Aliens could be common on free-floating ‘rogue planets’ without suns

reply to post by Harte


Doesn't it get cooler before it get's hotter?

I know here in South Australia we have a town called Coober Pedy where it is quite hot so a lot of the houses are dug underground to keep cool.

So how deep do you need to go to hit the point where the temperature starts to increase again?

Lostmymarbles
What if the sun was actually in the core with the crust being a protective shell (shield) for the inner environment?

Not possible. Compared to planets, stars are extremely large, extremely massive, and extremely hot. Saying there could be a sun inside a planet is like saying there could be an elephant inside a fly.

Black holes in the center of galaxies yet not sucking in the galaxy.

Black holes are not vacuum cleaners, they don't suck. It's perfectly possible to orbit a black hole just like you would orbit a star or a planet.

~~

LightAssassin
reply to post by Harte

 

Doesn't it get cooler before it get's hotter?

I know here in South Australia we have a town called Coober Pedy where it is quite hot so a lot of the houses are dug underground to keep cool.

So how deep do you need to go to hit the point where the temperature starts to increase again?

A few kilometers. The deepest mine in South Africa goes down to almost 4 km, and is very hot. The rock face temperature currently reaches 60 °C (140 °F).
en.wikipedia.org...
gizmodo.com...

Reading about that deepest mine in South Africa led me to an article about an incredible extremophile: www.nature.com...

A single-species ecosystem, consisting of a bacteria living in an environment that lacks oxygen, and has temperatures as high as 60 ºC and an alkaline pH of 9.3. It gets its energy by reducing sulphate with the help of hydrogen created when radiation from uranium minerals breaks down water molecules. Its nitrogen supply comes from ammonia molecules and ammonium ions amply available in surrounding rocks and fluid. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by wildespace


How is it not possible? Have you checked out all 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 (+) free floating planets? And why cant a sun or sun-like core exist? Is that written in stone anywhere? Why can't there be a mini-sun in the center of a planet?

The answers are not known because we don't know everything and actually know less then 1% of what is out there. To say otherwise is pretty much a lie. We can "try" to explain it but there is no definite answer.

Lostmymarbles
reply to post by wildespace

 

How is it not possible? Have you checked out all 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 (+) free floating planets? And why cant a sun or sun-like core exist? Is that written in stone anywhere? Why can't there be a mini-sun in the center of a planet?

Do you know what a sun is, and what a planet is? A sun is a gigantic ball of hot luminous plasma, kept spherical by its own gravity, and powerd by fusion. It forms through a gravitational collapse of a huge gas cloud. A planet forms from the material around a star, and is much smaller than the star, certainly not big enough to support fusion at its core.
Star
Planet

The answers are not known because we don't know everything and actually know less then 1% of what is out there. To say otherwise is pretty much a lie. We can "try" to explain it but there is no definite answer.

We know quite a lot about stars and planets, not least from studying the Sun and the planets in the Solar System. "We don't know everything" doesn't mean "we don't know anything". To say otherwise is pretty much a lie. Science is evidence-based. It gave us computers, space flight, advances in medicine, in farming, in transport. If science were a complete guess, we wouldn't have any of those things.

Please explain to me how can there be a star inside a planet? Don't just say "anything is possible".

reply to post by wildespace


Is magma in the core of the earth not like that of a sun? I was using the term "sun" loosely because it is something easy to relate to when trying to explain my thoughts.

Our sun is big but did you know our sun is insanely small when compared to other suns?
List of stars

There are suns out there that are as big as solar systems and galaxies..

Now imagine a planet that is the size of one of those monster stars. Could a sun the size of ours not easily fit inside it? And if our sun is that small, what about smaller suns out there that are the size of Earth? These can be listed in "things we do not know".

I know science has advanced a lot and we know a lot but when comparing that to what is out there and what can be learned, we know next to nothing. Do you know what is on those planets? What they are made up of? What the core is made up of? All things that we do not know.

I'm thinking outside the box. When there is so many possibilities and so much to learn, limiting what can or cannot be with the knowledge known is very dangerous as history has shown us countless times.

Lostmymarbles
reply to post by wildespace

 

Is magma in the core of the earth not like that of a sun? I was using the term "sun" loosely because it is something easy to relate to when trying to explain my thoughts.

Our sun is big but did you know our sun is insanely small when compared to other suns?
List of stars

There are suns out there that are as big as solar systems and galaxies..

Now imagine a planet that is the size of one of those monster stars.

Please understand, with matter comes mass, and with mass comes gravity.

It is purely the gravity of our "tiny" sun that started the fusion process inside it.

A "planet" as massive as your monster star, then, would have to become a monster star itself, based solely on its gravitation and the effect that would have on the materials it was made of.

A star cannot exist in a planet. But, if it makes you feel better, a planet can exist inside a star. At least for a while. In fact, that, barring unforseen and highly unlikely events, is exactly the fate awaiting the Earth when our star goes red, expanding to outside Earth's current orbital path.

Harte

This supports my personal theory about Nubiru and Planet X etc.

That it is a large Dwarf Star....dark but giving off heat.

There are several small planets orbiting this as prophesised.

The heat off the dwarf star would keep the planets warm, but not give light.

So life could exist but the creatures if any would have large eyes so they could see better at night.....

does that reming you of greys?

reply to post by Harte


You are misunderstanding what I meant and are reading to much into the "star" and "sun" examples I was giving.

How about a ball of magma? A ball of magma surrounded by some sort of liquid or gas that holds it in place. I was just thinking outside the box in the idea that maybe life doesn't always have to be on the surface of a planet but could be located within a planet. Using the "Hollow Earth" theory as an example so that others can get an idea of what I was saying. I was not saying it in the literal sense but the "what if" sense.

Lostmymarbles
reply to post by wildespace

 

How is it not possible? Have you checked out all 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 (+) free floating planets? And why cant a sun or sun-like core exist? Is that written in stone anywhere? Why can't there be a mini-sun in the center of a planet?

Physics and chemistry rule it out and the laws of both are the same throughout the universe.

It might help for you to understand what a Sun is. It's essentially a star. There is a minimum mass to stars.

Planets are WELL below that mass.

Even in-between objects called Brown Dwarfs are many times more massive than Jupiter and they are not big enough to turn on nuclear fusion and light up.

Your idea sounds like its straight out of "The Shaver Mystery" hoax.

And a ball of magma under the pressures of the core of a planet would essentially become a solid core, not some blazing sun. Hollow Earth theories were cute before say Sputnik.

Melbourne_Militia
This supports my personal theory about Nubiru and Planet X etc.

That it is a large Dwarf Star....dark but giving off heat.

There are several small planets orbiting this as prophesised.

The heat off the dwarf star would keep the planets warm, but not give light.

Heat -is- light.

It's infrared light.

There is no Nibiru or Planet X.

WISE the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer space telescope has ruled out any nearby red or brown dwarf companion star or large gas giants while searching for nearby low mass dwarf stars.

It did however find two brown dwarfs but they are 6 light years away. Further away than Proxima Centauri (4.3 ly)

Always sensing something's between Milky way and Andromeda. Following the OP premise its not illogical to consider some celestial objects being flung from galaxy active forces or being released do to galaxy weakening (say if two or more galaxy collided) some celestials would be flung way far out there. Can there exist areas where undetected nebula or plasma cloud like forms exist that keep these celestials warm or cold 1 is not sure, but does not account living aware habitable zones only with warmth and or only microorganisms its more vast a zone of existence as far as planetary Star systems and systems out there. It would seem EA*RTH beings technology learned to hide heat signatures so why cant another beyond EA*RTH do so or just travel thru the colder dense pockets of the undetected nebula or plasma, is all plasma hot

reply to post by JadeStar


You as with others have misunderstood what I meant. I was using a star/sun as a reference so that it would be easier to picture. What I meant is what if there is something like that that we have yet to discover. Something with similar characteristics but is within the planets. I'm not saying all of them but just a "what if" scenario.

It also is sad that so many of y'all are stuck in the mindset that science is absolute in its findings when that is not the case. How many times in just this century alone has science's absolute laws/theories had to be revised or changed completely because of a new discovery or invention? Science is always changing with each passing day as we test the limits of our imagination making the impossible possible.

There is a recent article about Hawking (Physicist) whom is stating that black holes don't exist. Something that is shocking the science community as the idea of black holes is thought to be an absolute thing. If Hawking proves to be right, then that would rewrite much of what science thought it knew.

There are inventions and discoveries today that were once thought to be impossible yet they are a reality for us such as cars, trains, planes, spaceships, space travel, cloaking devices, 3d printers, holograms, teleportation, writing on water, making objects float with sound waves, and the list goes on and on.

Do we continue to make the same mistakes in the past by dismissing something because of what the current knowledge of what science states as possible or impossible? Are not much of what we have today once ideas that were laughed at or mocked by the science community? Anything is possible and probable especially when we are dealing with numbers in the trillions of trillions. And for every rule/law there is always an exception to it. Don't repeat the past and limit yourself or your imagination.

As I said because I'm not saying this is what is happening but wouldn't it be cool if there were a few out there that fit the bill? For a better picture, imagine something like the size of Earth in something like Jupiter.

Lostmymarbles
It also is sad that so many of y'all are stuck in the mindset that science is absolute in its findings when that is not the case. How many times in just this century alone has science's absolute laws/theories had to be revised or changed completely because of a new discovery or invention? Science is always changing with each passing day as we test the limits of our imagination making the impossible possible.

True, science changes and on very infrequent occasions it has to change a lot to explain newly discovered phenomena.

However, fusion and gravity are understood well enough to rule out a star inside a planet, for example.

LostmymarblesThere is a recent article about Hawking (Physicist) whom is stating that black holes don't exist. Something that is shocking the science community as the idea of black holes is thought to be an absolute thing. If Hawking proves to be right, then that would rewrite much of what science thought it knew.

Sorry, but no.

Hawking is not stating that black holes don't exist. He's stating that the theoritical construct describing the boundary of such a collapsed star (which certainly exist, by the way, even in Hawking's view) might be slightly wrong, which would mean (to Hawking) that the objects we today refer to as "black holes" might be more properly called "gray holes."

Harte