It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Saturn and Jupiter really Planets?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Now for as long as I can recall I always wonder If Saturn and Jupiter ARE REALLY planets or are they baby stars.

Now the following discriptions are from the (World book online refrence center)

The atmosphere of Jupiter is composed of about 86 percent hydrogen, 14 percent helium, and tiny amounts of methane, ammonia, phosphine, water, acetylene, ethane, germanium, and carbon monoxide.


Most scientists believe Saturn is a giant ball of gas that has no solid surface. However, the planet seems to have a hot solid inner core of iron and rocky material. Around this dense central part is an outer core that probably consists of ammonia, methane, and water. A layer of highly compressed, liquid metallic hydrogen surrounds the outer core. Above this layer lies a region composed of hydrogen and helium in a viscous (syruplike) form. The hydrogen and helium become gaseous near the planet's surface and merge with its atmosphere, which consists chiefly of the same two elements.

The sun, like most other stars, is made up mostly of atoms of the chemical element hydrogen. The second most plentiful element in the sun is helium, and almost all the remaining matter consists of atoms of seven other elements. For every 1 million atoms of hydrogen in the entire sun, there are 98,000 atoms of helium, 850 of oxygen, 360 of carbon, 120 of neon, 110 of nitrogen, 40 of magnesium, 35 of iron, and 35 of silicon. So about 94 percent of the atoms are hydrogen, and 0.1 percent are elements other than hydrogen and helium.

As you see I layed out Jupiter,Saturn and the Sun Compositions don't all 3 have the same chemicles so if we can jump start Jupiter or Saturn they too can be Stars like our Sun!!!! Am I right?

Maybe they were as in the time of the Dinosaurs maybe just maybe but first thing first are these Giant Planets possible stars?




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
It's the mass of the object that is essential in starting hydrogen fusion in a star, not simply the chemical composition. Jupiter would have to be about 80 times more massive than it is to have become a star, so I think you can safely say it is nothing more than a normal gas planet. Saturn is much less massive than Jupiter, so same thing.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
djohnsto77 so what are dwarf stars, because science and ATS has said: there is a Dwarf star within our Galaxy and its supposly no bigger than pluto....Some ATS members claimed it's planets _x....



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Here is an article from space.com which is related to this conversation.

space.com...



"Brown dwarfs are many times more massive than Jupiter, but they don't have enough material to force a jumpstarting of thermonuclear fusion, the engine that powers a regular star like our Sun.

Astronomers have found about 140 planets outside our solar system. Most are more massive than Jupiter, and some are much more massive. Astronomers have been scrambling to figure out where to draw the line between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf.

Complicating the matter, several objects that appear to be in the acceptable mass range for planets -- up to about 15 Jupiter masses -- were discovered about five years ago floating freely in space, not bound to any star. Astronomers have been arguing ever since whether these objects are planets or brown dwarfs."



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
There are lots of different types of dwarf stars, in fact our sun is a yellow dwarf star.

They probably mean a brown dwarf that is like Jupiter but larger and may have had limited fusion in the past but never quite became a star or a white or black dwarf, the remains of a star like our sun that has died.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Thanks guys on your comments It makes sense , I was curious because some scientist made refrence that both saturn and jupiter with all their moons are like galaxies within themselves.

So what is nemesis? Does it exist? I've read of it but lost my source and thats why I asked on those two gas giants because I thought one could've been it, isn't there a secret society that call themselves the sons of saturn or something similar?

Anyhow thats another catergory.............Thanks again



[edit on 24-1-2005 by 2ndSEED]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   

from wikipedia on Jupiter and Brown Dwarf
Scientifically, stars are defined as self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

There is no clear-cut definition of what distinguishes a large and massive planet such as Jupiter from a brown dwarf, although the latter possesses rather specific spectral lines, but in any case it would need to be about seventy times as massive if it were to become a star.

Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects (~13 to 75 Jupiter masses) that never fuse hydrogen into helium in their cores, as do stars on the main sequence. They do fuse deuterium.

Several hundred brown dwarfs have been detected, and they are thought to be the most common type of object in the Milky Way galaxy. Gas giant planets that form directly from a collapsing nebula rather than accreting from a protostellar disk like other planets are more properly termed brown dwarfs.


Long story short, if Jupiter had been a tad bigger and a tad hotter it could have fused deuterium and been considered a brown dwarf star. We know from its size and spectral lines however that it is not an expended brown dwarf.


As for the small stars you are talking about- they are called neutron stars. They do not have fusion anymore.
They are what happens when a star isn't massive enough to form a black hole after supernova. In a stars main cycle protons are fused, eventually it goes nova and if I understand correctly basically blows out a lot of it's mass.
What is left over is a bunch of neutrons left over after the fusion of protons. They form a huge nuclei of ever-increasing density, at the center of which it is theorized neutrons are essentially compressed into nothingness. They average about 20km in size and far more massive than Earth- there is no known object more dense in the universe. We still aren't 100% sure what goes on at the core of a neutron star.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Black holes are denser than neutron stars. Of course there's no neutron star or black hole anywhere around our sun, we'd be able to observe its gravitation effect (probably our solar system would have never even been able to form.
)


E_T

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
There are lots of different types of dwarf stars, in fact our sun is a yellow dwarf star.

They probably mean a brown dwarf that is like Jupiter but larger and may have had limited fusion in the past but never quite became a star or a white or black dwarf, the remains of a star like our sun that has died.
Sun is normal star, not some dwarf.

Here's good explanation about brown dwarf.
en.wikipedia.org...

And remember that white dwarf is entirely different from brown dwarf.
White dwarfs are produced in the end of normal/light mass star life when it slowly blows it outer layers to space while core/inner layers collapse to solid small high density object because end of fusion means there's no force (radiation pressure) to fight against gravity. Because this collapsed core still has big amount of heat energy and collapsion produced more of it temperature is high which causes it to emit white light.
Also small size means it has small surface area to radiate that heat to space so cooling it will take long time. (only after billions years it would have cooled to ambient temperature coming black dwarf)



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
This thread reminds me. Anyone remember the show Red Dwarf? One of the best shows EVER


E_T

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
They are what happens when a star isn't massive enough to form a black hole after supernova. In a stars main cycle protons are fused, eventually it goes nova and if I understand correctly basically blows out a lot of it's mass.
What is left over is a bunch of neutrons left over after the fusion of protons.
Neutron stars are formed when fusion has converted light elements in the core of massive star to iron which means end of fusion reaction because fusion of iron would require more energy than it produces.
While that happens gravity starts to compress core and inner layers of star to denser and denser releasing big amounts of energy rapidly which heats outer layers to enough high temperature for fusion. Only this time fusion reaction happens in so big "area" and in uncontrolled way exploding outer layers of star to space.
While outer layers explode to space core continues its collapse while gravity crushes even atoms causing merging of electrons and protons to neutrons until almost all matter is neutrons. Only pressure caused by densely packed neutrons is able to counter gravity and stop collapse.

If star's mass (& mass of collapsing core/inner parts) is big enough even that pressure isn't enough to stop collapse which continues until matter collapses to singularity meaning object becomes so dense that escape velocity in its surface exceeds speed of light. (gravity/escape velocity increases when mass is increased or distance to that mass is decreased)
This causes birth of event horizon which is like edge of "visible space" because inside event horizon gravity is so big that even light is unable to escape.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Black holes are denser than neutron stars. Of course there's no neutron star or black hole anywhere around our sun, we'd be able to observe its gravitation effect (probably our solar system would have never even been able to form.
)


I don't know why wikipedia didn't count black holes. I don't claim to be the expert, but from reading wikipedia's article on blackholes it doesn't sound like a black hole necessarily has to be more dense than a neutron star. It only has to be so massive that it's gravity can overcome light.


ET, thanks for clearing up the finer points of how neutron stars form. If an article isn't nice and explicit somebody who doesn't study the subject in depth can easily be forced into flawed assumptions to make the explanation "work".



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

However, the planet seems to have a hot solid inner core of iron and rocky material. Around this dense central part is an outer core that probably consists of ammonia, methane, and water.


Do you have evidence of a hot solid inner core of iron and rockey material?

And what for is the water in the atmosphere in Jupiter?

Have we the capabilities to send a probe in jupiter to reach the center of the gas planet to check for a solid inner core?

Just imagine the small chance that a titan-esque mini planet exists within the core of Jupiter heated by the core.

What sort of high forces would occur at the core of Jupiter and what would the temperature be?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
djohnsto77, The Vagabond, and E_T

I just wanted to say great work in this thread. I used a WATS nomination on you each. Keep up the great work.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Thanks cmdrkeenkid!


Originally posted by E_T
Sun is normal star, not some dwarf.


I remember learning that the sun was a yellow dwarf, and this site says the same thing:


YELLOW DWARF
Yellow dwarfs are small, main sequence stars. The Sun is a yellow dwarf.

www.enchantedlearning.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Yeah, technically the Sun's classification is a GII Main Sequence Dwarf. That's going by the HR Diagram.


I forgot to mention that one in my last post.



Originally posted by RedPhoenixDelta
Do you have evidence of a hot solid inner core of iron and rockey material?

Physical evidence? Nope. Just a lot of fairly good speculation and highly educated guesses.


And what for is the water in the atmosphere in Jupiter?

Hydrogen bonds nicely to oxygen. There's where you get some water. Plus comets carry quite a bit of water as ice, so a slight bit may have come from there.


Have we the capabilities to send a probe in jupiter to reach the center of the gas planet to check for a solid inner core?

Nope. The pressures of the atmosphere would crush the probe after just a few miles down. The density of the atmosphere would make the journey quite a long one, and before you get to the core you'd have to make it past the incredibly thick layer of metallic hydrogen.


Just imagine the small chance that a titan-esque mini planet exists within the core of Jupiter heated by the core.

Done. Now what was I supposed to do from there? Come up with all the reasons why that's impossible?


What sort of high forces would occur at the core of Jupiter and what would the temperature be?

Well pressure would be a high force, as would the density fo everything above it. The core temperature is thought to be about 24,000 degrees Celcius, or 43,000 degrees Fahrenheit.


E_T

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Have we the capabilities to send a probe in jupiter to reach the center of the gas planet to check for a solid inner core?

Nope. The pressures of the atmosphere would crush the probe after just a few miles down. The density of the atmosphere would make the journey quite a long one, and before you get to the core you'd have to make it past the incredibly thick layer of metallic hydrogen.
Yeah, pressure is enough to cause matter turn to plasma, that's what metallic hydrogen is.
And that required pressure is ~ 4 million times bigger than our atmospheric pressure... and what's better, that's the pressure only at the beginning of metallic hydrogen layer.
(even in deepest spots of oceans pressure is "only" ~thousand bars while pressure under 2 km of water is already enough to crush all but special submarines)

Also temperature is enough to vaporize any material.

So it might be easier to make probe as "nuke proof" than getting it capable to descending to Jupiter's core.


www.nineplanets.org...



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Hey I'm back with this question, well last time I posted and asked the question if Jupiter and Saturn possible suns now after researching and reading your post to my thread I found this link that states this:
NASA has crashed a plutonium-carrying RTG into a similar atmosphere before which may have resulted in an explosion the size of Earth’s diameter near the equator of Jupiter as observed by many and imaged by Olivier Meeckers of Belgium on October 19, 2003. Space.com carried the story “Mystery Spot on Jupiter Baffles Astronomers.”5 The craft, Galileo, entered into Jupiter near its equator very close to where the “mystery spot” later developed (Diagram A). It is possible that if the explosion were larger or deeper, Jupiter could have reached ignition. The fact remains that a very suspicious bruise appeared on Jupiter 28 days after Galileo made its plunge there. It is important to mention that it is rare for a comet or meteor to impact Jupiter at the equator so it is unlikely this was the cause.




I propose the magic trigger has been sought after and found


well to those whom want to do your own research heres the link you may find the contents on this link chillin'....I warn you
cyberspaceorbit.com...


well I'm off to search some more guyz, I'll be waiting for your comments until then take care




[edit on 20-2-2005 by 2ndSEED]


E_T

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Not really convincing.

Problem is that igniting chain reaction requires completely symmetrical and fast implosion which is created with very fast controlled shockwave, just adding external pressure wouldn't cause it, neither talking that when external pressure would be enough to compress plutonium heat would have vaporised whole junk much before that.
And reason why implosion must happen in milliseconds is that otherwise energy release from start of fission reaction breaks reaction mass (/stops further collapsing) even before chain reaction has really started preventing it from achieving significant yield.

Remember those many accidents involving nukes with highly enriched weapon grade material getting "treated badly" and where aircraft crashes (and resulted fire) and other accidents have caused even detonation of explosives without creating critical mass.

January 17, 1966, Palomares, Spain
A B-52 bomber carrying four hydrogen bombs collided in midair with a KC-135 tanker near Palomares, Spain. Of the four H-bombs aboard, two weapons' high explosive material exploded on ground impact, releasing radioactive materials, including plutonium, over the fields of Palomares.

January 21, 1968, Thule, Greenland
Four nuclear bombs were destroyed in a fire after the B-52 bomber carrying them crashed approximately seven miles southwest of the runway at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland. The B-52, from Plattsburgh Air Force Base in New York, crashed after a fire broke out in the navigator's compartment. The pilot was en route to Thule AFB to attempt an emergency landing. Upon impact with the ground, the plane burst into flames, igniting the high explosive outer coverings of at least one of the bombs. The explosive then detonated, scattering plutonium and other radioactive materials over an area about 300 yards on either side of the plane's path, much of it in "cigarette box-sized" pieces.

September 19, 1980, Damascus, Arkansas
Fuel vapors from a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) exploded in the missile's silo, blowing off the 740-ton silo door of reinforced concrete and steel and catapulting the missile's nuclear warhead 600 feet.
www.cdi.org...
So while principle might be very simple its implementation is anything else.


Also patterns of Jupiter's atmosphere change continuously because of differential rotation/tornado strength winds so that "targets" in different latitudes doesn't even move at same speed. (winds blow even to different directions)
With 28 day delay position of something in equator would have been entirely different compared to GRS.

Here's nice animations showing how fast patterns/their position change especially in equator.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov... (Jupiter's day ~ 0.41 earth's day)

And there's also error in that page, name is Hoaxland!
Everything claimed by him must be taken with bucket of monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. (or otherwise not taken at all)
He kindly even debunks his own claim...
At this ultra-slow “terminal velocity,” it takes the Galileo plutonium-238 capsules on the order of 700 hours – a month! to fall to a depth inside Jupiter
Now let's remember probe dropped to Jupiter by Galileo. It worked 61 minutes inside atmosphere before signal disappeared... in that time it detected faster than expected rise of temperature. Estimates are that one hour forward from that probe's Aluminum parts started to melt and ten hours after hitting atmosphere even titanium parts had been vaporized.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
I propose the magic trigger has been sought after and found


No, I'm sorry. First off, there's nothing at all to prove that the Galileo probe did indeed explode due to a nuclear reaction. When you can prove that that happened, maybe then your story or idea could have some credibility. Also though, if you remember right, when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacted Jupiter, it too left scars and marks on Jupiter's cloud decks for many days. No big deal, really.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join