Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
This topic is about
Bitch Planet #9
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS
>
ASTRONOMY: Planet Nine - is there an extra planet in our solar system? Will a habitable "2nd Earth" planet ever be found? (Oh, and while we are at it, why is Pluto no longer considered a planet??)
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
James, Group Founder
(new)
Jul 03, 2017 04:53AM
Don't worry, Pete, I for one get a kick out of you ;)
reply
|
flag
Planet Nine https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2...Investigative reporter Linda Moulton Howe discussed 'Planet Nine,' climate change, strange fogs or ectoplasm, and an unexplained sighting. The first week of October brought new headlines about the hypothetical Planet Nine and its connection to a newfound dwarf planet nicknamed "Goblin" located in the Kuiper Belt surrounding our solar system. Linda interviewed astronomer Michael Brown, Ph.D. at USC in California, who suggested that Planet Nine could be 20 times further out than Neptune, and similar in size to that gaseous planet. This planetary body that some have referred to as Planet X is not the same as 'Nibiru' that Zecharia Sitchin and others have reported, which Brown doubts even exists. "If it (Nibiru) were really coming, it would be so bright that you could see it with binoculars...We wouldn’t be able to have a NASA conspiracy keeping it secret, and it would have been visible to every backyard astronomer."
OCTOBER 25, 2018 BY Linda Moulton HoweMore Evidence That Planet 9X — At Least Seven Times Earth’s Mass — Is Hidden in Kuiper Belt! https://www.earthfiles.com/2018/10/25...
“It’s seven times the mass of our planet and it’s 500 times further away from the sun than Earth.” – Michael Brown, Ph.D., Astronomer, Cal Tech, Pasadena, California
I am far from convinced a massive planet could have such an elliptical orbit. The dwarf planets like Eris can, through gravitational interactions with something else because, well, they are dwarfs. There is a family of Kuiper Belt objects called "hot" because they have rather elliptical orbits, presumably through a gravitational resonance with Neptune, and Eris could do the same. But planets all seem to start off with circular orbits. If some gravitational interaction makes makes the orbit of one highly elliptical, whatever causes it has an equal and opposite interaction. Now Eris and a few others could get a highly elliptical orbit from Neptune and because they are small and Neptune is huge it may not make much difference, and if there are several of them, Neptune's minor effects will cancel. So the question then is, if there is a big planet at 500 AU, and it has a highly elliptical orbit, what made that elliptical? I am doubtful on this one.
An Earth-size planet in the habitable zone? New NASA discovery is one special world. https://www.space.com/nasa-tess-exopl...HONOLULU — When scientists search for alien planets, they get a special thrill when they find one that seems to reflect our own world back to us.
TOI 700 d is the newest member of that elite club. The planet was discovered courtesy of NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, or TESS, as one of three worlds in a distant solar system. Unlike its neighbors — and the vast majority of planets scientists have identified so far — it seems to be about the same size as Earth and to orbit its star at a distance that would allow water to remain liquid on its surface. The discovery was announced here on Jan. 6 at the 235th meeting of the American Astronomical Society.
As an Earth-size planet in its star's habitable zone, TOI 700 d is a big deal for scientists. "We really want to understand the question, could life form on these planets around very small stars? And this is kind of a nice big step towards that goal," Joseph Rodriguez, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts, told Space.com. "We're nowhere near it yet and we're talking, probably, decades, if not much, much longer to answer this question. but we're making steps towards arguably one of the biggest questions in science — and not just science but philosophy, religion and a lot of other things."
James wrote: "An Earth-size planet in the habitable zone? New NASA discovery is one special world. https://www.space.com/nasa-tess-exopl...HONOLULU — When scientists se..."
Needless to say, your local heretic disagrees with the possibility of it being an Earth equivalent. If you follow the arguments of my ebook, "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis" they may have found a waterworld. The argument comes from the fact that the rocks that made up Earth had to be strongly heat-processed during star formation to get our continents, and, for that matter, to get our atmosphere. The temperature profile of an average red dwarf during that period has that temperature very close to the star (because the star is so small). The habitable zone is somewhat further out, mainly because the star is not a point, and the luminosity function differs from the initial heating. In my opinion, it would have formed with a lot of ice, which would now melt. Of course it may not be average, but the two planets around Kapteyn's star (another red dwarf) are exactly where I predicted two ice planets to be (except the ice will have melted).
Wouldn't a waterworld still be habitable tho, Ian?And couldn't land be created much like islands are artificially created in the UAE?
And if the planet is icy, well humans have shown we are masters of heating things up...
The problem with a water world is not that life in theory could not exist, but rather that it can't get started. Reproduction needs phosphate esters, and they need phosphate, but phosphates in the sea are usually washed down from the land as otherwise they sink to the bottom, Also, the life needs cell walls to get started, and that needs a rocky planet. By a waterworld, I mean it is at least half water, not just a big sea.
Oh okay, I get it nowSounds like NASA need to keep looking for the needle in the haystack then!
I predict they will occur in a little less than 10 % of G type stars, which are about 1% of stars. Some heavy K stars would add some more.
So the focus is more on certain stars rather than planets?Why's that?
You need the right sort of star to sustain Earth-like life?
First, it is my view on where the focus should be. The reason is that to get a rocky planet, the dust has to be heat processed during the high temperature stage when the star is forming, and that depends on the heat released as the dust falls down the gravitational field, and the rate it falls. Then to get water on it, it has to be at the right temperature after the star has formed but the disk is still there, and that depends partly on the heat given off by the star, which is still dependent on gravity because the nuclear fusion has yet to start, or at least its effects reach the surface. Finally, you want it in the habitable zone, which depends on the star when fusion starts. These three different stages have to have all three temperatures more or less right, and they each depend differently on the star mass, so to get everything right, you need the right sort of star.Most will not agree with that, and think it will be rocky if it is about the same size as Earth and inside any giants. However, we have found some in what are thought to be the rocky zone that have a density more like water, so they can't be. I should add that there will be exceptions to the above - I am just saying what I think is the most probable.
Planets generally form with everything already on them, but it needs to go through a process of differentiation over millions of years to get to a relatively stable, final stage. Then, additional elements can be added by cometary and asteroidal impacts. Extra minerals can even be deposited. Depending on where it is near the star the water can even evaporate, as what could have happened with Venus and Mars. There are plenty of icy worlds in this solar system as moons, some with water.
Mark wrote: "Planets generally form with everything already on them, but it needs to go through a process of differentiation over millions of years to get to a relatively stable, final stage. Then, additional e..."What is on a planet is essentially what it accreted to start with, and as you say, since this was all mixed up, it started to separate out. Isotope evidence is fairly clear that asteroids and comets added only minor amounts of anything. The evidence is that Mars only lost about 80% of its atmosphere, which may seem a lot until you realise that as far as nitrogen goes the remaining 20% is so small it could never have had much. My personal view is most of what little atmosphere it ever had is actually buried.
The period of accretion then differentiation takes millions of years to begin with. Demarcating when it begins and ends requires more precise detail if you want to consider them separate things. Comets especially can add ice and water to craters as evidenced by the different moons of this solar system. The craters we see are only the latest ones long after the planet stopped moving on the surface and core. Of course, Mars maybe had an atmosphere for 1%-10% of its existence. It wasn’t distance to the sun that evaporated the water, as UV radiation does that over a period anyway. Mars has a different gravitational constant than earth, one that’s too small to hold onto air like the moon. It has a 6th of its gravity. For life of our kind, the atmosphere needs trace amounts of noble gases as well. Mars is incredibly windy so its water evaporated and/or went to space by surpassing the escape velocity faster than average.
Actually, most of its water is underground. Radar has found huge sheets of ice kilometers thick underneath areas where there was supposed to be a sea. The cause of craters is rather interesting because there are isotope variabilities depending on the distance from the star. The rocks from the Moon show no sign of any difference from Earth, which also is uniform, including from mantle rocks. The weakness of this argument is that the Moon landings were chosen for mission safety, and the sites were actually very atypical, but most were similar to each other. Finally, only one mission had a geologist, so the rest were just random rocks collected by people who would not recognize something important.he evidence for atmospheric pressure and water flowing on Mars was that it was intermittent, but no spot ran for much more than 100,000 yrs continuously. If anyone wants to see the scientific referecnes to back up these statements, they are listed in my ebook "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis". (over 600 papers referenced and reviewed.)
