- Thank you received: 0
The God-Did-It Theory (was ... 10th Planet)
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
19 years 3 months ago #13493
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />Would it be possible for brown dwarfs to form by fission from a protostar, as planets do?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Possible perhaps, but it doesn't seem likely. Fission normally sheds relatively small masses. For example, all the Sun's original planets are between 10^-3 and 10^-6 of the Sun's mass, and all the natural satellites of the gas giant planets are in the range of 10^-4 to 10^-5 of their parent's mass. So to get a brown dwarf by fission, it appears one would have to start with a supergiant star near the upper limit of what conventional theory allows for mass. -|Tom|-
<br />Would it be possible for brown dwarfs to form by fission from a protostar, as planets do?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Possible perhaps, but it doesn't seem likely. Fission normally sheds relatively small masses. For example, all the Sun's original planets are between 10^-3 and 10^-6 of the Sun's mass, and all the natural satellites of the gas giant planets are in the range of 10^-4 to 10^-5 of their parent's mass. So to get a brown dwarf by fission, it appears one would have to start with a supergiant star near the upper limit of what conventional theory allows for mass. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 3 months ago #14236
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />If a star with a radius similar to Sol's present radius were to be fed mass till it reached over spin and shed some mass, that mass would initially orbit quite close (within one or two radii ?) to Sol's surface. How far could tidal forces move such a mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tidal forces are proportional to roughly the seventh power of the ratio of the star's radius to the planet's distance. For the Earth-Sun system today, that ratio is about 10^-12, and tidal forces are undetectably negligible. However, shortly after fission, that ratio could be much closer to unity and tidal forces could be huge. We have these steps:
* the new planet raises a mass bulge on the star
* the star's faster rotation carries the mass bulge ahead of the planet
* the mass bulge pulls the planet forward, increasing the planet's angular momentum
* the planet is forced into a more distant orbit
This process continues until tidal forces become negligible,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It makes more sense that as the planets spin off they stay fairly close to their original distance from the center of the collapsing mass. The central mass then continues to shrink, spins up again and throws off another blob or two, and so on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">While shrinkage of the star is a big factor in the process, it cannot cause the orbits of a twin pair of fissioned planets to separate from one another. So soon after fission, tidal forces must be expanding the orbits, with the more massive planet raising the larger mass bulge and therefore evolving outward faster.
Shrinkage of the primary is more important for forming satellites. In that case, the fissioned parent planet rotates slower than the moons, so tidal forces operate to lower the orbits, and the larger-mass moon takes the inner position. Shrinkage of the planet is vital to keeping the moons outside the Roche limit.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Has anyone done simulations on this to explore the limits of what is possible? Would the dynamics of a 1000 or 2000 AU proto star be similar to the dynamics of a 50 or 100 AU proto star? (Would a large object like this still only throw off two masses?) Or would the proto star have to go below 50 AU to begin acting like your animation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The lack of realistic simulations is what led to my comment about what might be possible. If a proto-star is 50 AU in radius, it has a volume big enough to hold all 200 billion stars in the Galaxy. So the outer layers must be very low density, and there is obvious room for numerous loose, huge mass agglomerations to form. In a sense, this thin rotating disk is not unlike the primeval nebula invoked in conventional models. But instead of proro-planets forming anywhere in the nebula, fission theory shows that only those on the periphery can fission. -|Tom|-
<br />If a star with a radius similar to Sol's present radius were to be fed mass till it reached over spin and shed some mass, that mass would initially orbit quite close (within one or two radii ?) to Sol's surface. How far could tidal forces move such a mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tidal forces are proportional to roughly the seventh power of the ratio of the star's radius to the planet's distance. For the Earth-Sun system today, that ratio is about 10^-12, and tidal forces are undetectably negligible. However, shortly after fission, that ratio could be much closer to unity and tidal forces could be huge. We have these steps:
* the new planet raises a mass bulge on the star
* the star's faster rotation carries the mass bulge ahead of the planet
* the mass bulge pulls the planet forward, increasing the planet's angular momentum
* the planet is forced into a more distant orbit
This process continues until tidal forces become negligible,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It makes more sense that as the planets spin off they stay fairly close to their original distance from the center of the collapsing mass. The central mass then continues to shrink, spins up again and throws off another blob or two, and so on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">While shrinkage of the star is a big factor in the process, it cannot cause the orbits of a twin pair of fissioned planets to separate from one another. So soon after fission, tidal forces must be expanding the orbits, with the more massive planet raising the larger mass bulge and therefore evolving outward faster.
Shrinkage of the primary is more important for forming satellites. In that case, the fissioned parent planet rotates slower than the moons, so tidal forces operate to lower the orbits, and the larger-mass moon takes the inner position. Shrinkage of the planet is vital to keeping the moons outside the Roche limit.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Has anyone done simulations on this to explore the limits of what is possible? Would the dynamics of a 1000 or 2000 AU proto star be similar to the dynamics of a 50 or 100 AU proto star? (Would a large object like this still only throw off two masses?) Or would the proto star have to go below 50 AU to begin acting like your animation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The lack of realistic simulations is what led to my comment about what might be possible. If a proto-star is 50 AU in radius, it has a volume big enough to hold all 200 billion stars in the Galaxy. So the outer layers must be very low density, and there is obvious room for numerous loose, huge mass agglomerations to form. In a sense, this thin rotating disk is not unlike the primeval nebula invoked in conventional models. But instead of proro-planets forming anywhere in the nebula, fission theory shows that only those on the periphery can fission. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 3 months ago #13515
by Unworthy1
Replied by Unworthy1 on topic Reply from Chris Gallant
"Possible perhaps, but it doesn't seem likely. Fission normally sheds relatively small masses. For example, all the Sun's original planets are between 10^-3 and 10^-6 of the Sun's mass, and all the natural satellites of the gas giant planets are in the range of 10^-4 to 10^-5 of their parent's mass. So to get a brown dwarf by fission, it appears one would have to start with a supergiant star near the upper limit of what conventional theory allows for mass. -"|Tom|-
This site never ceases to amuse me. To think that people really believe that the planets were spun off from the sun, despite the differing make-ups, orbital directions and inclinations, etc... Why are all the planets so incredibly different if they had the same "parent"? Your theories defy logic, but never fail to entertain...
This site never ceases to amuse me. To think that people really believe that the planets were spun off from the sun, despite the differing make-ups, orbital directions and inclinations, etc... Why are all the planets so incredibly different if they had the same "parent"? Your theories defy logic, but never fail to entertain...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 3 months ago #13562
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />Why are all the planets so incredibly different if they had the same "parent"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of the earliest and most remarkable facts discovered about the planets is that they all apparently had exactly solar composition. And that is true of all models for solar system formation. Where would they get the raw materials, if not from the same cloud of gas and dust that formed the Sun?
The two reasons for the apparent compositional differences are:
(1) Light, volatile elements such as hydrogen and helium have molecular speeds higher than escape velocity from small planets such as the inner four, so those light gases mostly escaped into space.
(2) Before a planet solidifies, a process called "chemical differentiation" causes heavy elements such as iron and uranium to sink to the core, and light elements to rise to the surface. -|Tom|-
<br />Why are all the planets so incredibly different if they had the same "parent"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of the earliest and most remarkable facts discovered about the planets is that they all apparently had exactly solar composition. And that is true of all models for solar system formation. Where would they get the raw materials, if not from the same cloud of gas and dust that formed the Sun?
The two reasons for the apparent compositional differences are:
(1) Light, volatile elements such as hydrogen and helium have molecular speeds higher than escape velocity from small planets such as the inner four, so those light gases mostly escaped into space.
(2) Before a planet solidifies, a process called "chemical differentiation" causes heavy elements such as iron and uranium to sink to the core, and light elements to rise to the surface. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 3 months ago #13519
by nemesis
Replied by nemesis on topic Reply from
The question for Unworthy1 should be, what is his model of the formation of the planets, and what evidence can he cite FOR it?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 3 months ago #13563
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />The question for Unworthy1 should be, what is his model of the formation of the planets, and what evidence can he cite FOR it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I fear he has been taught (falsely) by believers that science has no good answers to such questions, which favors the "God did it" theory. -|Tom|-
<br />The question for Unworthy1 should be, what is his model of the formation of the planets, and what evidence can he cite FOR it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I fear he has been taught (falsely) by believers that science has no good answers to such questions, which favors the "God did it" theory. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.365 seconds