Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leavestheorists befuddled

A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

Sam Wormley wrote:

A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

obviously celestial horticulture.

On 02/02/2011 8:19 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

With masses ranging between Earth and Uranus and spaced closer to their
star than Mercury is to ours, why aren't they all just tugging each
other into new orbits?

Yousuf Khan

On 2/3/11 12:43 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/02/2011 8:19 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

With masses ranging between Earth and Uranus and spaced closer to their
star than Mercury is to ours, why aren't they all just tugging each
other into new orbits?

Yousuf Khan

Maybe they are! Could be a young planetary system that has not
yet settled from sibling rivalry.

On 03/02/2011 8:32 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/3/11 12:43 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
With masses ranging between Earth and Uranus and spaced closer to their
star than Mercury is to ours, why aren't they all just tugging each
other into new orbits?

Yousuf Khan

Maybe they are! Could be a young planetary system that has not
yet settled from sibling rivalry.

Wouldn't they have mentioned if it was a young planetary system?

Yousuf Khan

On 03/02/2011 13:32, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/3/11 12:43 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/02/2011 8:19 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

With masses ranging between Earth and Uranus and spaced closer to their
star than Mercury is to ours, why aren't they all just tugging each
other into new orbits?

Yousuf Khan

Maybe they are! Could be a young planetary system that has not
yet settled from sibling rivalry.



The following catalogue entry suggests that the system's star is nearly
twice as old as our home star.

http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-11

I think it's fair enough to say that we don't know nearly enough about
the dynamics of planetary systems in the long run

On Feb 3, 11:24*pm, OG wrote:
On 03/02/2011 13:32, Sam Wormley wrote:









On 2/3/11 12:43 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/02/2011 8:19 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

With masses ranging between Earth and Uranus and spaced closer to their
star than Mercury is to ours, why aren't they all just tugging each
other into new orbits?

Yousuf Khan

Maybe they are! Could be a young planetary system that has not
yet settled from sibling rivalry.

The following catalogue entry suggests that the system's star is nearly
twice as old as our home star.

http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-11

I think it's fair enough to say that we don't know nearly enough about
the dynamics of planetary systems in the long run

I suggest you start with our home planet instead of this new scam of
assigning imaginative attributes to exoplanets,when something as
tangible as the seasonal latitudinal variations in temperatures due
to the combination of the daily rotation to the Sun and its daylight/
darkness cycle along with the orbital turning to the Sun and its
separate daylight/darkness cycle is ignored,then it demonstrates how
poor the current interpretative abilities actually are.

When it is possible to see a planet orbiting a star in the Fomalhaut
system ,it blows me away that the information it contains is largely
ignored for the novelties of spectra interpretation as no doubt the
wider population actually believe the proponents are seeing these
planets directly as one would Saturn or Uranus.That's the real
injustice,when it is possible to observe a real orbital component in
action,a motion to the Sun as a component of the orbital motion of the
planet,it doesn't register with readers and I find that amazing for
all the wrong reasons.

On Feb 4, 7:58*am, kelleher gurgled:
snip wet ****

Cue Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Savard

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

Cue: Wormley

Cue: Savard

Cue: Kelleher

yawn

hi,


It can be explained with a new theory for the formation of the solar
system.

The sun energy source is not fusion. The sun and other stars are
heated by magnetic fields from the supermassive black hole at the
center of the Milky Way galaxy.
With this idea it is possible to trace the formation of the solar
system. The sun and stars formed separately. First the sun formed and
then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dieing
stars. Stars fluctuate all the time from being a red giant to being a
regular star. The sun was a red giant 4.6 billion years ago as evident
from meteorite age. The solar planets formed from the strong solar
wind of the red giant sun.

For more details read the article:

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...article_id=210

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/solarsystem.pdf


Abstract

How the solar system formed, is a puzzle that challenged scientists
for many centuries. The current accepted theory is the Solar Nebula
Hypothesis originated by Kant and Laplace in the 18th century. In
reference 1 it was suggested that the sun energy source is not fusion
but magnetic fields from the center of the galaxy. The Solar nebula
Hypothesis cannot coexist with a sun powered by magnetic fields. As
shown on reference 4, those magnetic fields create mass that slowly
increase the mass of the sun. The sun is growing not from dust from
the interstellar space but from synthesis of new particles in the sun
interior. The sun and the planets formed separately, the sun came
first and then the planets follow.
In the standard solar model stars are turned into red giants when the
hydrogen in their core is depleted and the energy production stop.
Stars do not work on fusion, but on magnetic fields, so they turn into
a red giant when their energy supply from the magnetic field is
stopped. Stars that have a very long Maunder minimum, for tens of
million of years, in which their stellar cycle is weak, will turn into
a red giant.
The exoplanet search programs found that stars with planets have
higher metallicity compared to stars without planets. The metallicity
of a star depends on its mass. Massive stars have higher pressure and
temperature in their core that increase the fusion rate of heavy
elements. Stars with planet, that show higher metallicity, had higher
mass in the past that created the high metallicity. They went through
a significant mass loss that decreased their mass but did not change
the high metallicity. Those stars significant mass loss occur when
they turned into red giants. Red giants have strong stellar wind that
disperses the star outer layers into interstellar space. This stellar
wind creates comets that form planets around the star. The high
metallicity of the sun indicates that it was a red giant. The solar
planets where born from the solar wind of the red giant sun. The solar
system shows many evidences in support of an ancient red giant sun.
The energy calculation in reference 4 suggests that stars are slowly
growing by converting the energy from the magnetic fields to mass. The
gradual mass increase indicates that more massive stars are also
older, so according to the standard solar model there is a mix up
between older and younger stars. Older stars are not the smaller stars
like red dwarfs but the heavier stars like blue giants. The idea that
stars are slowly growing from small sizes, and the fact that the
latest exoplanet search programs found large number of exoplanets,
leads to the conclusion that stars originate from planets. The
development steps leading to the creation of stars from planets
include: growth of the planet by cold accretion of comets and
asteroids; separation of the planet from the star; magnetic ignition
of the planet when it reaches the size of a brown dwarf; and growth of
the star by conversion of the energy from the magnetic fields to mass.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar









On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 22:49:23 -0600, jwarner1
wrote:



Sam Wormley wrote:

A Disturbingly Weird Exoplanet System
Kepler discovery of six planets tightly packed around one star leaves
theorists befuddled.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...w-planets.html

obviously celestial horticulture.