HD 80606b

HD 80606b is a very special planet.

Scientists are now referring to HD 80606b as "everyone's second favorite planet" (after the Earth of course).

HD 80606b has "the most eccentric orbit of any known exoplanet."

Bloomberg: NASA Telescope Spots Weather Changes Outside This Solar System.

Laughlin, 41, a professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, said the gaseous planet has an unusual orbit that brings it closer to its star than Mercury is to the sun, and it then shoots out to a distance almost as far away as Earth is from its sun.

“The orbit is extremely eccentric,” Laughlin said. “Of the exoplanets that have been detected -- we’ve observed 300 -- this is the most extreme orbit we’ve seen so far.”

Translation: gravity is a myth.

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.

Gravity In The Garbage Can

Science Daily: Planet Formation Could Lie In Stellar Storms Rather Than Gravitational Instability.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2008) — New research suggests that turbulence plays a critical role in creating ripe conditions for the birth of planets. The study, to be published in The Astrophysical Journal, challenges the prevailing theory of planet formation.

Using three-dimensional simulations of the dust and gas that orbits young stars, the study demonstrates that turbulence is a significant obstacle to gravitational instability, the process that scientists have used since the 1970s to explain the early stage of planet formation.

Gravitational instability proposes that dust will settle into the middle of the protoplanetary disk around a newly-formed star. It is thought that the dust will gradually become denser and thinner until it reaches a critical point and collapses into kilometer-size clumps, which later collide to form planets. But new research by San Francisco State University professor Joseph Barranco shows that turbulent forces keep the dust and gas swirling and prevent it from forming a dense and thin enough layer for gravitational instability to occur.

"These results defy the proposed solution of how planets are formed," Barranco said. "Scientists have long been using gravitational instability theory to explain how millimeter-size particles grow to kilometer-size, but these new simulations open new avenues of investigation. Perhaps massive storms, similar to hurricanes found on the Earth or Jupiter, provide clues about how tiny dust grains clump together to become kilometer-size boulders."

Hmmm. Planets forming from the hurricanes of Jupiter? I seem to remember a certain Dr. Velikovsky making such a claim.

Why Doesn't The Earth Crash Into The Sun?

According to Newton and Einstein, the sun and Earth are attracted to eachother gravitationally.

So why haven't they crashed into eachother?

According to Newton's so-called "theory" of gravity: God.

The Earth is alleged to have formed 4.5-4.6 billion years ago and according to Newton and gravity, God in His infinite wisdom made the Earth with the exact perfect velocity at the time of creation so as not to exceed the escape velocity.

In Principles of Mathematics Having Nothing To Do With Physics Newton writes:

"Every body perserveres in it's state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line [Einstein doesn't believe in right lines so according to Relativity that's impossible], unless it is compelled to change that state by forces [electromagnetic perhaps?] impressed thereon."

However, for the past 4.5 billion years the Earth has been experiencing forces and friction via cosmic rays and Birkeland currents so the Earth should have either (a) been accelerated past escape velocity into the depths of space or (b) slowed sufficiently below orbital velocity, thus crashing into the sun.

In the General Scholium, Newton writes the following:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another."

Fixed stars? Is this guy serious? The Arp 147 galaxy pair crashing into eachother don't look too distant from one another or fixed to me.