this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
42 points (95.7% liked)

Astronomy

4710 readers
50 users here now

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nailbar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 14 hours ago

This post made me imagine a nightmare scenario where Earth is ejected and we can only helplessly watch as the sun becomes smaller and smaller.

[–] myster0n@feddit.nl 15 points 3 days ago (3 children)

There are NO planets that don't orbit stars : once they don't orbit a star they don't follow the modern definition of a planet anymore

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

The modern definition of "planet" only includes things that orbit the sun.

Honestly, the IAU's definition of a planet is pretty useless.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 days ago

We'll not have science in this discussion about science!

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Rocky planets, gas giant planets, ice giant planets, dwarf planets, super Earth planets, hycean planets, lava planets, rogue planets...

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 days ago

Very interestingly, they found that systems with fewer planets tend to exit their “ejection” phase after about 100 million years, but systems with 10 planets are still unstable even after a billion years. They also found that these more bountiful systems actually eject the majority of their planets, losing 70 percent after a billion years. Most of the ones ejected are lower-mass, as expected.

Wonder how many sibling planets we had when our solar system first formed. This sort of topic is always fascinating to me.