• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Newly Discovered Planet Orbits "Backward"

William Parcher

Show me the monkey!
William Parcher
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
27,472
Newfound Planet Orbits Backward


A newfound planet orbits the wrong way, backward compared to the rotation of its host star. Its discoverers think a near-collision may have created the retrograde orbit, as it is called.

WASP-17 likely had a close encounter with a larger planet, and the gravitational interaction acted like a slingshot to put WASP-17 on its odd course, the astronomers figure.

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if there are other planets that orbit this star and what the magnetic configuration and current systems in its local stellar evironment are like.
 
I'm the backwards planet, the backwards planet,
I can orbit backwards as fast as you can,
Oh, the backwards planet, the backwards planet...
 
Singularitarian said:
Prove what though?
Click to expand...


Oh, my goodness. I've never seen you before on JREF, but I admit that I tend to predominantly hang out in the Bigfoot threads.

Singularitarian, what do you think was the thing that could possibly have been proven here (the article), but was not? Or, do you think that nothing whatsoever could have been proven (or directly gained) from this truly unique observation?

Prooving the theory that some large object tilted it off its normal trajectory, or that it has been hypothesized certain objects may orbit backwards?
Click to expand...

Please talk about "some large tilting object". Are you thinking that this 'backward' orbit is simply a planet tilt thing? Please explain.


Because personally feeling, if its the latter in question here, then i see no proof at all. More like evidence than anything else.
Click to expand...

The latter thing (in your words) is an object orbiting 'backwards'. You see no proof at all. Are you saying that this observed 'backward orbiting object' is not evidence that is actual proof of a 'backward orbiting object'?
 
William Parcher said:
Oh, my goodness. I've never seen you before on JREF, but I admit that I tend to predominantly hang out in the Bigfoot threads.

Singularitarian, what do you think was the thing that could possibly have been proven here (the article), but was not? Or, do you think that nothing whatsoever could have been proven (or directly gained) from this truly unique observation?



Please talk about "some large tilting object". Are you thinking that this 'backward' orbit is simply a planet tilt thing? Please explain.




The latter thing (in your words) is an object orbiting 'backwards'. You see no proof at all. Are you saying that this observed 'backward orbiting object' is not evidence that is actual proof of a 'backward orbiting object'?
Click to expand...

By ''tilted'' is but perhaps a poor expression i made. The sling-shot effect is taken into account however. Basically, the sling-shot effect is when some object comes close to the warped vicinity of space around another massive abject. Following the curved paths in space, it can nearly make it's way round at least a quarter of the large gravitational mass before breaking off at high speeds, usually in the opposite direction, so by ''tilted'', this is what i had meant.

And no, you got me wrong in the last part. I wondered what proof they had obtained, whether proof that backward orbiting planets do exist, or proving it was exactly by the sling-shot mechanism provided, because i will repeat again, if it is the latter, then i cannot see how any proof has been suggested, but rather incoherent theories and possible suggestions.
 
Singularitarian said:
By ''tilted'' is but perhaps a poor expression i made. The sling-shot effect is taken into account however. Basically, the sling-shot effect is when some object comes close to the warped vicinity of space around another massive abject. Following the curved paths in space, it can nearly make it's way round at least a quarter of the large gravitational mass before breaking off at high speeds, usually in the opposite direction, so by ''tilted'', this is what i had meant.

And no, you got me wrong in the last part. I wondered what proof they had obtained, whether proof that backward orbiting planets do exist, or proving it was exactly by the sling-shot mechanism provided, because i will repeat again, if it is the latter, then i cannot see how any proof has been suggested, but rather incoherent theories and possible suggestions.
Click to expand...

I realize fully that if you respond to this, it will be in your standard babble intending to demonstrate how blindingly intelligent you are and generally failing utterly to actually do so (see above quotation,) but it is fairly clear from your statements that you didn't even bother to read the article that was linked in the OP. You are the only person talking about this 'proving' anything.

The astronomers in question made direct observations of the system that showed the planet to be in a retrograde orbit. If that supposition is what you seek proof of (i.e. Planets sometimes orbit stars in the direction counter to the star's rotation.) then yes, they found proof via direct observation.

From the article:
WASP-17 likely had a close encounter with a larger planet, and the gravitational interaction acted like a slingshot to put WASP-17 on its odd course, the astronomers figure.
Click to expand...

If the supposition that you seek proof of is that this particular planet is in a retrograde orbit due to a slingshot around a larger body, then no, there is no proof of it to be found here. The article only suggests it as a likely mechanism. The only other likely way I can think of it to have happened is an orbital capture from an extrastellar source. Their suggestion is not an "incoherent theory;" it is a reasonable explanation for an unusual observation.
 
jasonpatterson said:
I realize fully that if you respond to this, it will be in your standard babble intending to demonstrate how blindingly intelligent you are and generally failing utterly to actually do so (see above quotation,) but it is fairly clear from your statements that you didn't even bother to read the article that was linked in the OP. You are the only person talking about this 'proving' anything.

The astronomers in question made direct observations of the system that showed the planet to be in a retrograde orbit. If that supposition is what you seek proof of (i.e. Planets sometimes orbit stars in the direction counter to the star's rotation.) then yes, they found proof via direct observation.

From the article:


If the supposition that you seek proof of is that this particular planet is in a retrograde orbit due to a slingshot around a larger body, then no, there is no proof of it to be found here. The article only suggests it as a likely mechanism. The only other likely way I can think of it to have happened is an orbital capture from an extrastellar source. Their suggestion is not an "incoherent theory;" it is a reasonable explanation for an unusual observation.
Click to expand...


And who are you to talk to me like this?

And by the way, i would cover the facts first before making any suggestions, as to like me only suggesting a ''proof'' here.

In the article, it says:

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."

So you are gravely mistaken, bub.
 
Singularitarian said:
"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," (Sara) Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."
Click to expand...

What Seager is talking about is the fact that we can study orbits so far away. It has been predicted that modern observations would be able to study these orbits. We have proven that the observational technique works.
 
This recent discovery shows that, perhaps, our solar system is quite a rare one, and we might be a unique planet. ;)
 
It would sure be fascinating to see a simulation of a "close encounter" that results in a retrograde orbit. It has either already been done to justify the speculation in the paper or it is an obvious follow-on study.
 
Maybe the other star is just upside down and the planet is revolving the right way, relative.

How do planets and stars know the right way to revolve about things? Something I've often wondered...
 
William Parcher said:
Singularitarian, what do you think was the thing that could possibly have been proven here (the article), but was not? Or, do you think that nothing whatsoever could have been proven (or directly gained) from this truly unique observation?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. . could be he thought you were introducing a really bad creationist argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom