Monday, February 2, 2009

New Planets Defy Gravity

Cosmology Quest: New Planets Defy Gravity.

It looks like Hubble just keeps bringing the pain. Standard cosmologists, astronomers, and planetary theorists must be pulling their hair out by now.

In this article from New Scientist it is reported that scientists have discovered three massive exoplanets, theoretically estimated to be 10 times the size of Jupiter, closely orbiting their parent star. The catch is that according to gravitational theory, they are in a supposedly unstable orbit.

From the paper the article is based on (arXiv:0812.0011v1 [astro-ph])

“We point out that the nominal circular, face-on orbits of the planets lead to a dynamical instability in ~1e5 yr, a factor of at least 100 shorter than the estimated age of the star.”

To put that in English, according to standard theory, the orbits they are in should have fallen apart in less than 100 times the estimated age of the star. That leaves them with some pretty big problems.

This means that at least one or more of these statements are true:

The way a stars age is calculated is wrong (it is)
The way planetary mass is calculated is wrong (it is)
The accretion model of planet formation from a dusty proto-disk is wrong (it is)
The gravitational model governing planetary orbits is wrong (it is)

The article states:

“Aspects of the HR 8799 solar system promise more riches. Daniel Fabrycky and Ruth Murray-Clay of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Boston studied the dynamics of the three-planet system and found that the mutual gravitational pull of the massive planets should be enough to make the solar system unstable. They conclude that the planets have survived until now because they have slotted themselves into so-called resonance orbits: each time the outermost planet orbits the star once, they argue, the next one in must orbit twice and the innermost planet four times.”

“Resonance orbits” hey? It’s quite the coincidence that out of the handful of exoplanets discovered, that have been directly imaged, we just happened to spot a solar system with a configuration of such low probability as to be nearly mythical.

Of course the electric universe theory easily explains all the problems with these findings. As I have detailed in my previous articles, EU theory states gas giant planets are born by electrical separation from their parent star. As the stars electrical load increases to the point where it can no longer cope with the stress, it will electrically "split" in order to distribute the electrical load over a wider surface area. This means the most common configuration of planets and stars that we see in space should be tightly orbiting gas giant planets around their parent stars or stars in binary/multiple star systems – which is exactly what we see. The planets will interact electrically with each other and their star until an electrically stable configuration is reached.


Raptor Lewis said...

Remember theories are ideas that can be tested and proven. Theories aren't always true. it's true for nearly all fields of science, even paleontology.

Quantum_Flux said...

"the orbits they are in should have fallen apart in less than 100 times the estimated age of the star"

If by 'fallen apart' you mean collided with the star, and by 100x the present age of the star you mean what you said, then that explains why it hasn't happened yet which is consistant with observation.

OilIsMastery said...


Unstable orbits are consistent with observation but unfortunately for Newton and Einstein they violate the so-called "theory" of universal gravitational attraction.

Anaconda said...

Excellent post. It links with a good website and also puts forward a interesting article.

Giant gas planets do tend to lie in close orbits to their stars. And the gravitational model doesn't account for stars in bianary orbits, but it's expected in Plasma Cosmology.

Bloggin' Brewskie said...

Are you nerds done fighting? Ha! Ha! Anywho, didn’t know if you guys heard about the upcoming gas glut coming to America.

Oil, touching up on the Titan topic: the world has more hydrocarbons than we’ll ever use. Natural gas will increasingly come onto its own as we discover new sources of oil, and continually add alternative/renewable energy into the fold. Decades down the road, renewables will simply make oil and gas as fuels obsolete.

The world is destined to use more energy, not less of it.

Jeffery Keown said...

“Resonance orbits” hey? It’s quite the coincidence that out of the handful of exoplanets discovered, that have been directly imaged, we just happened to spot a solar system with a configuration of such low probability as to be nearly mythical.

Your incredulity does not invalidate the finding or the theories behind it.

From the original article:

As the planets trace their elliptical orbits, the 1:2:4 timings would mean that the three planets never gather closely enough as a group to gravitationally upset the system. If such resonances are common, it suggests there could be many more massive planets out there in extrasolar systems that would otherwise have been too unstable to persist.

Quit cherry picking your facts. I swear you guys think just like creationists. Deny deny deny

OilIsMastery said...


You ignored the entire article so who's cherrypicking?

Neptune is 1 million miles away from where the theory of gravity predicted it would be. Oops! So who's cherrypicking?

The only people cherrypicking are creationists such as Isaac Newton, Georges Lemaître, and yourself.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

You don't have much insight into your own statements.

You criticize this website for being "creationists," while you support the "big bang", which is "something our of nothing," or "there was nothing and then it exploded."

Is there a difference between saying Creation happened 6,000 years ago or 14 billion years ago?

So tell me, who's the "creationist" on this comment thread?

And to fill in some history for you: Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest who came up with the "big bang" because he wanted to reconcile science and religion.

George Gamow, another famous "big bang" proponent, had no compunction in describing the graphs of early conditions in the "big bang" as Divine Creation Curves. He sent the first copy of his book, The Creation of the Universe, to the then Pope.

Jeff, know your history before you make silly comments that reveal your ignorance.

As to the science. The facts are these: Of the giant gas planets detected in other star systems, most are in close orbits to their stars.

And, as I said before: binary and multiple star systems are an anomaly and hard to explain in the gravity model, but are expected and easy to explain in Plasma Cosmology.

Jeff, I've been having a debate over at Bad Astronomy regarding these issues. Most of the interlocutors are loath to admit electric currents in space at all.

But there is one interlocutor who readily admits electric currents are in space, IN THE ABSTRACT, but when push comes to shove, at the point of acknowledging specifics, he is much more circumspect.

All he will admit to are the Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth.

Why the admission? Any serious scientist can't deny the evidence of the Sun to Earth Birkeland currents, but beyond that, it's obvious enough: Electromagnetism is one of the 'FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES'; it's ludicrous to say that one of Nature's fundamental forces doesn't operate out in space, and especially when it's the strongest of the four fundamental forces AT A DISTANCE.

The fundamental force most efficient at transporting energy over distance.

The most dynamic of the Four Fundamental Forces.

Remember, electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity.

Jeff, it will only become more apparent with additional discoveries that electromagnetism is the predominate force in Nature.

As it is, the evidence is staring you in the face.

OilIsMastery said...

I said Neptune is a million miles away from where the so-called "theory" of gravity predicted it would be but it's actually a billion miles away from where gravity predicted it would be.