Hot Jupiters

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />I was wondering what Dr van Flandern was thinking about all these "hot jupiters" that are so close to their parent stars? How could it be explained better how these planets came to be so close to their stars and how do they survive for long periods in such orbits?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Both origin and survival are a problem for the mainstream "primeval nebula" hypothesis. But the Meta Science version is quite different: the fission theory.

With fission, as stars accrete, they contract, which causes spin-up. Eventually, the star reaches overspin, with centrifugal force exceeding gravity. When that happens, the bulges on either side of the spinning star break off and form planets in twin pairs. (The same mechanism applies to planets forming moons.) See details at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/origins/...nal-solar-system.asp

With this scenario, the most common type of planet will be "hot Jupiters", and tidal evolution will carry these from very close to the star outward to more distant orbits. What we described in our 1997 paper is now seen to be in good accord with observations that are puzzling to the mainstream models.

But that situation is nothing new for Meta Science. [] -|Tom|-

Would our gas giants have formed in this way? If so, how could the tidal evolutions that carried them to their present orbits not have swept up the terrestrial planets on the way?

(The kind of questions I think up when I haven't slept in two days, I had a terrible cold)


Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Would our gas giants have formed in this way? If so, how could the tidal evolutions that carried them to their present orbits not have swept up the terrestrial planets on the way?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, fission is a general formation process. But this kind of fission occurred when the Sun was still in its "T-Tauri" stage, a gas cloud with a radius perhaps as large as 30-50 au initially. As more gas falls into this proto-Sun, it collapses somewhat from self-gravity, which causes it to spin up. And it doesn't take much spin for a cohesive body that large to have its outer layers moving faster than gravity can control, resulting in a fission.

So the Sun collapses, starting from huge size and tenuous density, down to its present diameter and present compactness. And the planets are formed from the outermost first to the innermost last as the Sun continues to collapse from gravity. When these planets first fission, tidal forces are huge and drive the larger of each twin pair of fissioned planets outward faster. Tidal forces are important because they depend on the ratio of Sun radius over planet distance to the 7th power, and that ratio is always near unity soon after a fission event, but eventually becomes insignificant as the Sun collapses and planets evolve outward.

All fissioned planets are initially gas giants, having the same composition as the Sun, mostly hydrogen and helium. If the total mass is large, the protoplanets retain most of that mass and composition and collapse gradually as they cool, occasionally shedding moons by fission. But if the initial planet mass is small enough that the overall gravity is weak, then hydrogen and helium (with the highest molecular speeds) escape into space and dissipate, leaving behind a planet with much less mass and only heavier elements. That eventually becomes a terrestrial planet. -|Tom|-

Would the gas planets undergo nuclear fusion then? If not, what even allowed for the creation of the atoms beyond iron? Some supernova event would have had to precede our star system to allow for the presence of gold, lead, etc. Even if say the earth is the core of a previous gas giant formed in this fashion, what residual nuclear processes could take be taking place in the core? Are these processes then responsible for EPH?

Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Would the gas planets undergo nuclear fusion then?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would think not.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If not, what even allowed for the creation of the atoms beyond iron? Some supernova event would have had to precede our star system to allow for the presence of gold, lead, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right. That much is in the standard model. Each generation of stars enriches the interstellar medium with heavier elements from which future generations are made.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even if say the earth is the core of a previous gas giant formed in this fashion...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Earth and all major planets have solar composition, less the light elements whose mean molecular speeds exceed escape velocity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...what residual nuclear processes could be taking place in the core? Are these processes then responsible for EPH?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Earth's small excess heat is presumed to be generated by radioactivity in the core. MM says that radioactivity is powered by graviton momentum deposits. But most of this goes harmlessly into heating elysium which soon mixes with the background medium. To get an EPH event, one must interfere with the normal thermal equilibrium. For example, if a change of state were to cause a sudden collapse, that might increase matter densities in the core so high that they trap heat by preventing elysium flow. If that happened, the planet would explode within a fraction of a millisecond. -|Tom|-

TVF, You posted above that molecules of hydrogen have a molecular speed that exceeds the excape velocity on Earth. How do you determine this? The molecular speed must be something other than molcular thermal speed.Thermal speed is less than excape velocity.