Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Professor Mega-Mind on 15/09/2018 03:34:40
-
Planetary Formation
Why are planets so different ?
Why are planet.systems " " ?
Consider the initial conditions :
An interstellar gas & dust cloud , of variable mass , chemistry , temperature , etc. , undergoes gravitational collapse . It inevitably forms an accretion disk . A central body collects , and grows . The heat of compression makes this gas-body glow red-hot . IF this body grows massive enough , nuclear fusion begins in the core .
The non-nuclear bodies continue to accrete gas & dust , with proto-planetary bodies forming within their accretion disks . The high-temperature radiation pressure preferentially drives lighter elements further out in the disks, while the heavier elements agglomerate and accumulate , forming droplets which sink through the disk , settling in much closer to the central body , or actually raining-out onto it . This results in the inner proto-planets accumulating more heavy elements , and less lighter ones . The outer proto-planets accumulate the opposite proportions . The nuclear central bodies eventually become much hotter , reaching extreme temperatures even as the non-nuclear gas-bodies cool down . This pushes their gas and dust much further out . Lower gas and radiation pressures there , combined with greater gas and dust infall , allow the formation of gas giant planets , along with widely-spaced rock/ice planets . Proto-red dwarf stars rarely fulfill the conditions needed for gas giants but do engender mini-Neptunes . More of their hydrogen & helium are released to interstellar space by their weak gravity , but more of their heavier elements are retained , their much more dense accretion disks forming close-in , rocky-type planets . **The caveat here is that early in the red-dwarf formation process , the lower temperatures would have allowed metal grains and droplets to sink through the accretion disk , onto the proto-star . This effect would have been magnified by the powerful , nearby , stellar-magnetic field . The consequence of this would be a proportionally lower metals content in the satellites of the red-dwarf/Jovian central body . They would begin with a massive volatiles complement , but heavy red-dwarf radiation-stripping would wittle these down over time , especially closer to the star . "Jovian" satellites would not experience this , but would experience tidal-heating . This also would induce loss of volatiles to space , especially closer to the gas giant .
The take-away here is that there is a satellite formation process , akin to many distillation processes . The primary factors affecting satellite system dimensions & characteristics are
A.- Initial formation-cloud mass .
B.- I.C. chem. composition .
C.- Cloud infall rate & timing .
D.- Proto-star mass & luminosity.
E.- Proto-star ignition timing .
F.- Collision & migration history .
The conclusion is that this formation process is a constant continuum , ranging from Jovian-type central bodies , all of the way through the stellar sequence. Although it is consistent , a multiple star-system origin can interfere with the process profoundly . If the subject system is then gravitationally ejected , it may appear to be anomalously developed .
*Caveat : If the gas/dust influx mostly occurs before the star becomes very hot , then the planetoids created will be similar in both composition and dimension . However , if much inflow occurs AFTER the stellar-flux is high , then compositional fractionation will occur . This will result in an assortment of different planetary types , these being subject to modification over geological timescales .
* Alright , all wood-fires produce ashes . The fires of the universe produce ashes too , and those make the craziest clumps !
Adios , peoples !............P.M.
Ref : Great Lakes Ledger 03/20.
greatlakesledger.com/2020/03/13/Cosmic-dust-and-gas-stop-planets-from-consuming-their-moons/
*Read NSF thread : What spun down the inner planets ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74926.0new;topicseen#new
*Ref.- Newton Observatory find :
nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies
/xmm_magnetic_starbirth.html
**Bonus Article on Rogue-Planets :
universetoday.com/163940/misaligned-star-systems-are-rogue-planet-factories/
-
...................Addendum .
Formation disk infall duration and rate turn out to be crucial in determining the overall planetary system morphology .
A lower infall volume , relative to system mass , will result in a Saturnian-system mass distribution .
A higher infall volume , relative to system mass , will result in a Jovian-system mass distribution .
A longer infall duration will result in a greater final mass for all of the planetary bodies .
System history revealed .
P.M.
》Read NSF thread : Could a "Hot-Jupiter" exist in an orbit 1 A-U ... ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68254.new;topicseen#new
*.Related thread : Do red-dwarf stars eat their planets ? Link @ Reply # 9 .
*.Bonus Reference : "What is the habitable-zone of a neutron-star ?" , Quora Post #2.
**.Bonus Ref.: quora.com/Do-habitable-exomoons-exist-1/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
-
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
-
Good information man , my purpose here is to high-light my unique insight into the mass-curve effect , and analyze positive feed-back about the paradigm .
P.M.
-
my purpose here is to high-light my unique insight into the mass-curve effect
You have not said what this "mass-curve effect" is.
-
Jovian versus SaturnIan .
P.
-
You have not said what this "mass-curve effect" is.
-
Technically : A Mass Distribution Curve .
P.
-
Mass Distribution Curve
OK, so now you need to explain what you think that curve should be and also what the "traditional" view is.
-
..................Addendum .
Central-body masses do not scale directly with satellite masses because the formation regimes and timing are so different . For example ; larger star with smaller planets . This may occur because of an initially robust material infall , followed by a significant tailing off of infall volume . The inverse infall pattern would tend to produce a small star with large planets . Many variations , and degrees of these patterns are possible . Internal and external complicating factors would also be brought to bear , on the final form of the putative planetary system .
P.M.
》Clarification : The 3-body orbital relation dictates that a protostellar or Jovian formation-disk will draw satellite-bodies inward , while forcing lighter materials outward . The inward progression will be halted by tidal-lifting , with the satellites settling into resonant-orbits . The exception being when the central-body lacks enough rotational velocity to halt the inward drift . Hosts that later slow their rotation through magnetic-field interactions , will restart the infall process . They will eventually consume their inner-planets .
》To examine this paradigm , read NSF. thread : Do red-dwarf stars eat their planets ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74829.new;topicseen#new
-
@ P.M. How would you test your hypothesis?
-
..........Simple , but not easy .
A. Establish giant arrays of giant telescopes , using advanced interferometry.
B. Use close-by , easily observed systems to establish baselines .
C. Perform in-depth observation and analysis of systems in the formation process .
P.M.
》Research the "Dust-Trap" theory of planetary-system formation , by Dr. Constantin Batygin (2020) .
-
Mass Distribution Curve
OK, so now you need to explain what you think that curve should be and also what the "traditional" view is.
-
The initial OP statement is fairly traditional , my insights are mostly in Replies # 1&9 .
P.
-
..Planetary Formation Anomalies
..Of : Uranus , Venus , Mercury , and Mars.
Uranus : Formed with a laterally oriented axis of rotation . This due to extremely turbulent , and chaotic , gas-flow behavior in the outer solar-system formation thick-disk , possibly caused by out-of-ecliptic-plane gas-infall . Once the original Uranian infall-vortex formed , with it's sideways orientation , it was stable , and self-perpetuating . The complicated gas-infall dynamics , however , combined with orbital-resonances with Saturn and Jupiter , resulted in a sloHuwer accumulation of gases , and core materials . The end result was a much lower-mass planet (with a smaller core) , than what should be between Saturn and Neptune . The 70% dia. core generates far less heat than the large core of Neptune, thus the massively larger heat radiation of it's similar-sized sister-planet. Another effect of Uranus' small core is the radically off-center magnetic field . It is about 13° further off-center from the axis of rotation , than the 46° offset of Neptune's . Extrapolating from planets with known larger cores (including Neptune) , the inverse correlation between core size, and magnetic field offset , becomes clear . This is likely due to the sharper curve of the smaller inner-mantle surface , where it interfaces with the heat-producing planetary core . The greater strength of Uranus' magnetic field is likely due to the faster convection of metallic hydrogen/salty water , above Uranus' core . A similar relation is visible when comparing Terran and Venusian surfacue wind-speeds . The more-dense fluid flows more slowly .
There's no room in this paradigm for a 2-earth mass , rocky-bodied impactor . Such a body would deposit a huge amount of core material directly into Uranus . The planet's core would be MUCH larger than it actually is , instead of being ~30% smaller in diameter than Neptune's core . It would generate profoundly more heat , through radio-genic decay & pressure-driven crystallization , than even Neptune does . No insulating layer would contain continually generated heat for long ; the core-generated heat would build up , the layer would heat up , and the planet's heat-flux (em. radiation) would continue apace.
A 2-Earth mass collision would not leave enough rock/ice elements , in great enough density , to form a new moon system around a gas-giant , or destroy a putative old one , anyway . A simple collision is not a massive , and long-lived, planetary formation disk . The results of each are extremely , and measurably , different . In future , this should be fully identifiable by physical and empirical examination . Also , accurate re-creation of a 2-earth mass dense-liquid object colliding with a 14.5-earth mass less dense-liquid object spinning at 1-rotation every 17.25 hours , will show that it will NOT change it's rotation axis from vertical to horizontal . The angular inertia (momentum) of the ice-giant is far too great for that . Anyhow , a rotational alteration that profound would likely change Uranus' rate of rotation , so that it was no longer a close match to it's sister planet Neptune . . Note : Both the composition , and density , of Uranus align more closely with those of Saturn . Neptune's greater heat of : accretion , radio-genesis , and crystallization , having driven-off more light elements during it's formation . This belies certain radical , and extremely unlikely , planetary-migration theories . This particularly applies to those which have a lighter body , serendipitously spiraling inwards , and ejecting a heavier body well out into the solar-system . Such theories use multiple , unlikely occurances to string together an improbable out-come . The physical evidence indicates that these two planets formed approximately where they are today , with their differences easily explained by their varying formation histories , and locations .
------------------------------------
..Venus : It has long been believed that Venus rotation was reversed by a giant impactor . This is belied by ; the lack of any physical evidence to that effect , the lack of an axial tilt to the planet's rotation , and the continuation of the slow planetary rotation (instead of tide-locking) .
The slow-rotation forces the planet through a very high-friction crustal deformation . An extremely dry & rigid crust , plus extra-stong tidal forces , cause this . Were only angular momentum at play , Venus would quickly tide-lock with the Sun . The fact that it doesn't automatically begets the question "What is torquing Venus ?" . The credible answer ; it's atmosphere . Venus has a massive , extremely dense atmosphere . This ocean of air maintains a rapid super-rotation , including a net atmospheric counter-rotation , around the planet . It's giant atmospheric tidal-bulge , is pulled partially around Venus by this rapid flow of air . This massive , displaced body of air pulls side-ways on Venus' crustal tidal-bulge , torquing the planet into a slow , reversed , mode of rotation . It is likely that this effect began braking Venus' original rotation , billions of years ago . .Note - Venus' rotation rate appears to be easily & rapidly altered by changing atmospheric -current patterns & intensities ; this according to accumulated Messenger and Venus Express data , and analysis . Solar em.+particle radiation's induced angular-momentum causes unbalanced accelerative pressures to be exerted upon the Venusian atmosphere , thus torquing the planet . Atmospheric air-current changes , crustal and mantle movements and plumes could also be the cause of observed variations . Light glancing off of an air-less surface could be expected to impart much less sidereal force overall . A glaciated planet would resist rotating , as the glaciers' mass would pull weakly on the planet's tidal-bulge . Rotation would be consistently braked , as glacial-melting kept the glacial-bulge in the same location , relative to the star .
》**Ref.: Quora thread : quora.com/Why-does-the-atmosphere-on-Venus-move-around-at-such-high-speeds-when-the-planet-rotates-on-its-axis-so-slowly/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
-----------------------------------
..Mercury : The recent revelation that the closest planet to the Sun , appears to have undergone volatile-releasing volcanism in it's earlier epochs , posed a mystery to the planetology community . Both theory , and evidentiary analysis , indicated that Mercury formed without volatile chemicals . Surface observation by the Messenger orbiter found lava tubes , with apparent outflows of sulfur , sodium , and magnesium . None should have been there . These outflows were found only in and about massive impact craters . This correlation yields well to forensic examination . The Late Heavy Bombardment would have seen many giant , volatile-laden , high-velocity impactors , collide with & penetrate Mercury and it's extremely thin crust . Burying themselves deeply , they would begin a slow melt & boil process , while the crust cooled , and solidified , above them . A pressure release paradigm , similar to Earth's plate-subduction , melting , and eruption mechanism , would then occur . This would produce the vent-location pattern seen on Mercury's surface today .
Note-EM radiation glancing off of Mercury would have less AM transfer than at Venus .
*Ref.: babakivani.com/mercurys-iron-core-was-formed-because-it-was-so-close-to-magnetic-sun-when-solar-system-was-formed/
-------------------------------------
. Mars : The Martian isotopic anomaly . Mars isotope analysis indicates material composition from further-out in the solar-system . This is often taken as evidence of Martian migration . That is an illusion ; the planet absorbed tremendous amounts of impactors AFTER it's formation . Having no significant subduction & resurfacing mechanisms , these "outer" materials accumulated on Mars' crust . This gives the formation illusion mentioned above
------------------------------------
These "mysteries" could be definitively resolved by physical probes to the planetary atmospheres , and/or surfaces . Future super-arrays of giant telescopes may also provide decisive evidentiary support for the conclusions reached above .
Professor Megamind
---------------------------------------
**.Mars Magnetic-field :
quora.com/Why-doesnt-Mars-have-a-magnetic-field-in-spite-of-having-a-core/ .My post # 2.
Mars Atmosphere References : quora.com/If-Mars-hadnt-lost-its-magnetic-field-how-quickly-would-its-atmosphere-have-depleted/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
》Concentrate on my post .
Ref.: nature.com/articles/ncomms10003
-
Just a few points we might need to consider:
(i) Are the planets moving away from the sun, gradually?
(ii) Are their orbital speeds around the sun decreasing, gradually?
(iii) Are we looking at a solar system with planets beyond Earth becoming more gaseous, less massive?
-
(i) Are the planets moving away from the sun, gradually?
(ii) Are their orbital speeds around the sun decreasing, gradually?
I would say yes due to tidal acceleration, but with planets very far from the Sun that acceleration might be so small that other factors could overwhelm it.
(iii) Are we looking at a solar system with planets beyond Earth becoming more gaseous, less massive?
All of the planets beyond the Earth (except for Mars) are more massive than the Earth.
-
Even Neptune? More massive than Earth?
Jupiter and Saturn have gone from massive massive masses of planets to planets much lighter, of gases, over the past 50 years. Why?
-
Even Neptune? More massive than Earth?
Neptune is about seventeen times more massive than the Earth.
Jupiter and Saturn have gone from massive massive masses of planets to planets much lighter, of gases, over the past 50 years. Why?
I'm going to need a citation on that one.
-
Its a thick carpet to dig under to find those citations.
How did we find out, and when, that everything beyond Mars is a Gaseous planet other than bare rock core exo-planet stuff?
-
20 years ago everyone thought the planets came from the stars and were slowly moving into the sun.....or either you are not that old to know that or too old to remember?
-
Its a thick carpet to dig under to find those citations.
Then I'll save some time: there is no evidence that the masses of the four outer planets has changed significantly in the past fifty years.
How did we find out, and when, that everything beyond Mars is a Gaseous planet other than bare rock core exo-planet stuff?
They would technically be mostly composed of supercritical fluids instead of gas. I'm not sure when these things were discovered, but I'm guessing the Voyager probes had a lot to do with it. One of the biggest clues to the internal structure of the outer planets would be their density. It's much too low for them to be mostly rock (although their cores could conceivably be rocky).
20 years ago everyone thought the planets came from the stars and were slowly moving into the sun.....or either you are not that old to know that or too old to remember?
What do you mean by "came from the stars"? You mean the proto-planetary disk? As far as I know, that model hasn't changed. I don't recall hearing that the planets are slowly moving into the Sun, though (unless you mean the Sun expanding into a red giant and consuming them).
-
Well, yeah, right? Isn't that core to proto-planet theory, that this solar system came from outer-space rubble? You've never hear that idea before?
-
Well, yeah, right? Isn't that core to proto-planet theory, that this solar system came from outer-space rubble? You've never hear that idea before?
Sounds like the proto-planetary disk to me.
-
Is that story book still around though?