|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On Jan 15, 9:17*pm, verbal o'diarrhoea wrote:
their fate may be one I just don't wish to consider,at least not openly. A threat? Or more insolence from the snivelling mincer of words? You are so far hoist by your own petard that no words, of yours, will ever increase your credibility. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On Jan 14, 9:12*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:48:51 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth wrote: Most stars either have or once had a solar system of planets, because it's where most of that original molecular metallicity which the star spun-off actually went. *It would be a little odd for a main sequence star not to have planets. We only know much about one star system- ours. And in our system, the overwhelming majority of heavy elements are in the Sun, not in the planets. Certainly, the planets contain a much higher ratio of heavy to light elements than the Sun, but in terms of absolute quantity of heavy elements *in the Solar System, the planets are insignificant. Nothing gets "spun off" when a star system forms. Material moves inward, not outward, and denser material settles in the middle of bodies... including the Sun. In the formation of most all current generation and most of the previously generated main sequence stars, the vast majority of which being red dwarfs, should have each produced and held onto a solar system of sufficiently heavy element planets (unless they were really big and nasty stars to begin with, that only lasted a hundred million or fewer years). Are you actually suggesting that star formations offer no spin and thus having no spare or surplus metallicity elements to get rid of? Are you suggesting that planets form and evolve entirely independent, without any need of a star? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar system so far
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:55:26 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote: Are you actually suggesting that star formations offer no spin and thus having no spare or surplus metallicity elements to get rid of? Since that statement is meaningless, how could anybody rationally comment at all? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On Jan 15, 9:14*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:55:26 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth wrote: Are you actually suggesting that star formations offer no spin and thus having no spare or surplus metallicity elements to get rid of? Since that statement is meaningless, how could anybody rationally comment at all? Are you stipulating that new stars do not create their planets? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On Jan 11, 4:51*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Jan. 11, 2012 NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar system so far: a red dwarf star with three rocky planets smaller than Earth. FULL STORY athttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/11jan_small... When do stars not create planets? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar system so far
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:03:27 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote: Are you stipulating that new stars do not create their planets? Stars have "no spare or surplus metallicity elements to get rid of". Nothing is thrown off of stars as they form. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On 1/13/2012 2:10 AM, Chris.B wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:03 am, Chris L wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:53:50 -0600, wrote: [snip] Our humble SETI is constantly hampered by funding problems. Which seems odd when it has the most likely chance of confirming radio reception from an exo-source. Just as we are discovering the possibility of countless worlds we hamstring out best hope of finding others at a similar and simultaneous level of technology. What a shame they can't tap all the UFO-nuts for small change to support their research. Would you like to run programs in the background on your computer to help them? http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ Some computers need more memory added to do this well. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On 1/16/12 12:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
When do stars not create planets? Brad, stars do not "create" planets. Planets can form from material leftover that did not form the star. For our solar system, the relative abundances a Hydrogen 73.46%[9] Helium 24.85% Oxygen 0.77% Carbon 0.29% Iron 0.16% Neon 0.12% Nitrogen 0.09% Silicon 0.07% Magnesium 0.05% Sulfur 0.04% |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On Jan 16, 8:56*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/16/12 12:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote: When do stars not create planets? * *Brad, stars do not "create" planets. Planets can form from material * *leftover that did not form the star. For our solar system, the * *relative abundances a Hydrogen * 73.46%[9] Helium * * 24.85% Oxygen * * 0.77% Carbon * * 0.29% Iron * * * * * * * 0.16% Neon * * * * * * * 0.12% Nitrogen * 0.09% Silicon * *0.07% Magnesium *0.05% Sulfur * * 0.04% So, there's no requirement for any main sequence star to actually create planets? How many trillions of wandering/rogue planets (anything below the mass of a brown dwarf) in addition to those captured by stars, should exist in our galaxy? Are we talking 1e13 or more? What percentage of stars never had any planets to begin with, nor having captured planets? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far
On 1/16/12 2:03 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:56 am, Sam wrote: On 1/16/12 12:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote: When do stars not create planets? Brad, stars do not "create" planets. Planets can form from material leftover that did not form the star. For our solar system, the relative abundances a Hydrogen 73.46%[9] Helium 24.85% Oxygen 0.77% Carbon 0.29% Iron 0.16% Neon 0.12% Nitrogen 0.09% Silicon 0.07% Magnesium 0.05% Sulfur 0.04% So, there's no requirement for any main sequence star to actually create planets? Planets tend to form from *the planetary disks around stars* not from material from the star itself. How many trillions of wandering/rogue planets (anything below the mass of a brown dwarf) in addition to those captured by stars, should exist in our galaxy? Why do you think a large numbers of rogue planets? Most planets are gravitationally bound in elliptical orbits to their stars. Have you evidence for more than one "wandering" planet, Brad. Science is based on observation, not your fantasies, Brad. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kepler spacecraft confirm new theory for the formation of the solar system. | dan@@pixelphase.com | Misc | 1 | February 14th 11 05:22 PM |
Scientists find possible birth of tiniest known solar system | [email protected] | Misc | 1 | November 30th 05 06:57 PM |
Scientists find possible birth of tiniest known solar system | [email protected] | Satellites | 0 | November 30th 05 12:17 PM |
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered the solar system's final frontier | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | May 24th 05 03:39 PM |
NASA's AcrimSat Solar Spacecraft Completes Five-Year Mission | [email protected] | News | 0 | May 20th 05 10:42 PM |