Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

GIANT PLANET SWAPS DURING CLOSE STELLAR ENCOUNTERS

ABSTRACT
The discovery of planetary systems outside of the solar system has challenged some of the tenets of planetary
formation. Among the difficult-to-explain observations, are systems with a giant planet orbiting a very-low mass
star, such as the recently discovered GJ 3512b planetary system, where a Jupiter-like planet orbits an M-star in
a tight and eccentric orbit. Systems such as this one are not predicted by the core accretion theory of planet
formation. Here we suggest a novel mechanism, in which the giant planet is born around a more typical Sunlike star (M∗,1), but is subsequently exchanged during a dynamical interaction with a flyby low-mass star (M∗,2).
We perform state-of-the-art N-body simulations with M∗,1 = 1M and M∗,2 = 0.1M to study the statistical
outcomes of this interaction, and show that exchanges result in high eccentricities for the new orbit around the
low-mass star, while about half of the outcomes result in tighter orbits than the planet had around its birth star.
We numerically compute the cross section for planet exchange, and show that an upper limit for the probability
per planetary system to have undergone such an event is ...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.08366.pdf

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY

Yes, star/planet (astron) systems are formed via capture.

Regards,
Daniel

Once again another case of mainstream hypocrisy.

"a flyby by a low-mass (M) star resulted in the planet being swapped between the two stars." (p.2)

As long as the planet swaps star orbits in a galaxy far, far away, it's fine and permissible and acceptable. If the swap happened in our own Solar System, a la Velikovsky and Talbott, etc, eyewitnessed in human history and set down in the annals of myth and legend with concrete actors, this is not allowed.

That's a great find, vardamango. I've added this paper to my archive for future use.

JP Michael wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:09 am As long as the planet swaps star orbits in a galaxy far, far away, it's fine and permissible and acceptable. If the swap happened in our own Solar System, a la Velikovsky and Talbott, etc, eyewitnessed in human history and set down in the annals of myth and legend with concrete actors, this is not allowed.

I would agree only with the part "eyewitnessed ...", because in general already few iterations of the Nice model have assumed planetary swaps in Sol's history. E.g. in this model Neptune formed closer to the Sun than Uranus.

paladin17 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:06 pm I would agree only with the part "eyewitnessed ...", because in general already few iterations of the Nice model have assumed planetary swaps in Sol's history. E.g. in this model Neptune formed closer to the Sun than Uranus.

But how does the Nice model's swapping of Neptune and Uranus demonstrate that it was 1. eyewitnessed by humanity and 2. that the actors were NOT recorded and identified in the annals of myth and legend?

Your point seems to be falsification of my statement, "as long as the swaps occur in a galaxy far far away", which is right. I was not aware that the Nice model permits planet-swapping in our own solar neighbourhood, so indeed a small segment of the mainstream does not believe this only applies to galaxies far far away. Have you got any citation from a Nice Model source so I can add it to my archive, please?

JP Michael wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:16 pm

paladin17 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:06 pm I would agree only with the part "eyewitnessed ...", because in general already few iterations of the Nice model have assumed planetary swaps in Sol's history. E.g. in this model Neptune formed closer to the Sun than Uranus.

But how does the Nice model's swapping of Neptune and Uranus demonstrate that it was 1. eyewitnessed by humanity and 2. that the actors were NOT recorded and identified in the annals of myth and legend?

Well, as I've said, it doesn't, since it assumes billion year timescales.
Check out references at wiki page.