Exo Planets and Solar Systems

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Possible First Photo of Planet Around Sun-Like Star

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:57 am

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Possible First Photo of Planet Around Sun-Like Star

Unread postby Tzunamii » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:34 am

"This distant world is giant (about eight times the mass of Jupiter) and lies far out from its star (about 330 times the Earth-Sun distance). But for all the planet's strangeness, its star is quite like our own sun."

Wouldn't it's size categorize it as a Dwarf star of some type?
As we learn more about the electrical reality of things, many of our definitions are going to change.
They're so busy looking to find "planets", & I don't believe what they're tagging as planets, are in fact planets as most people understand the word.
User avatar
Tzunamii
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Possible First Photo of Planet Around Sun-Like Star

Unread postby BullSchmutz » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:34 pm

Well Chimps and Monkeys are about as similar as us anything else in the biologic kingdom, compared to every other animal that has been ever photographed. So, scientifically I would call us identical... but different.
BullSchmutz
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:19 am

Exo Planets and Solar Systems

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:46 pm

More challanges to standard theory, with theortical limits being exceeded over and over.
They say that this gives them little comfort.
:roll:
Sooner or later they will learn that the theory is hogwash. The GU is the weaklink.

The hottest planet ever found is a sizzling 2250 °C – as hot as some stars. The find could challenge models of how close planets can sidle up to their host stars.

The new planet, known as WASP-12b, is 1.5 times as massive as Jupiter. Incredibly, it takes just over a day to circle its host star, orbiting at 1/40th the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The tight embrace heats WASP-12b to an estimated 2250 °Celsius – about half as hot as the surface of the Sun, and as hot as some stars.
That makes the planet the hottest yet discovered, as well as the planet with the fastest orbit, says Leslie Hebb of the University of St Andrews in the UK.

Hebb and colleagues found the giant in a large survey called the Super Wide Angle Search for Planets (SuperWASP). The collaboration uses two sets of telescopes, one in Spain's Canary Islands and the other in South Africa, to search for signs of 'transiting' planets, which pass in front of and dim their host stars as seen from Earth.

Extrasolar planets are too dim compared to their host stars to directly measure the infrared light – or heat – they emit. But astronomers know the planets' size and orbital distances from the transit observations. From that, they can work out how much starlight falls on the planets and thus take their temperature.

The competition for the hottest planet is tight. WASP-12b only just beats out the last record-holder, HD 149026b, whose blacker-than-charcoal surface is a searing 2040 °Celsius.

Puffy planetBut WASP-12b's speedy orbit might be a harder record to break. Astronomers believe Jupiter-sized exoplanets form farther from their stars and then migrate to closer orbits. That's because there could not have been enough gas and dust so close to the stars to amass such giant worlds.

Most observed exoplanets have orbital periods of three days or longer, Hebb says, suggesting that some mechanism may prevent the planets from migrating even closer to their stars.

"When the planets form and migrate inward, something is causing them to stop and preferentially stop with a period of three days," Hebb told New Scientist. "I was surprised that the period could be so much shorter."

WASP-12b's size may also be a challenge to explain. The planet's width is 1.8 times that of Jupiter, larger than gas giants are thought to grow.

"The planet radius is suspiciously large," notes Sara Seager of MIT. "While observation is leading theory, it's uncomfortable to have a planet with a radius that cannot be accommodated by theory."


So far the team does not have an explanation, but radiation from WASP-12b's host star could be puffing up the planet, Hebb says. The planet's composition, which might be rich in metals like its host star, may enhance the effect. Planets rich in heavy elements are expected to be less dense than their 'metal-poor' cousins.

The team next plans to look for ultraviolet light emanating from WASP-12b. Such observations could reveal whether the planet's atmosphere is being stripped or evaporated away by its host star.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... found.html
Last edited by nick c on Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: thread title changed to accomodate merged posts
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Star-hugging planet is hottest and fastest found

Unread postby moses » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:33 pm

If we postulate that this planet was just born from it's companion star
it would seem that stars are likely to be spinning rapidly during birthing.
Is the moment of birth a nova event ? And is the newly birthed planet
exiting with some speed initially, which will mean that observations of
planets extremely close to a star would be hard to get ?
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Star-hugging planet is hottest and fastest found

Unread postby substance » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:01 am

Nice one! That "planet" is confronting the mainstream theory in all of it`s parameters. I might even write a blog post about it, haven`t written in my astronomy blog since ages...
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
User avatar
substance
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany

Stars with Planets

Unread postby GaryN » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:48 pm

Planets imaged around 2 stars:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -pictures/

The star is called HR 8799. It’s a bit more massive (1.5 times) and more luminous (5x) than the Sun, and lies about 130 light years from Earth. The planets in this picture orbit it at distances of 6 billion km (3.6 billion miles) and 10.5 billion km (6.3 billion miles). A third planet, not seen in this image but discovered later using the Keck 10 meter telescope, orbits the star closer in at a distance of 3.8 billion km (2.3 billion miles).


OK math guys, do these orbits match our expected ratios, the Titus-Bode rule?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Possible First Photo of Planet Around Sun-Like Star

Unread postby Xuxalina Rihhia » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:10 am

The planet around Fomalhaut is real and is no bigger than 3 Jupiter masses and probably less.
Xuxalina Rihhia
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:53 pm

New Planets Defy Gravity

Unread postby mnemeth1 » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:42 am

An article in New Scientist details a recent finding of three supposedly massive gas giant exoplanets orbiting a star in a gravitationally unstable orbit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126934.400-exoplanet-spotted-in-hubble-archive.html

My take on the matter:
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/new-planets-defy-gravity
mnemeth1
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:03 am

Re: New Planets Defy Gravity

Unread postby Total Science » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:58 pm

Excellent work. Linked here.
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Newfound Planet Orbits Backward - Let's give EU a try at it!

Unread postby JohnMalone » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:24 am

I seem to remember reading about this possibility somewhere among the Electric Universe literature. Now here is a news report that such a retrograde-orbiting planet has been detected.

The usual astonishment is expressed. And the tired reliance on collision and tidal forces to explain the planet's odd features is here, too. Isn't there an over-reliance on "tidal forces" in this case?

If planets are formed by fissioning off a star due to electric stress, then what are the parameters that constrain the new planets behavior? What conditions could produce the retrograde orbit of a newly fissioned body?

Assuming the observation is correct, anyone care to give it a go? (Without sending me back to my EU books!)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090812-backward-planet.html
Newfound Planet Orbits Backward
Jeanna Bryner and Robert Roy Britt
SPACE.com Wed Aug 12, 11:21 am ET Updated 11:05 a.m. ET

Planets orbit stars in the same direction that the stars rotate. They all do. Except one.

A newfound planet orbits the wrong way, backward compared to the rotation of its host star. Its discoverers think a near-collision may have created the retrograde orbit, as it is called.

The star and its planet, WASP-17, are about 1,000 light-years away. The setup was found by the UK's Wide Area Search for Planets (WASP) project in collaboration with Geneva Observatory. The discovery was announced today but has not yet been published in a journal.

"I would have to say this is one of the strangest planets we know about," said Sara Seager, an astrophysicist at MIT who was not involved in the discovery.

What's going on
A star forms when a cloud of gas and dust collapses. Whatever movement the cloud had becomes intensified as it condenses, determining the rotational direction of the star. How planets form is less certain. They are, however, known to develop out of the leftover, typically disk-shaped mass of gas and dust that swirls around a newborn star, so whatever direction that material is moving, which is the direction of the star's rotation, becomes the direction of the planet's orbit.

WASP-17 likely had a close encounter with a larger planet, and the gravitational interaction acted like a slingshot to put WASP-17 on its odd course, the astronomers figure.

"I think it's extremely exciting. It's fascinating that we can study orbits of planets so far away," Seager told SPACE.com. "There's always theory, but there's nothing like an observation to really prove it."

Cosmic collisions are not uncommon. Earth's moon was made when our planet collided with a Mars-sized object, astronomers think. And earlier this week NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope found evidence of two planets colliding around a distant, young star. Some moons in our solar system are on retrograde orbits, perhaps at least in some cases because they were flying through space alone and then captured; that's thought to be the case with Neptune's large moon Triton.

The find was made by graduate students David Anderson at Keele University and Amaury Triaud of the Geneva Observatory.

Bloated world
WASP-17 is about half the mass of Jupiter but bloated to twice its size. "This planet is only as dense as expanded polystyrene, 70 times less dense than the planet we're standing on," said professor Coel Hellier of Keele University.

The bloated planet can be explained by a highly elliptical orbit, which brings it close to the star and then far away. Like exaggerated tides on Earth, the tidal effects on WASP-17 heat and stretch the planet, the researchers suggest.

The tides are not a daily affair, however. "Instead it's creating a huge amount of friction on the inside of the planet and generating a lot of energy, which might be making the planet big and puffy," Seager said.

WASP-17 is the 17th extrasolar planet found by the WASP project, which monitors hundreds of thousands of stars, watching for small dips in their light when a planet transits in front of them. NASA's Kepler space observatory is using the same technique to search for Earth-like worlds.
We come to our new problems full of old ideas and old words, [words] which experience has shown to be fruitful over the years.... We love the old words, the old imagery, and the old analogies, and we keep them for more and more unfamiliar [and] unrecognizable things. -J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1963 (EJL,BBNH)
User avatar
JohnMalone
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Newfound Planet Orbits Backward - Let's give EU a try at it!

Unread postby solrey » Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:59 am

Considering the planet in question is a large gas giant, I suspect the retrograde orbit is the result of, what was a dwarf star being captured and orbiting the parent star as a gas giant. The paper even mentions capture as a possibility for Neptune's moon Triton. They don't seem to consider that possibility on a stellar scale, however.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Newfound Planet Orbits Backward - Let's give EU a try at it!

Unread postby nick c » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:53 am

Greetings JohnMalone,
If planets are formed by fissioning off a star due to electric stress, then what are the parameters that constrain the new planets behavior? What conditions could produce the retrograde orbit of a newly fissioned body?
I agree with solrey, we cannot unequivocally assume that the planet is the offspring of the main star in that stellar system, it could have been captured or the system could have been otherwise disrupted at an earlier time. The article notes that the planet is on a highly ellipitical orbit,
The bloated planet can be explained by a highly elliptical orbit, which brings it close to the star and then far away.

which is what one would expect from an interloper. I wonder if this "bloated" form can in any way, be translated as a cometary? a tail perhaps?

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Newfound Planet Orbits Backward - Let's give EU a try at it!

Unread postby redeye » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:46 pm

I wonder if this "bloated" form can in any way, be translated as a cometary? a tail perhaps?


Or if the Planet's size fluctuates due to changing electrical stress at different points of this elliptical orbit.

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Newfound Planet Orbits Backward - Let's give EU a try at it!

Unread postby JohnMalone » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:19 pm

nick c wrote:I agree with solrey, we cannot unequivocally assume that the planet is the offspring of the main star in that stellar system, it could have been captured or the system could have been otherwise disrupted at an earlier time. The article notes that the planet is on a highly ellipitical orbit,
The bloated planet can be explained by a highly elliptical orbit, which brings it close to the star and then far away.

which is what one would expect from an interloper. I wonder if this "bloated" form can in any way, be translated as a cometary? a tail perhaps?

redeye wrote:
Or if the Planet's size fluctuates due to changing electrical stress at different points of this elliptical orbit.


1) Good questions. I think both could be measurable somehow. Could the cometary tail show up as a non-symmetrical image, or as a center-of-mass offset from the center of an image?

And could changes in size be modeled by estimates of the electric field at different points of the ellipitical orbit, which could then be compared to measurements of the planet's changing size?

2) The "bloat" -ugh, what an ugly word- of the planet evokes Wal Thornhill's description of red giants. I wonder if there's a parallel analogy there, but on a different scale:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=jdjcab6s
Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective collecting area of the stellar anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform ‘red anode glow.’ It becomes a red giant star.


3) Okay, the interloper model sounds plausible, but still seems extreme to me. Since we can come up with several cases of retrograde motion of moons close to home, it seems the behavior is not all that rare. What's the chance of capturing a lone straggling planet, versus the chance of electrically-caused fissioning? My sense is that the electrical expulsion mechanism would be far more common.

Thornhill again: "Planets are then born by electrical expulsion of matter from the body of the star in the form of giant mass ejection events, like we see in miniature in solar outbursts. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf. So this is a starting point for me not just for binary stars, but for all planets in a star system.

4) So whether it actually applies to this news release or not, I'm still curious: Is there something in the currents of entwined-filament-pairs or the electric model of the star which could account for any object obtaining retrograde motion?
We come to our new problems full of old ideas and old words, [words] which experience has shown to be fruitful over the years.... We love the old words, the old imagery, and the old analogies, and we keep them for more and more unfamiliar [and] unrecognizable things. -J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1963 (EJL,BBNH)
User avatar
JohnMalone
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:53 am

Next

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests