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.

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”

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?

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?

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”

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.

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.

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%

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”

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.