The densest planet in the Universe found

Astronomers Find Densest Planet In The Universe (So Far) - International
Business Times
"Astronomers have found what may be the biggest rocky planet in the
neighborhood.

The planet is called 55 Cancri e. It is 60 percent larger than the
Earth, eight times as massive and orbits its star so fast that an entire
year passes in less than a day."
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1397...anet-known.htm

On Apr 29, 3:16*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Astronomers Find Densest Planet In The Universe (So Far) - International
Business Times
"Astronomers have found what may be the biggest rocky planet in the
neighborhood.

The planet is called 55 Cancri e. It is 60 percent larger than the
Earth, eight times as massive and orbits its star so fast that an entire
year passes in less than a day."http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/139791/20110429/astronomers-find-dens...

Now that's interesting. Are they certain it's not a black hole with a
thick atmosphere of positrons?

At roughly twice the average density of Earth is probably a very metal
saturated planet that could be mostly thorium. However, if half again
or nearly twice as old as Earth would suggest the thorium isn't nearly
as potent as ours.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:16:55 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Astronomers Find Densest Planet In The Universe (So Far) - International
Business Times
"Astronomers have found what may be the biggest rocky planet in the
neighborhood.

The planet is called 55 Cancri e. It is 60 percent larger than the
Earth, eight times as massive and orbits its star so fast that an entire
year passes in less than a day."
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1397...anet-known.htm
I posted this reply:
How was it possible to tell the mass? A grain of sand, golfball, a
tennis ball, the Earth or any mass with that speed and orbital radius
would qualify. Its orbit is irrespective of mass or especially the
density. What is the explanation? We know the star would nutate a bit
but that wasn't mentioned.
John Polasek

Read mo
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles_comm...#ixzz1KxgAawOt

On 4/29/11 7:11 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Now that's interesting. Are they certain it's not a black hole with a
thick atmosphere of positrons?

Brad if you knew anything about stellar black holes, their are none
less massive than three solar masses.

The gravitation at the surface of a black hole is so strong that not
even photons escape, let alone anything else.

How about some self-education, Brad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

The physical size of an 8-earth mass black hole is about 7 cm in
radius. Schwarzschild radius = 2 MG/c^2, where M is the black hole
mass.

On Apr 30, 12:16*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Astronomers Find Densest Planet In The Universe (So Far) - International
Business Times
"Astronomers have found what may be the biggest rocky planet in the
neighborhood.

The planet is called 55 Cancri e. It is 60 percent larger than the
Earth, eight times as massive and orbits its star so fast that an entire
year passes in less than a day."http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/139791/20110429/astronomers-find-dens...

The Earth has a gorgeous fractured crust,it is fairly thin and covers
a large rotating fluid composition with a fairly low viscosity hence
the term of 'rocky planet' is a nuisance as it tends to disguise the
wider arrangement of fluid planet to a gas state the further from the
Sun.

You have this exoplanet scam replacing the 'black hole at the end of
the universe' type thing while basic planetary attributes are ignored
so all this worthless novelty is really doing at the moment is
exposing how poor the astronomical standard is or even if one exists
at all.

The viscosity of the Earth's interior has to reflect what is observed
as it pours out through every volcano and crustal boundary in making
way for the important differential rotation mechanism in accounting
for so many observations arising from the internal dynamics of the
planet.This disjointed idea of 'convection cells' as a mechanism for
crustal evolution,a concept with no links to planetary shape or
rotation,must be displaced as it makes no sense while the rotational
shear bands of the fluid interior provide the highest possibility for
further investigation.

Rocky planet indeed !,the people of this planet should not have to
suffer these scams of exoplanet features while nobody is details the
features of our own magnificent planet.

On Apr 29, 7:46*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/29/11 7:11 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Now that's interesting. *Are they certain it's not a black hole with a
thick atmosphere of positrons?

* *Brad if you knew anything about stellar black holes, their are none
* *less massive than three solar masses.

* *The gravitation at the surface of a black hole is so strong that not
* *even photons escape, let alone anything else.

* *How about some self-education, Brad.
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

* *The physical size of an 8-earth mass black hole is about 7 cm in
* *radius. Schwarzschild radius = 2 MG/c^2, where M is the black hole
* *mass.

According to the laws of physics, a positron/antimatter black hole can
be any size, and with any luck the LHC should be capable of creating
them.

Are you suggesting that the universe has limits as to what sort of
weird things can be created?

As long as to have no intentions of ever considering anything positive
or constructive about our moon or the extremely nearby planet Venus,
then why not consider a sphere of pure carbon buckyballs?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Apr 29, 10:10*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 30, 12:16*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Astronomers Find Densest Planet In The Universe (So Far) - International
Business Times
"Astronomers have found what may be the biggest rocky planet in the
neighborhood.

The planet is called 55 Cancri e. It is 60 percent larger than the
Earth, eight times as massive and orbits its star so fast that an entire
year passes in less than a day."http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/139791/20110429/astronomers-find-dens...

The Earth has a gorgeous fractured crust,it is fairly thin and covers
a large rotating fluid composition with a fairly low viscosity hence
the term of 'rocky planet' is a nuisance as it tends to disguise the
wider arrangement of fluid planet to a gas state the further from the
Sun.

You have this exoplanet scam replacing the 'black hole at the end of
the universe' type thing while basic planetary attributes are ignored
so all this *worthless novelty is really doing at the moment is
exposing how poor the astronomical standard is or even if one exists
at all.

The viscosity of the Earth's interior has to reflect what is observed
as it pours out through every volcano and crustal boundary in making
way for the important differential rotation mechanism in accounting
for so many observations arising from the internal dynamics of the
planet.This disjointed idea of 'convection cells' as a mechanism for
crustal evolution,a concept with no links to planetary shape or
rotation,must be displaced as it makes no sense while the rotational
shear bands of the fluid interior provide the highest possibility for
further investigation.

Rocky planet indeed !,the people of this planet should not have to
suffer these scams of exoplanet features while nobody is details the
features of our own magnificent planet.

Exactly, and for some reason even our moon and Venus are not well
understood.

Our moon and Venus are each unusually metallic, as well as for hosting
heavy elements right on and within their paramagnetic surface. So,
why are we holding back?

Just a third of the secondary debris from that one horrific south pole
crater of 2500 km and perhaps at least 15+ km deep should have also
terminated most life on Earth for many decades if not centuries,
although some of us might care to argue that we got hit with upwards
of 2/3 worth of all that mostly paramagnetic basalt, much of it worth
4+ g/cm3.

That absolutely terrific south pole crater in its volumetric entirety
represents roughly 5e13 m3 of moon plus whatever of the horrific
impactor which by rights should kinda double that amount to a total of
at least 1e14 m3 of mostly common and paramagnetic basalts that
obviously had to go somewhere.

Keeping in mind the impacted polar sphere portion of our moon should
have added rather considerable volume, so as to be more than likely
worth a gross combined crater to crater displaced debris volume of at
least 1e15 m3 and possibly even as great as 1e16 m3 (including ice)
that had to go somewhere.

If that moon/Selene was extremely thick ice covered (lets say 100 km
thick ice) as having impacted a modestly thick ice covered portion of
Earth, might suggest why that terrific crater is relatively shallow
and perhaps why our Arctic ocean basin is such a good fit.

Obviously our physically dark and heavy mineral saturated as well as
many other valuable element composite moon remains voodoo/
nondisclosure rated (even those UV secondary mineral colors have been
forbidden because our NASA/Apollo science has it recorded as a medium-
light gray inert moon that’s not even UV reactive), but where’s the
logic in not accomplishing the planet Venus as our next all-out
priority?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
Guth Venus, at ten times resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://docs.google.com/File?id=ddsdxhv_4fdgd46df_b

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 4/30/11 12:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
Our moon and Venus are each unusually metallic

The Apollo program showed that our moon has the same chemistry
as that of the earth's crust. Not "unusually metallic" at all.

On Apr 30, 2:31*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/30/11 12:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

Our moon and Venus are each unusually metallic

* *The Apollo program showed that our moon has the same chemistry
* *as that of the earth's crust. Not "unusually metallic" at all.

Those Apollo missions must have landed on some other inert, light gray
and nearly monochromatic moon.

My samples of lunar paramagnetic basalt prove otherwise, that the
outer crust of that moon is somewhat more dense and obviously it's a
whole lot better fused into a solid shell than any crust of Earth
that’s rather badly broken and flexing in most every direction.

It seems our moon and Venus are each unusually metallic, as well as
for hosting heavy elements right on and within their paramagnetic
surface. So, why are we holding back?

Just a third of the secondary debris from that one horrific south pole
crater in our moon, of 2500 km and perhaps at least 15+ km deep,
should have also indirectly terminated most life on Earth for many
decades if not centuries, although some of us might care to argue that
we got hit with upwards of 2/3 worth of all that mostly paramagnetic
basalt, much of it worth 4+ g/cm3 (I have a few samples of 4.5 g/cm3).

That absolutely terrific south pole crater in its potential volumetric
entirety represents roughly 5e13 m3 of moon plus whatever of the
horrific impactor which by rights should kinda double that amount to a
total of at least 1e14 m3 of mostly common and paramagnetic basalts
that obviously had to go somewhere.

Keeping in mind the entire impacted polar sphere portion of our moon
should have added rather considerable volume, so as to be more than
likely worth a gross combined crater to crater displaced debris volume
of at least 1e15 m3 and possibly even as great as 1e16 m3 (including
ice) that had to go somewhere.

If that moon/Selene was extremely thick ice covered (lets say 100 km
thick ice) as having impacted a modestly thick ice covered portion of
Earth, might suggest why that terrific crater is relatively shallow
and perhaps why our Arctic ocean basin is such a good fit.

Obviously our physically dark and heavy mineral saturated as well as
many other valuable element composite moon remains voodoo/
nondisclosure rated (even those UV secondary mineral colors have been
forbidden because our NASA/Apollo science has it recorded as a medium-
light gray inert moon that’s not even the least bit UV reactive), but
where’s the logic in not accomplishing the planet Venus as our next
all-out priority?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
Guth Venus, at ten times resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://docs.google.com/File?id=ddsdxhv_4fdgd46df_b

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 4/30/11 3:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:31 am, Sam wrote:
On 4/30/11 12:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

Our moon and Venus are each unusually metallic

The Apollo program showed that our moon has the same chemistry
as that of the earth's crust. Not "unusually metallic" at all.
Those Apollo missions must have landed on some other inert, light gray
and nearly monochromatic moon.

My samples of lunar paramagnetic basalt prove otherwise, that the
outer crust of that moon is somewhat more dense and obviously it's a
whole lot better fused into a solid shell than any crust of Earth
that’s rather badly broken and flexing in most every direction.

What are the numbers of your sample?

For example, what percentage nickel, iron, cobalt, vanadium, etc. are
representative of your lunar paramagnetic basalt. Here is an axample

http://edu-observatory.org/eo/Sikhot...eorite.pg8.jpg

I want to know the chemistry of your rock, which you claim to know.