Wednesday, August 26, 2009

More Worlds In Collision

Huffington Post: Suicidal Planet Seems On Death Spiral Into Star.

WASHINGTON — Astronomers have found what appears to be a gigantic suicidal planet.

The odd, fiery planet is so close to its star and so large that it is triggering tremendous plasma tides on the star. Those powerful tides are in turn warping the planet's zippy less-than-a-day orbit around its star.

The result: an ever-closer tango of death, with the planet eventually spiraling into the star.

It's a slow death. The planet WASP-18b has maybe a million years to live, said planet discoverer Coel Hellier, a professor of astrophysics at the Keele University in England. Hellier's report on the suicidal planet is in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.


Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Since "scientists" cannot accurately view comets and measure them accurately, this amounts to fantasy and pure speculation.

Do they wish to deliberately destroy respect for certain types of science? Is this part of the dumbing down of certain countries to ensure better service from the workforce?

The distance is too far to resolve anything but that foes not stop the speculation. Bizarre!

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Ooops! I see now that you are hoisting them on their own petard! They are cavalier with catastrophe when it is distant, but demand slow steady change in our solar system!

Good one!

Anaconda said...

@ Fungus Fitzjuggler III:

Good pick up!

It seems that planets collide and orbits change (excitng things happen) when they are located in "distant worlds", but, here, on the home front, as you say, "...slow steady change in our solar system!" is all that will be allowed or admitted to.

This insight into the contradictions in astrophysics should be a continuing story worth watching.

Thanks, again.

Also, in Electric Universe theory, the nebular hypothesis of star and planetary development has been challenged by an alternative hypothesis of formation and development.

In this hypothesis so-called "gravitational collapse" is not principally responsible for stellar formation, but rather, electromagnetic phenomenon and processes are responsible.

Birkeland currents form Z-pinches where matter is concentrated by the contracting magnetic fields emminated by the electric currents of charged particles (electrons and ions).

The example in the post may not be of a "suicidal" planet on a "death spiral", but rather a recently "born" gas giant that is interacting electromagnetically with its parent star.

The "plasma tides" may in reality be electromagnetic flows of plasma between the "mother" star and its "baby" planet.

Scientists say the planet could "spiral" into the star with observable & measurable change in orbit distance from the star in as little as ten years, if so, then, if the planet's orbit distance increases, rather than decreases, then that could be considered evidence the planet was "born" from the star rather than "committing suicide" into the star:

Wal Thornhill once said:
"….. internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star."

Please see Stellar Evolution from Donald Scott's The Electric Sky for the source of the, above, quote.

OilIsMastery said...

A most excellent insight. I'm sure I will use the argument in the future.

Jeffery Keown said...

Since "scientists" cannot accurately view comets and measure them accurately, this amounts to fantasy and pure speculation.

I think you mis-used a few terms there. They've been measured, viewed, probed, and beaten upon for years now. Where have you been? Heck, ESA is about to land on one. I say about, but touchdown isn't for 5 years yet.

This insight into the contradictions in astrophysics should be a continuing story worth watching.

Or not. There is no contradiction, just a lack of comprehension by you lot.

As for "Distant Catastrophe" and "Near-by Stability" look up the Heavy Bombardment phase of our own solar system. This observation by WASP is entirely in line with a solar system of its age (.5 - 1.5 Gya). We went through a phase just like this when our worlds were being built up from dust. Electromagnetism and gravity work together to beat the hell out of a circumstellar disk to make planets. Protoplanets combine to form larger planets until the area near the star is swept clean (we have photos of this). At that point, planetary masses are largely stable, and conditions become "safe" or "comfortable."

This phase in our system ended 3.8 Gya, and life had room to develop on Earth (and perhaps others). Metoerites are usually dated to 4.6 Gya, suggesting a sharp cut-off for the bombardment's end.

If it hadn't, and our system were still like WASP-18, you wouldn't be here to read this.

Most gas giants are found close to their parent star because the instrumentation is still new. Democritus didn't leave a list of stars to look at for more distant gas giants.

The disk-drag effect on gaseous planets is well documented. They migrate in, unless acted upon by another planet or star. (this may have been photographed, but I haven't checked into that story in years).

You've mis-apprehended a news story and spun it to your liking. While I have issues with Science Journalism, I take issue with bold distortion, such as that propagated 'round these parts.

Jeffery Keown said...

Reading Scott's webpage, I note a feeling of envy that you folks are allowed to just invent processes that deny almost all of physics.

It's almost enchanting.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

Keown stated: "You've mis-apprehended a news story and spun it to your liking."


I know what the story says, but I am offering an alternative hypothesis, and given that the scientists, themselves, state that the "suicidal" spiral should be observable around ten years from now by way of a decreased orbital distance from the star, I've offered a "test" that would add weight to the "birth" hypothesis should that be observed and measured in the future.

Keown states: "Reading Scott's webpage, I note a feeling of envy that you folks are allowed to just invent processes that deny almost all of physics."

No, more like it takes account of physics: Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental forces of the Universe, yet "modern" astronomy barely recognizes its expression and action in large structures, processes, and phenomenon in the Universe and ignores substantial scientific evidence of electromagnetism's dynamical interaction in the Universe.

Take magnetic fields: Magnetic fields have been observed & measured to be ubiquitous in the Universe and magnetic fields are caused by charged particles in ordered motion (yes, magnetic fields can induce and direct motion of charged particles, but only as a secondary effect.)

Even in bar magnets, which "modern" astronomers love to cite as an example of magnetic fields being the principle cause and charged particle motion being the effect (although, "modern" astronomers have yet to explain how magnetic fields are observed far from bar magnet type objects in deep space, other than the absurd notion of "frozen in" magnetic fields [itself, another example of "modern" astronomy's ignoring established laws of physics, with regard to electromagnetism]), it ultimately is electrons in motion ("spin" or "magnetic moment")that provides the bar magnet with a magnetic field.

This constant oversight of cause and effect of electromagnetism in plasma of which the Universe is over 99% plasma will ultimately expose "modern" astronomy as a failed discipline which failed because it ignored a basic fundamental force of the Universe and more important, the most dynamic force in the Universe (the electromotive force is 39 ordres of magnitude stronger than the gravity).

What "processes" does Scott cite that ignore the laws of physics?

Jeffery Keown said...

Oh... off the top of my head (with a grateful hat tip to Tim Thompson):

The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the Birkeland currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model these currents create the galaxies and the stars within them. It is a small additional step to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the Sun is large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by incoming cosmic electrons.

Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun.

We observe both positive and negative particles flowing outward from the sun.

Do you really understand how much energy is being output by the sun every second? 174 petawatts at our distance. If there were a negative flow of electrons at that strength it would have been detected. It is not there.

Moreover, any incoming particles have to overcome the outflow of the solar wind and the sun's magnetic field.

I do not (note carefully) oppose the notion that plasma is very common in the universe, but to rewrite solar system formation from the ground up (even though we have plenty of evidence of young stars and new-born planets) is not even wrong.

To be bad science, it has to be science in the first place.

Another example:

There is experimental evidence that the Sun vibrates in a way that throws doubt on both the assumed convection process for heat transportation and the thermonuclear reaction itself.
These pulsations are much more consistent with a homogeneous model of the Sun - like a balloon whose gases are of uniform density throughout its body. In Nature (Jan 15, 1976) two British theorists, J.Christensen-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough emphasized the unlikelihood that any model can be devised for the Sun to accommodate both the observed radial oscillations and the thermonuclear theory. They are also consistent with a model wherein the Sun is an iso dense sphere of gas that supports, on its outer surface, an electric arc discharge powered externally, electrically.

That article says nothing of the sort, though it is popular fodder for Creationists and others who do not fully embrace honest science reporting.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

I take your criticism and acknowledge there are valid points; Don Scott's model is not perfect.

There are 'Electric Sun' models that account for that criticism.

There is scientific evidence of 'electron drift' towards the Sun.

See, Solar Wind Electron Halo Depletions at 90° Pitch Angle

From the link:

"...a more tenuous and roughly isotropic component known as the halo. The figure illustrates a newly recognized phenomenon in the ACE SWEPAM suprathermal electron data - depletions of halo electrons centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle (PA) relative to the heliospheric magnetic field."

Which means that electrons back-drift to the solar pole regions.

But perhaps of more import, there are serious problems with the so-called "nuclear furnace" model.

Watch this 8 minute video which lists and discusses problems and falsifying observations & measurements of the "nuclear furnace" model.

And for a more indepth analysis and interpretation check out this link: The Electric Sun vs. the Solar Nuclear Furnace theory.

Oh, by the way, Jeffery, you gloss over the fact that "modern" astronomy mostly ignores the electromagnetic force and comes up with so-called "new physics" in order to do it, like "dark" matter and "dark" energy, both of which have never been detected, but are asserted to exist to keep the gravity "only" model from being falsified.

Many in astronomy see what they want to see, but ignore what falsifies their model, but that's not how real science works.

Anaconda said...

Jeffery, you may have already seen this video, I don't know, but it is strictly song and video of our Sun.

Let me say this: Ours is a mighty Sun.

An interesting video with no message other than images of the Sun, I assure you.