Helium Planets

This is somewhat speculative, and the speculation is based on a non-mainstream theory. So it's not surprising it would be unclear to many people. See if this helps.

First think in terms of a phase change that most of us are familiar with. Most common substances will expand when they go from liquid to vapor. If water in a weak container is heated to boiling the pressure increase associated with the phase change will cause the container to explode.

But of course a phase change like that is not energetic enough to blow up a planet. DRP postulates that gravitational force is caused by tiny particles moving very fast. This is based on the theory of Le Sage. Most of these particles (gravitons - bet you didn't see that coming?) pass straight through normal sized matter but a few will interact. Early objections to Le Sage's theory included the observation/calculation that if enough particles like this were absorbed to cause the observed attractive force, they would deposit so much energy in the mass that it would *rapidly* (seconds or less) heat up to the point of exploding.

Later theoretical explorations (Slabinsky) found that if some of the interacting particles are absorbed and the other interacting particles are merely deflected, there is a range of scattering and absorption values that will allow normal sized matter to have the observed attraction without overheating and exploding.

DRP speculates that even small masses like planets might explode if something (a "phase change" of some sort?) caused their core to become more dense in terms of how gravitons interact with it. Before the phase change the absorption/scattering ratio is in the safe zone. After the phase change it is not.

Bang.

We're not sure what might trigger such a "phase change", but if it happened there would be plenty of energy available for the explosion of sub-stellar masses.

Regards,
LB

<b>[Solar Patroller] "Helium is the most stable of elements."</b>

Helium's reputation for stability is relevant only in terms of its chemical properties. The gravitational force properties of helium (or any other element for that matter) have little or nothing to do with the electrons orbiting so far away from the nucleus, because they are such a tiny fraction of the total mass of an individual atom.

However, electrons might be important in determining the gravitational potential properties of an atom.

But there is much we do not know yet.

LB

<b>[Solar Patroller] "Tidal stresses would act mutually to blow each up in the pairs?"</b>

Each mass in an over-spin pair is unique. For example, each one has a different mass and distance from the primary. So each will evolve along a unique path. It is an observational fact that some planets do not explode. At least not right away.

<b>[Solar Patroller] "why would [helium planets] blow up and not solid planets?"</b>

Short answer - they do.

Mars is postulated to have been one of two moons of the helium class planet. Some time after that helium class planet exploded the other moon (a "solid planet") also exploded.

The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is actually two belts with different properties. One of them is postulated to be the result of the primary's explosion, while the other belt resulted from the moon explosion.

LB

If Mars and the asteroid belt evolved from an event involving a helium planet, what became of the helium and how large was this planet before it did whatever required to accomplish the transition to Mars and all the rocks we now observe?

Elsewhere and earlier you have stated that you reject the EPH as unworkable. Now you claim to be unfamiliar with it? I'm not sure I understand.

I'll give you the answers anyway, but you really ought to re-read the book chapters and the articles posted elsewhere to be sure you actually understand the theory. (We don't insist that you agree with it, but if you are going to reject it you should at least know what it says.)

The helium escaped into space.
Approximately 5 Earth masses or less.

Its been many years since my reading of the book and it is almost always better to ask an expert. You are correct about my lack of belief in EPH. I am very interested in the story and data leading to the EPH, however. The more I look the less I see and I asked the wrong question since how the data came to be is not the issue of interest to me at this point. It is the data I am ignorant of and want to know.