Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Nope, if a planet had the mass of a star it would become a star. that is the difference.
If it kept on growing in mass it would eventually collapse as a Black hole.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Stars rotating around planets
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
Nope, if a planet had the mass of a star it would become a star. that is the difference.
If it kept on growing in mass it would eventually collapse as a Black hole.
Landon Caeli said:
True
Planets do not usually grow to be stars, except in the initial formation of a solar system from the stellar gaseous disk when a binary star solar system forms, and a larger planet than Jupiter acquires enough mass to go nuclear.
When two galaxies collide there needs to be more explanation as to what happens to the black holes, stars and planets. Things do get messy, and the explanation is somewhat involved. First when galaxies collide most stars involved do not collide with other stars, because of the vast distances involved. To discuss this further the base fact that the gravity of the black holes rules the consequences. Nothing gets tossed out into space beyond the galaxies.
The biggest effect is the super quasar formed in the merging of the black holes. The stars caught in the collision path of the black holes will be most effected and toast. The intense quasar electromagnetic radiation will eventually be devastating to life on planets. In the collision of the galaxies the black holes will likely orbit each other and gradually merge, and intelligent life in other galaxies will see a new quasar in the heavens.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Thief
Rogue Theologian
No they have not, you actually ignored my reference and unethically provided incomplete references.
From: https://www.google.com/search?sourc...4j0j1....3..0....1..gws-wiz.....0.jBtIZKFIyns
A rogue planet is a planetary-mass object that orbits a galactic center directly. Such objects have been ejected from the planetary system in which they formed or have never been gravitationally bound to any star or brown dwarf. The Milky Way alone may have billions of rogue planets.
Has anyone yet complained about "rotating" being wrong?
It should be "revolving" !!!
It should be "revolving" !!!
Well, what is the correct word is one foot is nailed to the floor.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I say.....planets orbit stars
you say.....everything orbits the center of the galaxy
you have no line drawn by your definition
I do
No I said, "Rogue planets DO NOT orbit stars, and rogue planets orbit the galaxy center, Repeatedly plain English backed up by references.
Cooky
Veteran Member
It seems to be true. It seems that no object in space is truly 'on it's own' but rather, is subjected to another, larger object.
...But it's been said that space is expanding! So how billions of supermassive black holes seperate from each other, despite their immense gravity, means that there is either some other unidentified force occuring, as every action has an equal or opposite reaction..? Or the outward thrust of the big bang was stronger than every black hole in existance combined.
But the gravity of two black holes in space should be strong enough to draw them to each other, because they're not seperating from each other very quickly. So it seems weird that this is not happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
The universe is expanding, because all the celestial objects we have observed are moving away based on the observations of red sift of the light, but the red shift of their light from different celestial object is moving away at different rates. There are local regional groups of universes called super clusters, and part of their movement is toward the center of these super clusters as the universes are attracted to each other and often collide and merge.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I have reference and posted as such
you made denial and quoted some other reference
now....note my signature
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so...you believe in the closed universe theory?...And if the outward thrust of the big bang is stronger that all the gravity in space combined... Then the big bang rules.
But I don't think so.
the universe is expanding.....but
will fail to continue and fall back into another primordial singularity
No you unethically selectively quoted an incomplete reference.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and the quote I found is common
if you prefer to lump a large object into the class of lesser items......I don't really care
but planets orbit stars
The quote you used is common, but selectively incomplete and inaccurate, and not from a complete definition that reflects the scientific evidence.. Common definitions do not meet the standard of science. There have never been any rogue planets that have not orbited the galaxy.
You sure are a bitter stubborn losser.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
planets orbit stars.....I will stand by that
Not all planets orbit stars. Rogue planets orbit galaxy center by the scientific definition:
From: https://www.google.com/search?sourc...4j0j1....3..0....1..gws-wiz.....0.jBtIZKFIyns
A rogue planet is a planetary-mass object that orbits a galactic center directly. Such objects have been ejected from the planetary system in which they formed or have never been gravitationally bound to any star or brown dwarf. The Milky Way alone may have billions of rogue planets.