Discussion: New Class of Planets Found

[Fraser]

SUMMARY: Astronomers announced today that they have discovered a new class of extrasolar planets which are between 10 and 20 times the mass of the Earth - roughly the same size as Neptune. Two planets were discovered orbiting smaller stars: one around Gliese 436 and another around 55 Cancri. Both planets orbit their parent stars in about 3 days. They were discovered using the radial velocity method, which finds planets because of how they wobble their parent star. Because these planets are much smaller than Jupiter, they're probably made of rock and ice, rather than gas.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

[StarLab]

OK so since we are discovering all these incredibly different kinds of extrasolar planets...right up til now, what are all the different kinds that we have disovered so far? Anybody got a chart detailing every single kind of extrasolar planet ever found?

[om@umr.edu]

This is great news, Fraser.

However, the story starts with a questionable claim,

"Astronomers announced today the first discovery of a new class of planets beyond our solar system about 10 to 20 times the size of Earth - far smaller than any previously detected."

The planets found obriting pulsar PSR 1257+12, in 1992 and 1994, as I recall, were smaller. They were rocky, Earth-like planets. These findings were reported in Nature and in Science.

Most astronomers did not expect planets to be orbiting a pulsar, but it seems wierd to ignore observations reported over a decade ago in leading scientific journals.

I still have not found why they think the planets are made of rock and ice, without a major component of metals like the inner planets in the solar system.

I will study this report and comment in more detail.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[antoniseb]

Gliese 436 is an M3V dwarf giving off less than one percent as much light as the sun. The planet orbiting it in 2.5 days might well be close to an Earth temperature type object. It could also have kept a very substantial atmosphere, since the star wouldn't be boiling it off very rapidly.

I think this system will be worth studying in more detail.

Anybody got a chart detailing every single kind of extrasolar planet ever found?
StarLab, you might be overestimating how much we know about these planets. With very few exceptions we only know their mass and the eccentricity and size of their orbits. Nothing is known about their chemistry or surface composition [if they have a surface], or even their temperature [though that can be inferred].
Note: one eclipsing planet is leaving a big cloud of evaporating gasses, and we've looked at the spectroscopic absorbtion of the cloud.

There's less than two hundred known planets. It wouldn't take you long to just skim the list for whatever detail you wanted to characterize.

I will study this report and comment in more detail.
I look forward to reading what you have to say about this. I'd expect the planet around Gliese 436 to have some metal-bearing rocks, and possibly an Fe-Ni core, but I await your assesment of the paper.

[Guest]

great discovery :D

[John L]

Doc Oliver,

As always you throw out that reference every time a planet discovery is announced and every time I remind you that they are ignored for a reason. Those pulsar planets are orbiting a pulsar, not a main sequence star, and planets orbiting main sequence stars are all these scientists care about. And I agree with them. Planets orbiting pulsars are either remnants of the planets that orbited the star before it died, or are debris from that death that didn't get blown a few light years away. Either way they are NOT planets you, I, or any other human would or could ever visit.

Starlab,

The California and Carnegie Planet Search (http://exoplanets.org/) website maintains several graphs of the distribution of planet sizes, orbits, parent star traits, etc, based on the total population of known planets. It looks like they finally updated the website today, too, which hadn't been done in a while.

[lswinford]

I got a kick out of "it is possible they are made of rock, or rock and ice, rather than gas." Sort of an odd place for a consequentially important quantity of ice I might think.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by lswinford@Aug 31 2004, 07:00 PM
Sort of an odd place for a consequentially important quantity of ice I might think.
I thought the same thing. Maybe around the red dwarf, but even there, the planet is very massive. It is possible that there is some counter-intuitive rationale for there being ice there. The news blurb didn't mention it.

[VanderL]

From the news article


Three larger planets also revolve around the star (55 Cancri ed) every 15, 44 and 4,520 days, respectively

This shows we are able to detect Jupiter-like planets in Jupiter-like orbits and since this system is the only other system with this characteristic, this supports the idea that our planet formation theories must be revised. Apparently planets orbit close to their parent star.
I stated this in the other thread recently; our solar system is really special and the norm is that planets circle their host stars in tight orbits. If the planets formed further out and migrated inwards, what makes these planets stop from falling into their star altogether? Makes no sense, I say we need a model that starts with planets froming close to their star or being ejected from their star.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Aug 31 2004, 07:33 PM
This shows we are able to detect Jupiter-like planets in Jupiter-like orbits and since this system is the only other system with this characteristic, this supports the idea that our planet formation theories must be revised.
Hi VanderL, I noted in that thread that detecting a Jupiter like planet in a twelve year orbit takes quite a few years, where as a three-day orbit takes a few weeks. There is a bias against discovering 5AU Jupiters. 55 Cancri is simply a star we've been studying closely for longer than most. More of these 3AU-15AU planets will be discovered.

I say we need a model that starts with planets froming close to their star or being ejected from their star.
Do you mean that the planets are ejected whole from the star? Certainly one of the popular current theories is that a sizable fraction of the mass of the planets [and asteroids and comets] comes from heavy elements that are ejected from the protostar into the protoplanetary disk. The planets then form from this enriched disk.

[John L]

I've made the same point as Antoniseb several times, too. Once we get some large base line interferometry in the planet hunt we should start to see more large peroid planets. The radial velocity method is just too biased to high mass planets in tight or more eliptical orbits. It is quite possible that all of the stars that currently show no planets in the radial velocity surveys have large mass planets in Jupiter-Saturn highly circular orbits resulting in low radial velocity effects on the star. Those will require chronographs, very long base line interferometry, or some other as yet undiscovered method of detection to find them. Once we get down to seeing the actual reflected light of the planets we should be able to spot more solar system analogues.

[Tim Thompson]

I usually find the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/planets/) to be more useful & easier to navigate.

The Terrestrial Planet Finder (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_index.html) will use both a coronagraph & an interferometer to look for Earth like planets. But the mission is only in planning stage. The webpage says it will launch "before 2020", and I think that's likely; the scientists around here are pushing for a 2014 launch.

Meanwhile, the Space Interferometry Mission (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_index.html) seems on track to launch in 2009, and it will look for Earth-like planets, part time anyway.

So maybe 10 or 20 years from now we'll know if our solar system is really all that uncommon or not (I really think it's just too early to say, one way or the other). If the radial velocity gang gets its technique in gear, we may know even sooner.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by John L@Aug 31 2004, 06:51 PM
Doc Oliver,

..... Planets orbiting pulsars are either remnants of the planets that orbited the star before it died, or are debris from that death that didn't get blown a few light years away. Either way they are NOT planets you, I, or any other human would or could ever visit.

You're on one, John L.

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[Guest]

Hi Antoniseb,


Hi VanderL, I noted in that thread that detecting a Jupiter like planet in a twelve year orbit takes quite a few years, where as a three-day orbit takes a few weeks. There is a bias against discovering 5AU Jupiters. 55 Cancri is simply a star we've been studying closely for longer than most. More of these 3AU-15AU planets will be discovered.

Yep, I heard you and while it is true that there is a bias towards detecting the heavier planets and the closer-orbiting planets, there are still some very important points to make.

1. close-orbiting giants exist (extremely close) for which we have no model (they shouldn't be there and if they are, they should be vanishingly rare)

2. of all the 140 planets detected thusfar only 1 system even halfway resembles ours and even that system has extremely close-orbiting planets.

So, what model explains the close-orbiters (2.5 hours?).
Let me make a prediction here to show where it is going, we're going to find planets orbiting inside a star very soon (or maybe we already did and found a different explanation).



Do you mean that the planets are ejected whole from the star?

Yes, crazier ideas have been proposed (strings, anybody?).
As an aside, what about the inordinate number of multiple star systems, how do they come about?


Certainly one of the popular current theories is that a sizable fraction of the mass of the planets [and asteroids and comets] comes from heavy elements that are ejected from the protostar into the protoplanetary disk. The planets then form from this enriched disk.

That would still mean that they form further away from the star and migrate inwards later, which is imo energetically highly unlikely. So, new models please, I think there is enough evidence already to give other models a shot.

Cheers.

[Hermes]

Here is a link to a list of all extra-solar planets discoveredExtra-solar Planets Catalog (http://www.spaceref.com/redirect.html?id=0&url=www.obspm.fr/encycl/catalog.html)

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Guest@Aug 31 2004, 09:09 PM
That would still mean that they form further away from the star and migrate inwards later, which is imo energetically highly unlikely.

So, new models please, I think there is enough evidence already to give other models a shot.

Cheers.
Right on, Guest.

New models are definitely needed.

Many, many observations since the classical B2FH paper in 1957 are unexplained by:

[1.] The standard model for forming our planetary system, and

[2.] The standard model of the Sun.

The late Glenn Seaborg and I organized a symposium in 1999 to address some of these observations:

"The Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations"

http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-306-46562-0

Other unexplained observations have surfaced since 1999. So keep asking questions!

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[antoniseb]

Here is a link to a paper by the discovery team of the two Neptune-sized planets.
A Neptune–Mass Planet Orbiting the Nearby M Dwarf GJ 436 (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0408/0408587.pdf)
The question came up about the planet being possibly made of rocks and ice.
The article indicates that the surface temperature [barring effects from albeido of the atmosphere, greenhouse effect, etc] should be about 620K, and it could plausibly have a surface like the one Venus has. The speculation about ice is in the early part of the paper, before they start discussing temperature. I'm guessing the ice statement shouldn't be taken seriously.

[John L]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu+Aug 31 2004, 04:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (om@umr.edu @ Aug 31 2004, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-John L@Aug 31 2004, 06:51 PM
Doc Oliver,

..... Planets orbiting pulsars are either remnants of the planets that orbited the star before it died, or are debris from that death that didn&#39;t get blown a few light years away. Either way they are NOT planets you, I, or any other human would or could ever visit.

You&#39;re on one, John L.

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om [/b][/quote]
We&#39;ve had this discussion before, too. I know that&#39;s your belief and you know I disagree. Keep on digging, though. I always enjoy when a theory gets turned on its head and I&#39;ll be the first to apologize if you prove yours.

[VanderL]

Right on, Guest.

New models are definitely needed.

Hi Oliver, the guest was me of course (who else is asking for new models).

What do you think is the model to start with when we look at planetary formation?
Myself I&#39;m in favour of a model that starts with planets very close to their stars, and the only one that I know of is the "fissioning" event described by the Electric Universe people. I know this is thin ice and speculative, but this model at least explains the "star-hugging" planets. Fissioning is visible as a nova and can result in either a new star (binaries are formed this way) and/or a planet (planets).
Rocky planets from as debris when the giant planets are formed, some stay with the giant planet and end up as moons, others can find their own orbit.
This chaotic chain of events is a complete departure from the accretion/planetesimal models (some would argue it departs from more than just a model), and could give some new phenomena to observe in order to verify/falsify these claims.

Cheers.

[om@umr.edu]

Sorry I did not recognize you.

It&#39;s sad that so few are calling for new models.

Good science requires brutal self honesty, instead of misleading statements like these from a recent AP news report:

1. "The European team describes its new object as a "super-Earth" that is the smallest planet to be found outside of our solar system."

2. "This "super-Earth" appears to be orbiting between the star and a larger, previously known exoplanet, making it the first multiple planet system to be spotted beyond our own solar system."

3. "We are getting closer to finding a solar system," said Alan Boss.

Compare these AP quotes with the literature on planets:

1. This 2004 discovery is obviously NOT "the smallest planet to be found outside of our solar system." Two or more rocky Earth-like planets, more than 100 times smaller than those in this AP news item, were discovered orbiting a pulsar (a rapidly spinning, collapsed supernova core - a neutron star) over a decade ago [A. Wolszczan and D. A. Frail, Nature 355 (1992) 145-147; A. Wolszczan, Science 264 (1994) 538-542].

2. This 2004 discovery is obviously NOT "the first multiple planet system to be spotted beyond our own solar system." A. Wolszczan and D. A. Frail described in detail "the first multiple planet system to be spotted beyond our own solar system" over ten years ago in two of the world&#39;s leading scientific journals.

3. We have found a solar system. Over 40 years of careful measurements show that it formed the way Wolszczan and Frail&#39;s pulsar planetary system formed.

Primordial Helium and "strange" Xenon in the solar system came from outer supernova layers. The mass spectrometer on the Galileo probe confirmed that such material formed Jupiter.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

Elements and the isotopes of individual elements never mixed in the heterogeneous supernova debris that formed the rest of our solar system [Science 195 (1977) 208-209; Proc. Robert Welch Conference on Cosmochemistry (W. O. Mulligan, editor, 1978) pp. 263-272].

http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

Here are a few "facts" to remember in modelling how other planetary systems form:

[1.] Rocky, Earth-like planets are made mostly of elements with even atomic numbers and high nuclear stability. Elements like Si, O, Fe, Ni, S, Mg and Ca.

[2.] Elements like Si, O, Fe, Ni, S, Mg and Ca are made in the deep interior of highly evolved stars.

[3.] Gaseous, Jupiter-like planets are made mostly of light weight elements with low nuclear stability. Elements like H, He, C and N.

[4.] Light weight elements like H, He, C and N are abundant in space and on the surfaces of stars.

[5.] Do NOT assume that these two batches of elements mixed before planets form. We know they did NOT mix in the only planetary system close enough for detailed study.

[6.] Small planets like Earth do not have a gravitational field strong enough to retain H and He.

The obvious validity of [6.] does not mean that Earth obviously began as a ball of H and He&#33;

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 2 2004, 03:33 PM
misleading statements like these from a recent AP news report
I agree. The science writers for the news services don&#39;t fully understand what they report on, and often make big wrong statements. This is certainly such a case. They have a requirement to say &#39;first&#39;, &#39;newest&#39;, &#39;oldest&#39;, &#39;last&#39;, or some other alarming superlative to make the story sell. It&#39;s always best to read the original paper if you can find it.

[John L]

Doc Oliver,

Once again you are one of the few people that consider those pulsar planets as some kind of solar system, which the scientists writing up their results do not.

1. The 14 Earth Mass world the European team described is the smallest planet orbiting a normal star that has been found. And I thought Wolszczan found three planets orbiting that pulsar...

2. I never read them making any claim to the first multiple planet system. Besides your favorite pular planets, several stars - real living stars - have been identified as having mulitple planets. Upsilon Andromeda, Gleise 876, 47 Ursa Majoris, Epsilon Eridani, and a seven other unnamed HD numbered stars have been identified as having multiple planets orbiting them, and now 55 Cancri is included in that list with 4 planets.

3. When they refer to "finding a solar system" they mean one with terrestrial worlds in the zone around the star where liquid water can be stable on the planet&#39;s surface and life like ours could find a comfortable home.
Furthermore, you have no idea how Wolszczan&#39;s pulsar planets formed. You only know they are there. We only know they are there based on the effects of their orbits on the timing of the pulsar they orbit. You cannot say with any certainty that they were not the cores of former gas giants with their atmospheres blown off in the death of the original star, whether they were always terrestrial and that terrestrial world&#39;s can survive the death of the star, or whether they were, as you would like to believe, formed from the debris of the dead star.

Furthermore, how do you know what the core of Jupiter is made of? How do you know that the core of all the outer gas giants are not made of Si, O, Fe, Ni, S, Mg and Ca in quantities much large than even the Earth possesses? Perhaps Jupiter has a 14 Earth mass core with all of its heaviest elements sunk to the core, and we only see the light elements in the outer atmosphere. Explain that to me, please.

[om@umr.edu]

Please see the paper by D. N. C. Lin, S. E. Woosley & P. H. Bodenheimer,

"Formation of a planet orbiting pulsar 1829-10 from the debris of a supernova explosion" in

Nature 353 (1991) pp. 827-829.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[John L]

Originally posted by antoniseb+Sep 2 2004, 10:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Sep 2 2004, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Sep 2 2004, 03:33 PM
misleading statements like these from a recent AP news report
I agree. The science writers for the news services don&#39;t fully understand what they report on, and often make big wrong statements. This is certainly such a case. They have a requirement to say &#39;first&#39;, &#39;newest&#39;, &#39;oldest&#39;, &#39;last&#39;, or some other alarming superlative to make the story sell. It&#39;s always best to read the original paper if you can find it. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s the AP story, and they&#39;ve always been unreliable in my opinion. The story on the various pure science sites, like this one, appear to be accurate to the original scientific paper on which they were based.

[John L]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 2 2004, 11:12 AM
Please see the paper by D. N. C. Lin, S. E. Woosley & P. H. Bodenheimer,

"Formation of a planet orbiting pulsar 1829-10 from the debris of a supernova explosion" in

Nature 353 (1991) pp. 827-829.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om
Per a compilation (http://www.public.asu.edu/~sciref/exoplnt.htm#1829) of various research performed on this system, it appears that your reference is no longer valid.


Unfortunately the best laid plans of mice and men do not always come to fruition. In 1992 Lyne and Bailes (5) announced to the world that they were retracting their initial conclusion that a planet exists around PSR 1829-10. They attributed the retraction to the fact that there was an error in the pulsar&#39;s original position, thereby creating faulty results in the processing of the information. As of this writing no further information has been forthcoming on the existence of a planetary body revolving about PSR 1829-10.

Furthermore, more current research (http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/9912033) is focusing on the possible bi-polar nature of supernova explosions. The line of thinking is that supernova have a bi-polar jet mechanism, or perhaps a constraining magnetic mechanism that forces the majority of the ejected material to be sent out of the poles, with little along the equitorial plane of the star.

[Duane]

Once again I find myself forced to inject to do battle with Dr Manuels nebulous attempts to bamboozle readers with his psuedo-scientific claims and his purely circular arguments.

Dr Manuel argues that there was no mixing of elements and isotopes, then refers to his own papers to support the argument. In other words, "I concluded this, therefore I am right". This is a circular argument.

I have linked to the findings of several other researchers including those cited by Dr Manuel himself where they all (as in each and every one&#33;) conclude that the material making up various meteorites, again including those studied by Dr Manuel and his collaboraters are the result of multiple injection events from varied sources, including Type I and II supernova events (plural Dr Manuel) as well as evelope shedding by red giant stars. (Plural again Dr Manuel)

(For those interested in looking at the research I linked, please see pages 22, 23 & 24 of the Iron Sun Discussion).

I have further linked to research completed on the so-called "pulsar planets" providing at least 2 other distinct means by which such bodies could remain after a supernova explosion. It is pretty well established that the bodies did not form after the supernova event, they either are the remnants of planets that were already orbiting the progenitor, or they formed during the supernova.

Dr Manuel keeps harping on the fact that elements with even numbered atomic nuclei make up the bulk of the material of the inner planets, ignoring the fact that even numbered atomic nuclei are favoured to arise in the p-p reaction that powers our sun, and in the C-N-O process which powers larger mass stars. Simply put, odd numbered nuclei require proton capture and are therefore in much less abundance.

Do not be fooled by the psuedo-science coming from Dr Manuel. He has little fact to back up his "conclusions", he has no observational or modelling evidence to support his theory, and he cannot answer the biggest problems which confront the theory he champions.

No doubt he will now attack me instead of providing arguments to counter. After all I am one of those he says do not have the intellegence or ability to understand the conclusions of other researchers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by John L@Sep 2 2004, 04:31 PM
In 1992 Lyne and Bailes (5) announced to the world that they were retracting their initial conclusion that a planet exists around PSR 1829-10.
Ooof, here I am defending a man who has heaped insult and disrespect upon me and my friends, but PSR 1257+12 is still believed to have three small planet sized objects orbiting it closely. It may also have a body orbiting it at 40AU in a 170 year orbit.

There may also be a distant planet-sized object orbiting PSR B1620-26 at 38 AU in a 100 year orbit.

In general though I have to agree that we do not know how these planets formed. Concerning the three close ones to PSR 1257+12, I have to remind everyone that this is a millisecond pulsar with no obvious stellar companion [very rare]. I&#39;m quessing that these &#39;planets&#39; are all that remains of the star that fed material into the pulsar to spin it up.

[John L]

I only referenced that one pulsar and its putative planets because Doc Oliver used it as support for his theories in this thread. Yes, I do not dispute that there are known pulsars with confirmed planetary mass objects orbiting them. All of them, however are too far to get any other information besides their probably mass and orbit. Declaring them to be made from the supernova, and then following that statement immediately with non-specific arguements about isotopic composition could mislead a reader that he was refering to the supposed planets orbiting these pulsars. The isotopic data is for our solar system only, and I have previously questioned the interpretation of that data in this thread and the infamous Iron Sun discussion in the Alternative Theories section of this site.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by John L@Sep 2 2004, 06:35 PM
Declaring them to be made from the supernova, and then following that statement immediately with non-specific arguements about isotopic composition could mislead a reader that he was refering to the supposed planets orbiting these pulsars.
We are in complete agreement there. I also suport your effort to debunk misleading statements as they appear.

It is my hope that the Iron Sun portion of this thread will stop now, and any further Iron Sun related discussion of this topic can move down to Alternative Theories. It is a bit tangential; the actual topic is new intermediate-mass planets being discovered orbiting normal stars.

[VanderL]

Hi Duane,


Once again I find myself forced to inject to do battle with Dr Manuels nebulous attempts to bamboozle readers with his psuedo-scientific claims and his purely circular arguments.

And once again I feel obliged to respond.
I&#39;m not forcing you to do this Duane, if you are trying to protect the readers, I&#39;m not one of those readers. I say let anyone claim what he wants, argue and discuss and let people make their own judgement. Don&#39;t assume people are easily "bamboozled", most people are able to think for themselves.

I agree that the Iron Sun part is better discussed in the other thread, but I don&#39;t agree that every time Oliver has something to say all of a sudden everyone needs to jump his case.

We were discussing the discovery of new planets and it&#39;s only logical that the formation of planets (and thus solar systems) is discussed as well. If you feel the discussion goes off on a tangent, just say so. It is always possible to start a new thread from the "tangents".

Cheers.

[John L]

Originally posted by VanderL@Sep 2 2004, 03:11 PM
I agree that the Iron Sun part is better discussed in the other thread, but I don&#39;t agree that every time Oliver has something to say all of a sudden everyone needs to jump his case.
The reason Duane and I comment on the Doctor&#39;s messages is that, no matter the topic, he seems to have a habit of turning it into proof of his Iron Sun ideas, and then fills his post with further Iron Sun data. Duane and are have encountered this enough in the most unlikely threads that he, and I, feel that bamboozle is not too strong a word.

[VanderL]

Hi John L,


Duane and are have encountered this enough in the most unlikely threads that he, and I, feel that bamboozle is not too strong a word.

The bamboozle I referred to is what supposedly happens to people reading Oliver&#39;s posts, I disagree that his ideas will automatically "convert" the readers. Everyone can think for himself, I don&#39;t like being considered some sort of "hapless" audience, so just stay polite when you disagree with someone&#39;s ideas, if there are any rules being broken just PM the offender and ask him/her to change their tactics or whatever it is that has apparently "raised the hackles".
I&#39;m not on this forum to constantly see someone being attacked for his ideas, I&#39;m sure it is possible to solve those things in a more friendly fashion.


Cheers.

[Duane]

bam·boo·zle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bm-bzl)
tr.v. Informal bam·boo·zled, bam·boo·zling, bam·boo·zles
To take in by elaborate methods of deceit; hoodwink. See Synonyms at deceive.


if you are trying to protect the readers, I&#39;m not one of those readers.

I never thought you were VanderL. Nor am I "protecting" anyone. I simply will state, in those circumstances that warrent it, where Dr Manuel (or anyone else for that matter) is attempting to use an overabundance of scientific looking terms/phrases/citations/what have you to try and convince readers that a discredited theory is somehow accepted as "norm".

Most people who read these forums will not be bamboozled by Dr Manuels so-called proofs, and I do not pretend to think for anyone.

I left this thread alone until Dr Manuel began trying to turn it into some kind of support for his theory, and used information that has already been shown to be wrong as proof of that support. Until such time as Dr Manuel answers the problems that have been presented for his theory, I will continue to express the majority view that he has no grounds for making such unsupported statements in a manner that suggests they are somehow supported.


Everyone can think for himself, I don&#39;t like being considered some sort of "hapless" audience, so just stay polite when you disagree with someone&#39;s ideas, if there are any rules being broken just PM the offender and ask him/her to change their tactics or whatever it is that has apparently "raised the hackles".


I am sorry you feel that way. I was polite on the whole, and I am not particularly concerned that my first sentence sets out my view of his attempt to once again hijack a topic by repeating his (in)famous mantra.

Further, I frankly disagree with your assertation that no one will be fooled by the method being used by Dr Manuel. His credentials and his use of scientific sounding terms is intended to fool, and people without the background to critique his comments can be taken in by them. Thats how Leider, Hoagland and others survive VanderL.

[StarLab]

You know, I am neither swayed nor do I disagree with the Iron Sun Theory. I personally will not feel passionate for the results, as long as they do not spell: die, earth, die&#33; within my own lifetime. However, in regards to Oliver&#39;s knack of turning strings into quasi-Iron Sun discussions, while he may have a tendency to do so often, I agree with VanderL that most people can think for themselves, and I honestly think that his posts in this string weren&#39;t as extreme as other posts of his in other strings, and VanderL&#39;s also right in claiming that Oliver&#39;s field does apply somewhat to subjects like these. If you feel compelled to disagree with Oliver - John L and Anton and Duane - be sure not to make this an argument over the Iron Sun theory. Discussion is one thing; as I&#39;ve learned the hard way many times, arguing is quite another. Sometimes ignorance is the best policy, because ignorance, especially in this case, is bliss. As Einstein probably would have worded it: "I agree that you should disagree, but I do not agree with how you disagree."

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by StarLab@Sep 2 2004, 11:20 PM
Sometimes ignorance is the best policy, because ignorance, especially in this case, is bliss.
StarLab, If you write something that is wrong, or disagrees with well known observations, I set you straight. I do that for most people on the forum. The biggest difference with Dr. Manuel in this case is that he just keeps saying the same things over and over again. I still feel that errors he writes have to be set straight.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 2 2004, 11:51 PM
. . .* he just keeps saying the same things over and over again. I still feel that errors he writes have to be set straight.
Whatever is, is. Our differences of opinion about the Sun and the planets are clear:

[1.] I am convinced the Sun operates as a giant magnetic mass-separator and its interior is mostly Iron, just like the inner planets.

[2.] You are convinced little mass separation occurs in the Sun and its interior is mostly Hydrogen and Helium, just like its surface.

Who among us is in a position to say,

" . . . he just keeps saying the same things over and over again.
I still feel that errors he writes have to be set straight" ??

Relax, Anton. Whatever is, is. Nothing you or I do or say will change the way the Sun and its planets formed.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[StarLab]

The biggest difference with Dr. Manuel in this case is that he just keeps saying the same things over and over again. On that note, yes, I agree with you. ;)
But, as I pointed out and I will maintain this point, please do not turn this string into an all-out argument. We&#39;ve had enough Iron Sun arguments before already. The same goes for Dr. Manuel. We&#39;ve had enough argument. You wanna argue, do it somewhere else. Not on this string. :angry: :rolleyes: :unsure: :( <_< -_- :mellow:

[Duane]

Relax, Anton. Whatever is, is. Nothing you or I do or say will change the way the Sun and its planets formed.


Very true. You have looked closely at meteorites and concluded they show no evidence of mixing or multiple injection events. You have been shown the results of several studies where the conclusions reached are exactly the opposite.

Your explanation of your conclusions is based on older studies. Newer studies suggest your findings may have been in error.

Whatever is, is. Either there is evidence of mixing and multiple events, or there is not. The majority say that there is. Their evidence seems pretty convincing and conclusive. Ignoring that evidence does not change what is.

[Algenon the mouse]

I think the fact that we have discovered several different planets is an exciting one. Our knowledge about the universe is growing and changing everyday. Even if we do not find a earth type planet like they seem to do on every episode of Star Trek, it is still fasinating. Does anyone know if a certain Star system is going to be targeted next for observation? ( If someone has mention this before, I am sorry, I got lost in the iron sun discussion).

[zephyr46]

Extrasolar Visions (http://www.extrasolar.net/mainframes.html), the comparisons page.

:D Ha, you guys are funny.

Can anyone please explain to me what a supercomet is?

By description, it is a planet with a highly eliptic and or eccentric orbit that leaves a tail.

The special on Saturn last night (ABC Australia) desribed Saturn as having no surface, just liquid gas.

Can anyone explain that, two states of matter?

It sounds like a shonky model that needs some trimming.

Assuming that massive pressure can ultimately compact gasses to liquids, the alternative to Olivers model according to current descriptions is solid liquid gas, correct me if I am wrong.

Oliver, I haven&#39;t read the whole of your Iron sun debate, but does the weight of the sun (keps 3rd) back your model?

Anyways, neptune and smaller, hear we go, and James Webb and Kepler haven&#39;t even been launched yet, plus a Seti signal to boot active missions on Mars and Saturn with Hygens to come&#33; Thats a pretty grand and busy couple of months we are going through, great time to have an interest in Astronomy&#33; :)

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by zephyr46@Sep 3 2004, 03:45 AM
Oliver, I haven&#39;t read the whole of your Iron sun debate, but does the weight of the sun back your model?

Let&#39;s try to keep this discussion focused on planets.

[The weight of the Sun neither supports or contradicts either model of the Sun.]

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[alfchemist]

You&#39;re right, Zephyr46&#33; They are funny. :-) But it is wise to correct someone when it is needed. I just hope that the discussion on this thread would go back to what really matters in practical terms as far as the topic is concerned. There&#39;s one raised and is about the model for the formation of solar system and the other is
the probability of earth-like planets (not just the size,temp but other factors that are favorable for life to exist as well). Though the two are very much related, I&#39;m more excited with the latter and I hope this thread would go into that. Don&#39;t know about supercomets. Never heard that before. As for the states of matter, reporters and story writers are usually nontechnical people so they mix words and come up with something misinterpreted. Anyway, I think, what they meant by liquid gas is that those substances that exist under normal condition as gas exist as liquid there in saturn. I would not dare discuss the core (if there is) of saturn but considering gas giants in our solar system, they&#39;re too far from the sun (cold temp) and there&#39;s tremendous atmospheric pressure, it would not be surprising for the gases to liquify in the inner atmosphere of saturn. This is not to support the claim that there is no surface on saturn. I&#39;m just talking about the inner atmosphere.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by alfchemist@Sep 3 2004, 08:47 AM
I just hope that the discussion on this thread would go back to what really matters in practical terms as far as the topic is concerned. . .

about the model for the formation of solar system and

the probability of earth-like planets . . .
I agree, alfchemist, that those are the two most interesting issues.

Nuclear studies show they are closely related:

[1.] A supernova explosion occurred 5 billion years ago at the birth of the solar system.

[2.] Products of that supernova did not completely mix.

[3.] Rocky, Earth-like planets consist mostly of elements from the deep interior of the supernova.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - New insight into the Sun&#39;s magnetic fields may shed light on these two "planetary" issues:
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...t=ST&f=2&t=4459 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=4459)

[Duane]

As usual Oliver twists his words to make it sound accepted.

1) There is evidence of multiple events enriching the solar nebulae before, during and after the formation of the sun and it&#39;s planets.

2) Detailed examinations of meteorites suggest the solar nebulae was well mixed with inclusions from Type I and II supernovas along with atmospheric shedding by red giant stars.

3) Material making up rocky Earth-type planets likely arose in the heart of massive supernova explosions.

The ideas surrounding the formation of planets have been turned on their head with the findings that have arisen through Hubble, Chandra, Sptizer and other observatories. While our understanding is far from complete, it seems fairly certain that planets evolve around many stars and in ways that result in very large planets being in a tight orbit around their star.

I don;t believe such planets arise by their stars somehow "ejecting" them, nor do I believe the Electric Universe explanation. To me, it seems a simpler explanation would suffice--such as loss of angular momentum through drag, or interactions between planets sending some into a tight orbit while ejecting others altogeather.

One of the recent theories about Sedna suggests it may have been captured in the suns gravity well after a close encounter with another star.

I love the excitement of discovery&#33; Soon we will begin to see many new worlds, and this will no doubt hold surprises we can&#39;t yet imagine.

[alfchemist]

I remember this scientific principle cited in the movie " Contact" which goes like " the simplest explanation is the most probably." Unless contradicted with evidence or experimental data, I&#39;d like to agree with you Duane that a simple explanation would suffice.

[alfchemist]

ooops&#33; that&#39;s "...probable." typo :D

[om@umr.edu]

I agree, Alfchemist,

"The simplest explanation is the most probable."

In the most simple terms, the observations are:

[1.] A supernova exploded 5 billion years ago at the birth of the solar system.

[2.] Different regions of the supernova (SN) did not completely mix.

[3.] Elements from the SN&#39;s interior made the rocky, Earth-like planets.

[4.] Elements from the outer SN layers made the giant Jovian planets.

We can each imagine any scenario we like between the supernova and the formation of our planetary system.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[StarLab]

Do youm mention the SN in any of you theses on your website, Oliver?

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by StarLab@Sep 6 2004, 03:45 PM
Do you mention the SN in any of the theses on your website, Oliver?
Only in those after 1972, the year we reported two types of Xenon trapped in meteorites Nature 240 (1972) pages 99-101:

Xe-1 = "Normal" Xe is in the Sun, the inner planets, and Fe,S-rich inclusions of meteorites.

Xe-2 = "Strange" Xe is with primordial He in Jupiter and carbon-rich inclusions of meteorites.

Our 1972 paper was discussed in a 15 Dec 1972 news report in Nature 240 (1972) pages 378-379.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[VanderL]

While our understanding is far from complete, it seems fairly certain that planets evolve around many stars and in ways that result in very large planets being in a tight orbit around their star.

I think this is the heart of the matter, as I said earlier, current theory doesn&#39;t allow for planets to be formed in close orbits. They form further out (even how do they form is still a big mystery) and migrate inwards. That is a big problem, how can planets move inwards and if they do, why do they stop this movement.
That&#39;s why I think ejection is an alternative.


I don;t believe such planets arise by their stars somehow "ejecting" them, nor do I believe the Electric Universe explanation. To me, it seems a simpler explanation would suffice--such as loss of angular momentum through drag, or interactions between planets sending some into a tight orbit while ejecting others altogeather.

I don&#39;t think the nebula theory is simple, and you&#39;re absolutely right that interactions between planets can have large effects the planetary systems. But it doesn&#39;t make any sense that the big ones end up close to the parent star.

If anything, the "ejection" idea is simpler because there is only one process in action (and don&#39;t forget it explains binary stars as well).

Cheers.

[Guest]

the picture of an alien planet

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plan...oto_040910.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planet_photo_040910.html)