Talk:Interstellar planetary mass object
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 2M1207b
2M1207b is an extra-solar planet, not an interstellar planet, right? I don't think the "proplyds" section really applies here. No interstellar planets have yet been confirmed. Maltodextrin 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how an interstellar planet and a sub-brown dwarf can be seen to be the same thing. Any planet object found in interstellar space would be considered an interstellar planet, wouldn't it? but that wouldn't be the same thing as a brown dwarf, necisarrily. Thanatosimii 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New definition of planet
With the new 2006 redefinition of planet, we would need to stop calling these things planets, perhaps interstellar planemo or sub-brown dwarf instead? (The IAU recommended sub-brown dwarf in 2003) 132.205.93.195 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- We'll see if this redefinition takes. I'm increasingly skeptical it'll survive. I think it's going to end up like International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry having to list Aluminum as an acceptable spelling.--T. Anthony 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- On further studt the new redefinition only applies to our solar system. It's sole purpose is to avoid their being too many planets as it's just all cluttery having that many symbols or planets to worry about. (This sounds sarcastic, but I believe it's basically correct. The asteroids that were downgraded were in part done so because it was causing there be too many planets)--T. Anthony 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hypothetical
What is hypothetical about interstellar planets when the article gives an example of one? Reworded a little - the 2M1207b sentence made it seem like it was interstellar. Orthografer 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Would like new title
The IAU is really quite clear: these objects are not to be called "planets." That was established before the famous 2006 redefinition of "planet" and really has nothing to do with that redefinition. So I propose that the article be retitled. Unfortunately I can't come up with a good alternate title. "Interstellar planemo" would be logical, but unfortunately the term "planemo" hasn't really caught on in the astronomical literature. More often you see the clumsy phrase "planetary-mass object." So the title could be "Interstellar planetary-mass objects," but that sounds awkward to me. Any ideas? Kevin Nelson 10:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The redefinition only applies to our own solar system. Extrasolar planets have yet to be properly defined. 137.28.55.99 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming and rewriting
The title "Interstellar planetary-mass object" does not seem to be used. I cannot find any occurrence in the abstracts of astronomical articles, despite of some efforts with the NASA ADS Query Form.
What about free-floating planetary-mass object (FFPMO) or sub-brown dwarf which are used in the literature ? (See fr:objet libre de masse planétaire and notes attached to the English names which are listed) ?
Furthermore, this article needs intensive rewriting. It focuses a lot on life there, whereas most studies focus on explaining their origin and detecting them.
Cheers.
Régis Lachaume —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.248.81.29 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
- After thinking about it a little more, I like "Isolated planetary-mass object" which is a phrase I've seen in a paper or two. Thoughts? Kevin Nelson 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
