3 Solar Systems Scientists Still Don't Understand

[@Vidar_Odinson]

7 times the mass of Jupiter is pretty dang big. I'm already having difficulty understanding how big Jupiter is compared to Earth.

[@Mr.Isquierdo]

I thought Jupiter was almost big enough to be a star. So how is that 7x planet not a star?

[@TerrariaGolem]

@@Mr.Isquierdo a star can be the size of new york. Neutron and Quark stars care small bois.

[@Mr.Isquierdo]

@@TerrariaGolem blasphemy

[@cebineragn8339]

Having the mass 7 times of Jupiter does not mean, that it’s 7 times bigger. It can be 2-3 times as big, maybe just more dense? Who knows

[@Dragrath1]

@@Mr.Isquierdo The smallest a Brown dwarf can be is about 13 times the mass of Jupiter and that is defined by the smallest mass able to reach deuterium the easiest nuclei able to fuse but still far too little mass to be able to fuse regular hydrogen. Hydrogen burning requires a mass of 80 Jupiter masses worth of gravitational pressure to reach sufficient temperatures so objects less massive than that can not achieve hydrogen burning. As such anything with less than 13 Jupiter masses is generally considered a planet. Of course the distinction between gas giant planets and stars has become more fuzzy of late with the discovery of both a young star that could have only formed like a planet and the possibility to form a planetary object like a star (The direct collapse mechanism described above) Plus the current Juno mission studying Jupiter as well as Cassini's grande finale observations have painted a complicated picture of giant planet formation in general. Juno's observations of Jupiter's gravity field structure published so far suggest that below about 3000 kilometers the planet begins to rotate as a rigid body and preliminary observations suggest Jupiter has a fuzzy core which doesn't really fit neatly with either giant planet formation model but doesn't rule out either yet. One interesting quirk of large planets and mature brown dwarfs is that the deep interior is what we call "electron degenerate". Quantum degeneracy is this property of fermions, particles with half integer spins such as electrons, protons and neutrons, where the particles can not occupy the same state as another fermion of the same type. The details are complicated but all you need to know is that electrons have nowhere else to go in such a system so adding matter to a degenerate system causes the system to shrink as mass is added. A weird property of quantum degenerate matter is that size and mass become inversely related as in the more massive the object the smaller it becomes at least for fully degenerate objects like white dwarfs, and neutron stars which is why they are both so small despite their huge masses (and quark stars would be too if they exist but for now they are still theoretical). Giant planets are only degenerate deep inside so adding mass does increase their size but it is also counterbalanced by the degenerate contraction such that the effective radius stays relatively constant with respect to mass for giant planets and brown dwarfs. This is why Saturn and Jupiter are roughly the same size despite the wide disparity in their mass and thus why Saturn seems to have such an effectively low density over all. The point is this object at 7 Jupiter masses is definitely a planet and is probably about the same size as Jupiter and Saturn.

[@Ryukachoo]

By the way, 1 trillion km is 6686 AU Pluto orbits the sun between 40 and 90 AU, freaking Pluto is a step away by comparison to this thing. It's like an Oort cloud object, and Oort cloud stuff is 2000 to 200,000 au from the sun

[@Markle2k]

It's 0.106 light years. Nearly 40 light days.

[@Starfloofle]

That... really puts that into perspective. Holy heck there's no way that was actually formed out there, right? I guess if it was, though, it would help give us some valuable interest into our own Oort Cloud, since it's almost impossible to study ourselves.

[@LadyTanyaNY]

And the star the planet orbits is a red dwarf. I can't imagine how such a small star could hold on to an object that far away. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the planet just drifts off into space at some point after interacting with perhaps another large object in the vicinity.

[@Starfloofle]

That's what really gets me. I know that dwarf stars do tend to be pretty massive even despite their size, but the fact that they still have gravity powerful enough to reach that far out into space and either still keep an Oort Cloud of their own intact enough to form such an object or to actually capture something is crazy. Yes, it's space, it's microgravity where the tiniest nudge can send something hurtling off course for millennia, but if this is a captured object, imagine how fast it must have been soaring through space before, given a rogue planet basically has to get ripped out of orbit by conflicting forces. If we DO assume it's just captured and not part of the star's original system... Did the stars align (literally) in such a way that other stellar bodies tugged on it to slow it down, and by the time it reached our red dwarf friend it was slow enough it could keep it around? Does it actually take much less speed than we thought to create a rogue planet? Was this a chain of events and this poor planet has changed hosts more than once, being ripped from its parent star long ago and dragged away from smaller stars that tried to take it in? Or is the gravitational power of a dwarf star still really just so powerful that it can capture objects that far out moving at astronomical speeds? There's probably a lot to learn about this thing either way.

[@myriaddsystems]

Sorry "trillion" is a non-SI term and therefore unscientific and illogical.

[@Ichsukatanuka]

Science will never understand how long distance relationships work.

[@_Atzin]

because they don't?

[@saikatbag3961]

Relationship is a feeling

[@AkamirNN]

For people questioning the use of the term "solar system" to refer to celestial systems consisting of a star and planets outside our own system, using the capitalized version Solar System (or more specifically "the Solar System") is specific to OUR solar system. Using the lower cased version "solar system" is done regularly by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The term "stellar system" only specifies the fact there is a minimum of one star in a celestial system, meaning it could technically refer to a cluster of stars, a star with a dust cloud, a star with only asteroids, etc. The term "exoplanet(ary) system", similarly, only specifies there there is a minimum of one planet in a celestial system, meaning it could technically refer to a sole exoplanet with satellites, a binary exoplanet system, a cluster, a star with exoplanets, etc. Using "solar system" is the most easily recognized as being a system that reflects our own, containing a star (or perhaps a binary set up) and a minimum of one planet with perhaps other celestial bodies. All the above terms COULD be used, but may cause confusion unless used in combination with the systems international designation names for the system. I hope this helps with the confusion! :) It is indeed hard to find the conclusive definitions, but you can find this by reviewing articles the IAU and NASA personally publish. This capitalization also is included for the word "moon". Using "the Moon" refers to Earth's moon, "moon" is for ours and other planets satellites.

[@dennisvance4004]

AkamirNN George Lucas used the term “system“ in his movies when he referred to planets. This may have been sloppy sci-fi writing or the Rule Of Cool. Or perhaps his convention was that, for space faring civilizations, solar systems would be conflated with a habitable planet in the solar system; “the Hoth System”, “the Dagoba System”, etc. To many people, Paris _is_ France, London _is_ England and New York _is_ the US. To interstellar travelers the specifics about solar systems would only be relevant in terms of bothersome delays in planetary navigation and how much sunblock to use.

[@Sttuey]

Solar system is plain wrong, the term should be 'star system'. How can one tell of it's being spoken with or without s capital letter, lol. Solar is of "Sol", ie, the name of our star. Referring to other solar systems is bad enough in scifi, let alone sci fact....

[@dennisvance4004]

sTTu Conveying the capitalized version of solar system vocally is simple: use finger quotes. “Research into Space travel via resonance points in the (raise both hands, curl two fingers on each hand) Solar system could decrease the cost of future missions.”

[@dennisvance4004]

sTTu or: we refer to our - _the_ Solar system with the French equivalent, système d'étoile. “Yes, this is an interesting solar system but I can’t wait to get back to Système d'étoile.”

[@archenema6792]

Never trust anything you hear from Trappist-1: they're all drunk on wheat beer.

[@patar3323]

Or from date trappist-1

[@archenema6792]

@@patar3323 You've been hanging out in the wrong bars, friend. And the wrong optometrists.

[@johanwittens7712]

Are you kidding? We Belgians do our best work while drunk on trappist... :D

[@archenema6792]

@@johanwittens7712 There are no Belgians. There are only Flems and Walloons.

[@johanwittens7712]

@@archenema6792 speak for yourself. I feel much more Belgian then Flemish.

[@NewMessage]

We need the Animaniacs back, so they can do a song about this.

[@archenema6792]

You have the best username and picture I've ever seen. All that money your parents laid out for your education was well spent. ;)

[@moondust2365]

Umm, didn't you know that they're bringing Animaniacs back in 2020 on Hulu?

[@ortherner]

Your wish has come true

[@talan123]

Our solar system is way weirder than anything we have found out there. Our planets are not the same size or class (not peas in a pod), the planets orbits are all within 5% gradient of a perfect sphere, and our gas giants are farther away from the sun than the rocky planets are. We don't even have a planet close to our sun, even the asteroids avoid it.

[@gage2189]

Uhm… Mercury?

[@talan123]

@@gage2189 That is really not that close compared to other solar systems. It's orbit is 58 million km from the sun. That is incredibly distant for most stars with planets. GJ 367 b, for instance, has an orbit as short as 8 hours while Mercury takes nearly 90 days. The closest one they have found is 400,000km.

[@gage2189]

@@talan123 Wow, that's really cool!

[@nafrost2787]

Hello fellow SciShow fan, I hope you’re having a good day.

[@francescamele8077]

Aw, thanks mate, you too.

[@avengersnewbie2348]

I got 2 out of 100 in test. Not good day.

[@jacobandrews2663]

Thanks m8, you too

[@jojomen100]

Yes it's half past midnight

[@S8tan7]

Nafrost thanks mate, you too :)

[@DodgerJim]

Very NIce! Finally, a good, intelligent and easy to understand science channel! Where you been? Been searching for a sound science channel on the YT for about a year now. Very good vid, informative and its got my science nerd geeking out here! Thanx! NEW SUB!

[@neilwilliams929]

Good work Reid 👍

[@NewMessage]

Close families, distant families... guess it's true what they say, "Stars are just like normal people."

[@thecraftycyborg9024]

If there’s one thing life has taught me, it’s that “unlikely” doesn’t equal “impossible”. The sheer number of bizarre 1 in 5 million+ medical issues in my family and close friends is a testament to that! (To be fair, people with weird and rare medical issues tend to clump together during life, leaning on each other for the support we need.)

[@UpcycleElectronics]

0:03 Do you ever wonder how introductions like this would have been made throughout all of human existence? I picture ancient philosophers boasting of the foundations of their current knowledge and touting it's merits. I wonder how this type of upload (writing) will appear long after we are all forgotten to the sands of time.

[@sethman75]

I guess people would be laughing at our abysmal knowledge and arrogance to think we thought we knew what was going on. Hint: we don't know sh*t

[@aeronomer8389]

I love how there is always something new in astronomy

[@andyskeels8539]

Star number one : we can call it HR Puffenstuff.

[@-yeme-]

I was going to say well done for the title of "still don't understand" rather than the more common but ridiculous "shouldn't exist". But then you went there anyway about 40 seconds in :(

[@alyssam8550]

But they didn't say it in a click-baity "tHiS sHouLdn'T eXiSt" way, they just said "according to what we know this shouldn't exist, but it does." i think there's a difference. they're still acknowledging that although the theories are well tested, things like this still puzzle scientists.

[@innertubez]

To everyone correcting the video about the name Solar System: That is technically correct, but bordering on pedantic. For example, if you want to enforce that consistency, you would have to say it's incorrect to refer to "solar energy" or "solar panels" when around any star but the Sun. What would you call the energy collecting panels on a space probe orbiting Alpha Centauri A - "Alpha Centauri A-ish energy panels"? Until it starts orbiting Alpha Centauri B, at which point you'll have to change the name to "Alpha Centauri B-ish energy panels" and so on? And if you're going to say "stellar power panels" or "stellar energy," well that is just making the term generic, which is exactly what "solar energy" is doing just in a different direction.

[@BD-gh5gq]

They're called photovoltaic panels...

[@RangerRuby]

Wait! Before I watch, lemme guess! 1. Our own 2. Our own and 3. our own

[@ortherner]

lol

[@marcmurison]

FYI, when referring to stars with catalog designations such as 2MASS J2126-8140, astronomers say "J2126" as a shorthand. We never say something as silly as "2MASS".

[@jacobrodrig8]

That 2nd solar system is freaking far, it really is hard to imagine it's anything but a rogue planet that got trapped. Also nice beard.

[@lvelez1999]

Its so cool how we can see those planets in system one.

[@collinhauger5018]

"However, one of the researchers who discovered the system suggested that a random filament of gas could have pushed the once-rogue planet and the star together in the same direction... so again, it looks like the models can stay!" Ad Hockery. Nothing will ever be wrong with our current models as long as we keep using our imaginations!

[@Arbaaltheundefeated]

Until we find something we actually can't explain within the confines of our current models it seems perfectly reasonable to stick with them.

[@crowdemon_archives]

It's a very "your guess is as good as mine" situation lol

[@jeromydoerksen2603]

Diggin the beard, my man

[@ImVeryBrad]

MY MAN!

[@carbon_no6]

If you ever get in trouble you’re going to have to see the star known as HR(Human Resources)8799! Get written up!

[@PinkFloydBootlegs]

Oh my, Reid with that goatee

[@u0000-u2x]

3:36 afaik most exoplanets are discovered using the occlusion technique which depends on an existing star to be occluded and studied. So how was this body found by itself? What technique was used?

[@Mega6501]

Those close together small planets could very well be still in forming stage and have tons of debris in play with the neighboring planets.

[@TheNipSnipper]

I mean is it too much of a stretch to think that maybe the planets in the first system just got kicked around a bunch? It happened in our solar system. Big things go whooshing through solar systems all the time and mix things up.

[@eastcoastandloveit3857]

Simply awesome!!.

[@cebineragn8339]

Oh boy, wouldn’t it just be the most exciting thing, seeing one of those unknown worlds....?

[@cebineragn8339]

EMS 76 Then you don’t know what a surface really represents. Surfaces is the product of millions if not billion of years of planetary formation and destruction. It’s not supposed to look beautiful, but be beautiful because of the history it carries😊

[@Pining_for_the_fjords]

The word 'solar' only refers to our star, the sun. The general term is 'star system'.

[@BD-gh5gq]

Or "planetary system." I think "star system" is still correct, but can be confused with multiple star systems, so "planetary system" is probably a more clear term.

[@macsnafu]

Nothing is fun when it's hundreds of light-years away!

[@shruggzdastr8-facedclown]

In the first example system explored, have they considered the possibility that the most-recently discovered gas giant in that system (7x the mass of Jupiter as quoted by the host) might have been a rogue planet from another star-system?

[@williamoldaker5348]

I really like your goatee

[@SouthernGothicYT]

Sweet goatee, Reid

[@lokilue6892]

Add fire paint on his hair line and u have a Bam Bam Bigelow look alike, right!? Lol

[@kirbymarchbarcena]

"Impossible...but they do" 'nuff said.

[@Kie-7077]

I hope one day we'll be able to build a space array telescope out in the solar system that will be able to see these planets - is this even technically possible though? - Does enough light come from an object as small as earth when it is light years away?

[@ganaraminukshuk0]

Everyone's trying to semantically bash SciShow when no one's going after Carl Sagan's description of a galaxyrise...

[@SMunro]

Trappist-1? How about Deneb and its 200AU wide habitable zone between 240AU and 440AU?

[@furatceylan8]

what happens when a star goes supernova? - does it destroy its planets? - does it roast them? - does it pull them closer or push them farther out? - if a star goes supernova and destroys its planets, can the remaining core of the star, still pull the debris back to the remnant star and form new planets? also stars & supernovae: - do stars "need" to go supernova? - what happens to stars after they go supernova? - do they completely obliterate themselves and its planets? (eg. i could understand it swallows relatively closeby planets, but what about freakishly far away planets?) - can a star be "disturbed" to *not* go supernova or the other way round, explode much earlier than "its time"? - does the oort cloud stay "cloudy" or can it form planets at different times, when its gravity gets disturbed by, lets say, giant asteroids, comets or gravitational waves from far away but powerful objects? i mean, there needs to be some explanation how these weird planets and/or starsystems exist. I just tried to think up some possible explanations (without the math obviously).

[@LadyTanyaNY]

I would imagine that when a star goes supernova, it destroys it's planets. The force of that explosion would be too much for a planet. But even before a star goes supernova, it swells to a larger size, destroying any closely orbiting planets. I'm not sure if very far away planets can survive a supernova, though it may be possible.

[@LadyTanyaNY]

To answer a few of your other questions: What happens after a supernova depends on the mass of the star. For the most massive stars, they explode into a supernova, then any material left over turns into a black hole. For less massive stars, they just destroy themselves completely in the supernova. For stars that are very massive, but not massive enough to become black holes, they can become neutron stars that form from material left over. In terms of planets, there is actually a planet that has been found to orbit a neutron star! Scientists have no idea how it got there. I think the latest theory is that it wandered into the star system from somewhere else after the supernova happened. Or, it may have formed from left over material of the supernova. In terms of the Oort Cloud, I think all planet formation is done at this point in the solar system. Things may be bumping into each other out there, but no new planets are forming.

[@Kie-7077]

With our current tech, could we send out probes to the planets of other solar systems and have them slingshot back? How long would it take? Or could we send out probes and have them broadcast back info - how much power would it take to radio back data?

[@LandoHitman]

I wonder if the Trappist-1 system was all gas giants in orbit of a larger start that went super nova and blew off the majority of their atmosphere.

[@sholemp]

In the first system discussed: Why couldn’t all the planets form by fragmentation then one migrate inward?

[@leviathan6326]

Maybe those star with the for gas giant planets captured 3 of them from interstellar space because we've seen a lot of rogue gas giants and enter stellar space in the past so it might be uncommon but possible for stars to capture gas giants

[@Arthiem]

There is only one Solar System. And it belongs to Sol! -Children of Sol

[@Cpt_John_Price]

Shadow of Israphel

[@moondust2365]

Technically, that is true. Since "solar" means "relating the Sun". These systems should be called "Star Systems" instead of "Solar Systems"...

[@uesdtosignin1038]

please make video about HD 80606 solar system, the solar system with an eccentric orbit hot Jupiter.

[@mathieuleader8601]

Always expect the unexpected when it comes to the universe

[@klausgartenstiel4586]

really cool.

[@Devinfrbs]

1:08 Internet explorer's original orbit around HR 8799, prior to being added to Windows by Microsoft.

[@Ghosteriz]

2 Mass is the common planet that often uses in Universe Sandbox 2.

[@qlifee]

Turns out long distance relationships does work for some after all.

[@KaiseruSoze]

Might be a puzzle for a big bang model ... but not for a steady state universe..

[@NefariousKoel]

So... this is an episode on planetary migration then?

[@Goro_Maj1ma]

@SpyingDutchman hardly click bait.

[@peppermintgal4302]

I think the primary hypothesis under consideration they mentioned for Trappist didn't necessitate planetary migration, but yeah, a lot of these things probably come down to that.

[@albinscott]

Regarding HR8799, couldn't the gas planets have migrated to different orbits from their origin?

[@Mgl1206]

André Diniz well yes but that would be very unlikely

[@SuperAtheist]

There's only one Solar system .

[@avengersnewbie2348]

Thank you.

[@subnatural5341]

Stellar systems?

[@archenema6792]

Type solar into a google Latin translator. smh.

[@innertubez]

@@subnatural5341 Or star system

[@fuseteam]

what do you call a system of stars then? *i vote planetary systems*

[@sparky4747]

The world is not stranger than we imagine. It is stranger than we can imagine.

[@lazy-rich]

We don't know anything yet compared to what we know for sure

[@VA7SL]

These are all Festivus. Miracles!

[@fraserhenderson7839]

Regarding "Solar systems", there is only one. "Sol" is our star. The sun. Therefore, the astronomical bodies orbiting "Sol" comprise THE Solar system. Others are exoplanetary systems.

[@archenema6792]

Why are so many people on this comment page so COMPLETELY ignorant of the existence of a language called Latin? smh.

[@BD-gh5gq]

@@archenema6792 "Sol" is latin for "The Sun," aka, our star specifically, not stars in general. The latin word for "star" is "aster" or "stell." The only one ignorant of Latin here is you.

[@archenema6792]

@@BD-gh5gq The ancient Mediterraneans has a few different ideas about what stars were. Most thought they were points on or holes in the crystal sphere that surrounded a terra-centric cosmos. Had they known they were of the same genera as the sun, they certainly would have called them solars.

[@BD-gh5gq]

@@archenema6792 But they didn't, and you can't make an assumption like that. They gave proper names to many of the stars, much like they named our own star "Sol" with or without understanding its nature. You are stretching hard to try and justify your mistake.

[@bernieponcik1351]

* fart joke danger close " Generally you start with a large cloud of gas..."

[@NiteSaiya]

HOW CAN THEY BE SOLAR SYSTEMS IF THEY DON'T ORBIT SOL?

[@LordBhorak]

This bothered me too. Because I know only one Solar System, but many Star Systems.

[@aitchpea6011]

You are technically correct, which as we know is the best kind of correct, however the commonly used convention is that all star-planet systems are called solar systems. That's just how it is.

[@kingjames4886]

how they got together? I'm bettering interstellarnet or spacebar.

[@rkpetry]

*_..in the exchange of gravitational orbital energy planets can be flung, one out for one in..._*

[@curtisshaw1370]

Too many stars with too similar names. When you mentioned 2MASS J2126-8140, I thought you were talking about 2MASS J1808-5104. Given that the latter is a potential Population III star which is way smaller than such a star should be, it's already strange enough. Given it's age, it shouldn't have been possible for planets to form around it, which would mean that it needed to capture a rouge planet later. Then I realized you were talking about a different star.

[@nwabuezeozuzu6370]

Me thinks the astronomical distance of these systems from earth gives us some error calculating their features.

[@cernunnos_lives]

Great. One more place we won't go to without a robust science and space program.

[@EnderCorePL]

Even planets can be more successful with relationships than I am

[@montesmakes]

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I thought the term "Solar System" applies specifically to our sun, wouldn't external star systems just be called "star systems"?

[@funnygrunt_o7]

I would think so yes

[@montesmakes]

@@funnygrunt_o7 Meh, probably not a big deal, it just confused me, it would be like calling all cars honda civics or all dogs Labradoodles.

[@josephgriffin2054]

Is it possible that everything even black holes orbit something? If thats the case does that mean everything is a small something apart of a bigger reality we can't see!?

[@scottyanderson7263]

Sorry, I'm just really puzzled by those sideburns.

[@robinhyperlord9053]

How do subermines/probes not produce waste from their Uranium?

[@Kie-7077]

So, could some of these massive objects be dual-planets? Rather than a planet and a moon, could 2 planets the size of earth or bigger be spinning around each other closely whilst orbiting a sun? Imagine what the tides could be like, most of our tides here on earth are pretty tame compared to what might be possible. We talk of ferocious storms on other planets but never of ferocious seas unlike anything we've ever seen on Earth.

[@dennisvance4004]

Observers had it all figured out: the sky was a bowl, the earth was a plate. Telescopes were invented and then observers had it all figured out: this is how solar systems work. Then better telescopes were invented and observers figured it out: they don’t have it figured out. The universe is a big place filled with weird stuff.

[@DramaticFlora]

So I've heard about the bottom of jupiter being blue, you guys doing anything on that?

[@marcearevalo6374]

What kind of people dislike these videos?

[@originalbillyspeed1]

People that realized the title is inaccurate.

[@falco830]

Which one has the alien object floating around it?

[@existenceispainforameeseeks]

Call me crazy but it seems like space is hella complicated! So incredibly fascinating

[@deltadom33]

We cant even get outside the solar system or to the nearest star yet

[@AkamirNN]

Yet~ :P

[@ai-go9yh]

Can The Doctor just come and take me away?

[@WestOfEarth]

How does the mechanism of planet migration work? I hear this stated a lot as if its a foregone conclusion that viewers know how it happens.

[@TheSeldamoo]

I say it’s ok that they don’t understand them. I know jack squat compared to them. ;-) thank you all for doing this video! I really love it.

[@CommanderSp00ky]

SOLAR systems? *hold up*

[@Voidroamer]

is this a placeholder for when you think of a joke?

[@CommanderSp00ky]

@@Voidroamer What do you mean???

[@jamesball2828]

Wouldn't be great to see then as they are now,

[@MRMAKO-oe7yg]

I think 2mass is keeping its long distance relationship by phone because if it did it by mail, the star would have been moved on

[@pvybe]

Interesting stuff but, scientists don't even understand ours.

[@lorisuprifranz]

He is the astronomer who knocks

[@BlackWolf42-]

So, how in christ do they film those exo-planets with no occlusion disk on the scope?

[@TragoudistrosMPH]

6:28 those aliens prepare a preemptive strike on Earth.

[@scubasteve2169]

Can planets form in space without a star?

[@JeremyKolassa]

Is it just me, or does Reid look like Baron Corbin on Monday night RAW?

[@PinkFloydBootlegs]

God dammit HE DOES AND I HATE IT

[@redpantiesnight9423]

What would happen if the earth started spinning wrong way?

[@evilsharkey8954]

I thought “solar system” referred only to our sun, Sol, and that other stars and their satellites were called “star systems”.

[@NerdGeekFutureSpeak]

What class is the star tho

[@NerdGeekFutureSpeak]

How did you see a rogue planet from 100 light years?

[@NerdGeekFutureSpeak]

That seems awfully far away for a planet, given that it wouldn’t be emitting light. Was there a star that it passed in front of just once?

[@mattpotter8725]

I'm puzzled, by the mystery here, at least that due to the formation of the planets. As was mentioned for the Trappist-1 solar system planets don't always stay where they form, they can migrate inwards and outwards, so couldn't the gas giants have migrated outwards from the positions they were formed in due to gravitational interactions between them and other massive planets in the system, if there are any? The same could be true of the Trappist-1 planet. As far as the Mass 2 "rogue" planet, it could have been a captured rogue planet couldn't it, ejected from its own solar system where it formed and eventually captured by the small red dwarf star? So whilst there is some mystery in why they are the way they are there isn't necessarily mystery in their formation, just that we don't know the situation the solar systems were in when the planets formed.

[@nafrost2787]

How the Parker solar probe is doing?

[@smAshomAsh]

It is accelerating into its second solar pass

[@tomf3150]

Or Trappist is artificial...

[@ognjenjokovic6130]

Hey how much planets can a solar sistem have?

[@Unintuitiv]

Pretty sure we live in the only SOLar System and the others are just star systems. Or at least that's what I thought.

[@spider_sf]

was about to comnent the same, weird choice of title

[@archenema6792]

Fell asleep during Latin class, didn't you.

[@Unintuitiv]

ArchEnema 67 That sounds like a private school kind of class.

[@ssecial]

Star systems are systems of multiple stars (that's why it's a -system-). Sun is a given name to a star, Alpha Centauri-A, B and C are given names to stars, Solar System is a given name to a planetary system, Alpha Centauri is a given name to a planetary system which also is a star system with a binary star (AB) and another star (C) hanging around.Calling anything but our planetary system a "Solar System" is incorrect.

[@BD-gh5gq]

@@archenema6792 "Sol" is latin for "The Sun," aka, our star specifically, not stars in general. The Latin word for "star" is "aster" or "stell." Protip: If you're going to go around smugly correcting people, make sure you have your own facts straight first.