On Aug 10, 11:57 am, malibu wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:05 pm, BradGuth wrote:





Venus has been getting rid of roughly 20.5 w/m2, and otherwise from
our best available terrestrial science is suggesting that's roughly
256 fold greater than the core heat loss of Earth. Therefore, Venus
is a relatively newish planet, whereas Mars is more than likely older
than Earth, and our salty old moon that's nearly if not solid to its
low density core is simply not even made of Earth. Go figure.

Not all planets or moons are those formulated from our initial solar
system, whereas interstellar migrations have taken place. As the
following author Darrell Lakin would say "There is room for influences
here not yet understood", but lo and behold we do have sufficient
supercomputers and of their 3D fully interactive orbital simulators
that'll go a great way towards proving out or disqualifying most any
theory. Too bad such nifty applied technology as orbital software and
those of our very best talents are not being allowed anywhere near
such supercomputers (most of which having been 100% directly public
funded and/or at the very least more than half public funded).

On Aug 9, 5:19 pm, Darrell Lakin wrote:

All the outer planets radiate much more heat than they receive in
energy from the sun. All that is except Uranus which radiates
negligable energy not received from the sun. Theories try to explain
this but nothing so far has been put forward that can be proven or
for that matter even sounds plausible. This is a major problem in
explaining the formation of the planets, along with the current
opinion that Uranus and Neptune could not have been formed out of
primordial material at their current distances. But what if the
explanation is much more simple? Consider 8 iron balls taken out of
an oven in your kitchen. They will cool at a rate consistent with
their mass and material. Those with similiar mass and material will
be at about the same temperature at the same time, say, a couple
hours from now. Jupiter Saturn and Neptune all radiate between 2 and
2-1/2 times the energy they receive. Why is one planet, Uranus, so
different?

Lots of people have tried to explain this with sophisticated ideas
like helium rain, or metallic hydrogen, or a solid diamond planet
core and even the collision of an earth sized "dwarf-ice-planet"
with Neptune. But what if the answer is much simpler? What if Uranus
is colder because its much older than the other planets? Remember
the iron balls from the kitchen, or if you prefer, fresh baked
cookies from the oven? And then, lets say, you came across one cookie
that was cold? Lets say then that your grandmother looked at you and
pointed out that obviously it MUST have been made earlier? She may
have even chided you about not having seen it before, on your own? We
have planets in the much belabored "ecliptic" however these angles
are not precise and have not been adequately explained when compared
with the asteroid belt versus the spherical nature of the Ort Cloud
and the wild angles of observed objects in the Kuiper Belt. There is
room for influences here not yet understood.

What if?

Darrell Lakin
3174 South Shore Drive
Smithfield, VA 23430

According to Yiddish faith-based physics, such as whatever works on
behalf of their terrestrial physics apparently doesn't apply off-
world.

What if, indeed, if not why the hell not take a darn good simulation
look-see at whatever's technically possible?
- Brad Guth

Why couldn't the Sun periodically throw
off enough plasma to start a new planet, and
(crazy, crazy thought) maybe the interstellar wind
blows not only ions outward from the Sun at 20,000 km/hr
but also blows planets outward from the Sun at .00002 mm/hr?

Why are you folks suggesting all or nothing?

I'm just giving credit wherever credit is due, thus not excluding the
cosmic influs of other planets or proto-moon that contributed to some
of what was already here to begion with.

If a given star such as Sirius B (originally 5+ solar mass) is going
red giant postal, as having been the case, as such it's pushing local
stuff away at a much greater potential than .00002 mm/hr. (I'd say
capable of accomplishing several meters/sec, as well as added to
whatever existing orbital velocity, and only much faster yet if our
solar system was cruising nearby)


Then all you need is an incoming gravitational/inertial *energy*
to provide steady energy to the planet as well as creating it's
gravity,
and all planets start small and gradually grow larger as they
migrate outwards, and periodically new planets are created as bigger
or smaller 'seeds' that usually rotate one way when thrown off,
but occasionally are given off with opposite rotation, depending on
the
nature of the "Sun storm" that produces them. Hmm, I wonder when
the next planet gets born? A person might not want to be on the side
of Earth facing the Sun.
:-)
Interstellar migration of a planet? Not too likely.

There, all that **** explained- let's move on.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom-

Instead of our having to stick with your silly Yiddish status quo, let
us max out a few of our public paid for supercomputer CPUs, in
accomplishing fully interactive 3D orbital simulations. What do we
have to lose? (if not everything to gain)
- Brad Guth