that none of them are
orbiting some sort of star that they haven't detected due to extreme
faintness, for example, so they used the word "most".

The existence of free-floating planetary objects had been suspected on
theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is the best
confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

On 19/05/2011 2:46 PM, Giga2 Giga2 wrote:
"Mike wrote in message
...
Giga2""Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to
the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to
the conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long way
from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to explain was
that there is no evidence of these planets being associated with a parent
star, as no optical (or infrared?) object could be found associated with
their location. But they can't prove absolutely that none of them are
orbiting some sort of star that they haven't detected due to extreme
faintness, for example, so they used the word "most".

The existence of free-floating planetary objects had been suspected on
theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is the best
confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

They are talking about whether these free floating objects had any kind
of star nearby within 10 AU of them. Most did not. They aren't talking
about these objects being within 10 AU of our star!

Yousuf Khan

On May 19, 1:19*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 19/05/2011 2:46 PM, Giga2 Giga2 wrote:









"Mike *wrote in message
...
Giga2""Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to
the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to
the conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. *All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. *They are all a very long way
from our part of the galaxy. *What the article was trying to explain was
that there is no evidence of these planets being associated with a parent
star, as no optical (or infrared?) object could be found associated with
their location. * But they can't prove absolutely that none of them are
orbiting some sort of star that they haven't detected due to extreme
faintness, for example, so they used the word "most".

The existence of free-floating planetary objects had been suspected on
theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is the best
confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

They are talking about whether these free floating objects had any kind
of star nearby within 10 AU of them. Most did not. They aren't talking
about these objects being within 10 AU of our star!

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Besides, 10 AU is about Saturn's orbit. There was just a lack of
thinking in the OP.

Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent
to the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led
them to the conclusion that most of these objects did not have
parent stars." *Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which
mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long
way from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to
explain was that there is no evidence of these planets being
associated with a parent star, as no optical (or infrared?) object
could be found associated with their location. But they can't
prove absolutely that none of them are orbiting some sort of star
that they haven't detected due to extreme faintness, for example, so
they used the word "most". The existence of free-floating planetary
objects had been suspected
on theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is
the best confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone to the Nature website and read through the paper. These planets
are detected by their gravitational microlensing effects on distant
background stars which are normally too faint to be seen. A bound planet
(within a few AU of a star) will often show a lensing from both the planet
and from the primary star, with different durations and shapes. Planets
will produce very short, sharp lensing events, and stars will usually
produce longer and more gradual lenses.

In the case of the planetary lensing events being discussed, no sign of a
stellar lens was seen and this was followed up with direct imaging of the
location of the lensing event once it was over. The investigators compared
their result to another optical survey of planets around young stars and
estimated that only a small fraction of their planets were likely to be
distant (10AU) but bound. Hence their conclusions.

The press article was not really very clear about the precise details, hence
natural confusion about what they actually said.

It's still early days in the search for microlensed planets. The
observations are time consuming and require long term surveys of millions of
background stars to find a few events.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2011 2:46 PM, Giga2 Giga2 wrote:
"Mike wrote in message
...
Giga2""Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to
the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to
the conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long way
from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to explain was
that there is no evidence of these planets being associated with a
parent
star, as no optical (or infrared?) object could be found associated with
their location. But they can't prove absolutely that none of them are
orbiting some sort of star that they haven't detected due to extreme
faintness, for example, so they used the word "most".

The existence of free-floating planetary objects had been suspected on
theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is the
best
confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

They are talking about whether these free floating objects had any kind of
star nearby within 10 AU of them. Most did not. They aren't talking about
these objects being within 10 AU of our star!

Yousuf Khan

Oh right, that makes sense.

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent
to the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led
them to the conclusion that most of these objects did not have
parent stars." *Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which
mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long
way from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to
explain was that there is no evidence of these planets being
associated with a parent star, as no optical (or infrared?) object
could be found associated with their location. But they can't
prove absolutely that none of them are orbiting some sort of star
that they haven't detected due to extreme faintness, for example, so
they used the word "most". The existence of free-floating planetary
objects had been suspected
on theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is
the best confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone to the Nature website and read through the paper. These
planets are detected by their gravitational microlensing effects on
distant background stars which are normally too faint to be seen. A bound
planet (within a few AU of a star) will often show a lensing from both the
planet and from the primary star, with different durations and shapes.
Planets will produce very short, sharp lensing events, and stars will
usually produce longer and more gradual lenses.

In the case of the planetary lensing events being discussed, no sign of a
stellar lens was seen and this was followed up with direct imaging of the
location of the lensing event once it was over. The investigators
compared their result to another optical survey of planets around young
stars and estimated that only a small fraction of their planets were
likely to be distant (10AU) but bound. Hence their conclusions.

The press article was not really very clear about the precise details,
hence natural confusion about what they actually said.

It's still early days in the search for microlensed planets. The
observations are time consuming and require long term surveys of millions
of background stars to find a few events.

OK, looks like scant evidence for Planet X then!

On Thu, 19 May 2011 05:41:19 +0100, Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent star
found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to the
distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to the
conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars."

*Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which mean some or one
did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star is
within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun. So
translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

No, they're a good ways away from us. Many parsecs. They're saying that
they aren't within a billion miles or so of any star we can see.

Moreover, the term "parent star" maybe should have been written as
"primary star".

They likely all had parent stars, from whose systems they were ejected by
the same process that put other gas-giants into orbits around their
primaries that are now as close as is Mercury to the Sun, orbits in which
they weren't likely to have formed.

We've detected the gas giants in Mercury-like orbits, "hot Jupiters", so
it stands to reason that there are others floating around loose. Looks
like someone has detected a few of them, too.

What fun!

-- RLW

"Giga2" "Giga2" just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote in
message ...

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Giga2" "Giga2 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431

"They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent
star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent
to the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led
them to the conclusion that most of these objects did not have
parent stars." *Most* of the objects don't have a parent star. Which
mean some or
one did have a parent star, i.e. was in an unusual orbit. Which star
is within 10AU? Only one is within light years (100,000s of AUs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and that is the sun.
So translation:

'We have found a large planet in our solar system in an unusual
orbit'???

You misread the article. All these planets were discovered in a
microlensing survey of the galactic bulge. They are all a very long
way from our part of the galaxy. What the article was trying to
explain was that there is no evidence of these planets being
associated with a parent star, as no optical (or infrared?) object
could be found associated with their location. But they can't
prove absolutely that none of them are orbiting some sort of star
that they haven't detected due to extreme faintness, for example, so
they used the word "most". The existence of free-floating planetary
objects had been suspected
on theoretical grounds and some observational evidence, but this is
the best confirmation yet.

I quoted the relevant paragraph, it seems pretty clear to me.

I have gone to the Nature website and read through the paper. These
planets are detected by their gravitational microlensing effects on
distant background stars which are normally too faint to be seen. A
bound planet (within a few AU of a star) will often show a lensing from
both the planet and from the primary star, with different durations and
shapes. Planets will produce very short, sharp lensing events, and stars
will usually produce longer and more gradual lenses.

In the case of the planetary lensing events being discussed, no sign of a
stellar lens was seen and this was followed up with direct imaging of the
location of the lensing event once it was over. The investigators
compared their result to another optical survey of planets around young
stars and estimated that only a small fraction of their planets were
likely to be distant (10AU) but bound. Hence their conclusions.

The press article was not really very clear about the precise details,
hence natural confusion about what they actually said.

It's still early days in the search for microlensed planets. The
observations are time consuming and require long term surveys of millions
of background stars to find a few events.

OK, looks like scant evidence for Planet X then!

They said Planet X would be here in 2003, and it never showed up.

You should let go of this pipe dream.

Embrace Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

Luke
http://www.ashesaid.com
The only website you need to read this year!