Planetary Heat Losses / Brad Guth

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

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?

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

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

If we had established the moon's L1 as having accommodated our science
instrument platform as of 4 decades ago, at roughly 1% the investment
of those hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo missions, as such long before now
we'd have the actual heat loss of our own planet and that of our
nearby mascon moon nailed.

As it stands, we don't even have either geothermal worth of
planetology seience on behalf of Earth or that of very our moon to
work with. Isn't that rather pathetic, or what?

Worse yet, we don't own or even so much as dominate our moon's L1.
What are we waiting for? (think China or perhaps India)
- Brad Guth

Supposedly by some physics estimate of the Mars core still offers
1727°C, although there's no apparent surface measurement of such an
extent of geothermal energy leaving Mars at any great pace (perhaps
less than one mw/m2), so if its core is actually that hot it must be
extremely well insulated.

"The martian geothermal heat flux (q) has never been measured"
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2006/4...IC-0648-SE.pdf
Most if not all of the geothermal heat flux figures for Mars are those
of SWAG estimates via remote science and applied physics math, as
providing perfectly valid conjectures based upon Mars being
essentially the same age as Earth and of X average density, of which
may or may not be the case. Of course the geothermal heat flux of our
moon hasn't been directly measured either, so what's the difference.

Who would be all that surprised if Mars were old enough and thus
becoming ice to the core?
- Brad Guth

Venus new, Earth so so and Mars as old or older than our moon:
Supposedly by some mainstream accepted physics estimate of the Mars
core still offers 1727°C according to "Fei and Bertka, Science; 2005",
although there's still no apparent surface measurement of what such an
extent or cache of geothermal energy could be leaving Mars at any
great pace (perhaps it's less than one mw/m2), so if its core is
actually that hot it must be extremely well insulated.

"The martian geothermal heat flux (q) has never been measured"
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2006/4...IC-0648-SE.pdf
Most if not all of the geothermal heat flux figures for Mars are those
of SWAG estimates via remote science and a good portion of applied
physics math, as providing perfectly valid conjectures based upon Mars
being essentially the same age as Earth and of whatever X average
density, of which may or may not be the case. Of course the
geothermal heat flux of our moon hasn't been directly measured either,
and we haven't even figured out how to establish a viable science
platform of instruments situated within the moon's L1, So what's the
difference, when we can't even via remote science compare the heat
flux of Earth to that of our own moon?

Who would be all that surprised if Mars were old enough and thus
becoming ice to the core?

What if our salty old moon, as having been a once upon a time icy
proto-moon, as coming in from or simply as having passed through our
icy Oort zone, would actually be somewhat newer or older than Earth,
especially skewed if having once been owned by Venus and each of those
orbs as having been ejected by the Sirius B red giant phase.

Perhaps orphan or foreign exchange planets and proto-moons are not all
that unlikely, especially if our solar system were cruising nearby
enough and at just the right time when half a binary had been going
red giant.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 10, 1:05 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,

That does not follow at all.

1. Solar radiation is the primary influx of heat for both and that
heat flux is much larger than core heat flux so measurement error of
heat loss is a major issue.

2. Even if we presume that they were formed at the same time and had
the same composition of all elements and isotopes (so radio active
decay is the same), Venus will lose heat much more slowly due to
greenhouse gas effects. So if the earth was losing heat at a much
faster rate earlier, then the current rate might well be much lower.

3. Venus is closer in to the sun and will get both more solar heat
flux AND more energy from impacts as it is much further down the
energy hill toward the sun, so it will get hit more often and harder
by asteroids and comets.






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

On Aug 12, 9:34 pm, Alfred Montestruc wrote:
On Aug 10, 1:05 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,

That does not follow at all.

1. Solar radiation is the primary influx of heat for both and that
heat flux is much larger than core heat flux so measurement error of
heat loss is a major issue.

2. Even if we presume that they were formed at the same time and had
the same composition of all elements and isotopes (so radio active
decay is the same), Venus will lose heat much more slowly due to
greenhouse gas effects. So if the earth was losing heat at a much
faster rate earlier, then the current rate might well be much lower.

3. Venus is closer in to the sun and will get both more solar heat
flux AND more energy from impacts as it is much further down the
energy hill toward the sun, so it will get hit more often and harder
by asteroids and comets.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the mention that Mars is likely older than Venus.

However, Venus is still losing 20.5 w/m2 more than is being
contributed by our sun. That is not even a SWAG, but of real physics
and of multiple science that's coming to the very came conclusion,
that Venus is primarily getting geothermally heated from the inside
out.

This is not having to exclude the solar influx and of what the fully
acidic cloud coverage that's clearly adding to this thermally roasting
situation. Because of those thick and robust acidic clouds, not all
that much solar IR gets through to the Venus deck, especially with
that robust atmospheric layer of S8 that's in between.

Your 1), 2) and 3) I believe are not even half of what's causing the
Venus surface environment to remain so extra toasty because, that
surface upon average is simply much hotter than the S8+CO2 atmosphere,
plus there's active lava/mud flows as well as geothermal super heated
S8+CO2 gas venting. I might argue on behalf of the solar influx and
the existing greenhouse environment is worth a good third of the
global thermal energy budget, but most certainly it's not worth half.

BTW, not much other than near solid iron or of greater density meteors
or asteroids manage to get through that thick soup of an atmosphere
with any remaining impact velocity, and besides, it's only a little
over 100 fold the distance of our moon, as far as being a little
closer to the sun goes (possibly a 10% increase in whatever meteor/
asteroid encounter velocity).
- Brad Guth

Alfred Montestruc wrote:
On Aug 10, 1:05 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,

That does not follow at all.

That is because Guth has no idea what the words memorized mean.

--
Republicans are more interested in protecting the president than the troops.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3839
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Israel says no extermination
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a13

On Aug 10, 7:57 pm, 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?

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

785,443,7234,000 miles to Alpha Centauri.
If it started making its way here before the big bang, back when the
primordial spiral nebulae were just forming into galaxies before they
evolved and coalesced to form solar systems, as the dust particles
gathered together one at a time to form Jupiter,
oh yeah that could happen.

What you have is the asteroid belt, where beyond that there are just
the gas giants.
Now then is it possible, that gas collects out there?
Is the sun giving off lighter elements as a byproduct and they are
blown out there and collect into gas giants?
Simply because they are in a suitable pressurized zone with regards to
the quantum foam pressure of the solar system?

Its possible that the sun might erupt and heave off a planet sized
chunk of matter but that would mean that it was rather unstable, and
we never actually see it doing anything at all like that.

Maybe it is all much much older than we think.

It might take a long time for all that gas to make Jupiter gathering
one hydrogen atom at a time in the vastness of space.

And maybe when things are cold, they gather easier, than when they are
hot. Since the heat will cause vibration, give off radiation, and tend
to push things apart.

And then there is the spontaneous creation of hydrogen from the void
by the odd cosmic ray hitting another cosmic ray head on. That might
take a while for that to happen to create a sun.