• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 minutes 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.

  • myster0n@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

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

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

  • thegr8goldfish@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I flat out don’t accept the notion that some starts have no planets. As far as I am concerned, if we have 8 major plantes and on average, 40% of planets are ejected, we should assume the average number of starting planets is 11.