Is there such a thing as a 'planet' that revolves around the galactic rather than a star?

Question

If so, what is the term for such a planet, and what are some examples?

I suppose I am asking, are there any celestial bodies that rotate around the galactic center, rather than a star, that are similar in composition to our traditional view of a planet, except for the whole not revolving around a star thing.

Answer 1

Sometimes a solar system containing planets can be disrupted by a wandering star, causing some planets to be flung out and become "orphans", left without a star while continuing on a galatic orbit. They'd be extremely hard to spot because 1) they're very tiny compared to stars, and 2) they're super cold, giving off almost no radiation. The most common times for this to happen is when a small galaxy collides with a more massive one, which has already happened dozens of time with the Milky Way galaxy. In the future, Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way galaxy, resulting in an elliptical galaxy, but during this collision there's a fair chance that this planet Earth could end up being orphaned.

Answer 2

Not quite. But astronomers have found isolated giant planets not bound to any star, and believe they may be the galaxy's most common worlds.
3 found so far are in Orion's Sigma Orionis cluster near the Horsehead Nebula (they are S Orionis 52, S Orionis 56, and S Orionis 60).
These objects have masses similar to the gas giant planets found orbiting other stars, but they are not in orbit around any star. They're still debating what to call them - free-floating planets, planetary brown dwarfs, isolated planetary-mass objects, cluster planets, superplanets, or planetars. They range between 12 and 75 times Jupiter's mass.

Since almost all objects that are part of the galaxy orbit the galactic centre (barring some stars that seem to be simply intergalactic travellers just moving through the galaxy, not part of it), then the long answer to your question is "yes".

Answer 3

i don't think so because for a planet to form you would have to have the strong and close gravity of a star to pull the cosmic debres close. And the chances of that happening by itself out in orbit around the galactic center are fairly slim. But almost anything is possible in astronomy... so you never know

Answer 4

Scythian has the right idea. Actually, if a planet were revolving about a double star system, it would eventually be thrown out of orbit about the system as a whole, and be "orphaned." So would a star in a trinary system. 3- body systems are inherently unstable.

Answer 5

There are no stars outside of galaxies. The description of a planet includes that it must orbit a star.

Answer 6

i don't exactly think there could be a celestial object revolving directly aroung the galaxy's center, especially since there is a black hole in the middle of our galaxy. not very close, at least. but consider this: the solar system takes 100 mn years to make one orbit around the galaxy. in effect, it is rotating around the galaxy very slowly.

Answer 7

in truth, a planet could be referred to as a planet until it orbits a famous individual because of the fact it may in undemanding terms be formed around one maximum probable. yet it in no way stops us from saying that any famous individual can lose one or some into interstellar area. Gravitational encounters with different planets in a planetary gadget can deliver one hurtling out yet it maximum probable could contain a assorted physique state of affairs. I mean one has to take the gravitational power on a similar time as the least vast could be thrown out until the ascertain famous individual (or the different famous individual for that remember) performs a substantial function interior the "giving up" itself. The image voltaic gadget itself would have lost particularly some planetisimals (super or small) considering that its formation 4.57 billion years in the past. As replaced into chanced on between many exoplanets interior the community, maximum planetary structures have their "Jupiters" migrate inward by the years which displaces maximum inner planets if there is any risk of their life. Stars, too as they age would lose sufficient mass which could effect interior the weaker carry of the planets on the outskirts of planetary structures consisting of whilst a famous individual undergoes a point transitting from a crimson massive to a white dwarf. that is cool to think of that according to hazard various the planetary nebulae we see would have some planets dashing with the increasing gasoline themselves. If a planet, say is formed interior a globular cluster like Methuselah in M3 and that the ascertain famous individual takes place to have a distinctive bump into with yet another famous individual interior the cluster, this would additionally effect interior the instability of the planetary gadget sending some planets out into different stars or out of the globular cluster themselves. the 1st exoplanet chanced on looked as though it could have revolved around a pulsar, a progenitor of an excellent famous individual. this would not forestall the risk that some planets, too, would have been slingshot from supernovae as replaced into latest in some stars of the nightsky. Runaway planets does make any exclusion considering that even the extra vast stars get some sort of "kick" in those activities. sparkling skies!

Answer 8

I don't believe so:

Planets orbit stars, planets and star(s) form a solar system, solar systems orbit around the galactic halo...

Answer 9

this is totally crap and never likely to happen. just imagine its orbit and the other bodies that could pull it towards its center of gravity as it travels.