Astronomers Find a Planet Denser Than Lead (And The Size of Jupiter)

If it is twice the density of lead, wouldn't that make it radioactive like Uranium? Or a typical star?

It makes me wonder what the odds are that we are only aware of a small percentage of the elements out there in the universe.

4 days around it's star? I must be going very, VERY fast to offset the gravitational pull of the star.

There must be a gravitational wobble that has a great deal of effect, over a great distance.

Jupiter is about a tenth the size of our sun.

Originally posted by poet1b

If it is twice the density of lead, wouldn't that make it radioactive like Uranium? Or a typical star?

It makes me wonder what the odds are that we are only aware of a small percentage of the elements out there in the universe.

4 days around it's star? I must be going very, VERY fast to offset the gravitational pull of the star.

There must be a gravitational wobble that has a great deal of effect, over a great distance.

Jupiter is about a tenth the size of our sun.

It would seen if it were to of become like Uranium it would have already blown up, just because it would of seemed to of reached critical mass a long time ago.
I just would wonder what will happen when it joins the star , sun, will it be a big explosion or just a Burp.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

y.

So what's denser than lead? Not a lot of naturally occurring substances on Earth, maybe the depleted uranium shells? That's pretty dense.

Depleted uranium is only 18950 kg/m^3. Osmium is the densest naturally occuring element at 22.587 g/cm^3.. For comparison, lead is 11.34 g/cm^3. Actually, there sre 16 natural elements denser than lead. You might have some on your finger, Both gold and platinum are denser than lead at standard atmosphere and pressure (+15 deg C anf 1013.25 hPa).

That's pretty dense, that must be where the Obama supporters come from.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
I wonder if the dense planet increases the magnetic fields of both it and the star. Its going so fast it may even act in part almost like a generator. Cool stuff, wish we could go see it ourselves.

yup, a dense object rotating around a center sourse of power. we do have those things on earth today....maybe it is some sort of cosmic gas station for traveling aliens.

Originally posted by factbeforefiction
That's pretty dense, that must be where the Obama supporters come from.

jeez...a political put-down involving obama....in this thread?? isn't there enough threads on this site for your slamming taste?? ok, chuckles, what ever floats your boat.

Originally posted by googolplex

Originally posted by poet1b

If it is twice the density of lead, wouldn't that make it radioactive like Uranium? Or a typical star?

It makes me wonder what the odds are that we are only aware of a small percentage of the elements out there in the universe.

4 days around it's star? I must be going very, VERY fast to offset the gravitational pull of the star.

There must be a gravitational wobble that has a great deal of effect, over a great distance.

Jupiter is about a tenth the size of our sun.

It would seen if it were to of become like Uranium it would have already blown up, just because it would of seemed to of reached critical mass a long time ago.
I just would wonder what will happen when it joins the star , sun, will it be a big explosion or just a Burp.

DSensity has nothing to do with radioactivity. Radioactivity has to do only with the instability of the nucleus of the atoms constituting the substance. Like alph, beta or gamma paticle emission, or, rarely, electron capture, as in potassium-argon decay, positron emission, or electromagnetic internal conversion. Critical mass applies only to fissile material. Jupiter can't become "like Uranium" - it (Jupiter is made of hydrogen and helium. Now if Jupiter accreted enough to exceed about 8% the mass of the sun, it might then sustain a fusion reaction at the core, becoming a star.
If it ever collides with its star what will happen will depend upon of what it is made.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

reply to post by factbeforefiction


or you could stay on topic and not be a republican numbnuts. what planet do you come from? planet where all hello's are ba!! taps?

ON TOPIC: It would seem that cybertron is actually in our universe after all. I guess this is more to this reality, dare I say it... than meets the eye. That leaves Technetium, Thorium, Thallium, Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Hafnium, Curium, Mercury, Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Protactinium, Tantalum, Uranium, Gold, Tungsten, Plutonium, Neptunium, Rhenium, Platinum, Iridium and Osmium on our planet, but on this one, it could be basically any element that is hyper-compressed.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by guidanceofthe third kind]

Good find!

I wonder what it's composition is? It must have a very high concentration of heavy elements like lead and uranium surely?

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

If I could stand on the surface of this planet, I’d weigh, over 9000 pounds!

In other words, nothing can survive

I wouldn't ever go as far as this and say nothing.. You couldn't possibly conceive of things you don't know about so to think you know everything is mentally retarded.

Originally posted by Bspiracy
Nothing can survive?
Don't you feel a TAD arrogant with that statement?

b

no he shouldn't. if you know anything about astrophysics, you'd make the conclusion that nothing could possibly exist on that planet... It's so dense that it's gravity probably wouldn't even allow air to float...

anything there would be liquified...

if you think in realistic scales and not magical fairytale realms of thought, you can understand just how rare life is, and how difficult a habitable planet is to find...

reply to post by St Udio


No, the wobble is definitely going to be due to an external body tugging at the star.

Anything on the star's surface heavy enough to cause a wobble would have been sucked into the core of the star fairly quickly. They're wads of plasma with high gravity, after all, so heavy things will just get slurped up.

Now, it COULD be something absolutely crazy and wacky and physics-defying. it's an odd universe, apparently. But for the moment, occam's razor says that a gigantic planet with nine thousand times earth's gravity screaming through space on a four-day orbit that is denser than lead is MORE probable than a heavy sunspot.

Which is freaking hilarious when you think about it. Oh, astrophysics.

Originally posted by SeeingBlue

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

If I could stand on the surface of this planet, I’d weigh, over 9000 pounds!

In other words, nothing can survive

I wouldn't ever go as far as this and say nothing.. You couldn't possibly conceive of things you don't know about so to think you know everything is mentally retarded.

well there's a big difference between mental retardation, -mental retardation for instance isn't very conducive to typing on a keyboard, or formulating thoughts- and just being plain "ignorant" about a subject. So ignorant people believe that THIS planet could have "any" form of life on it's surface, but if you learn more about the planet other than the damning evidence about it's mass, then you'd understand that nothing could survive on it.

Don't even get started on how utterly toxic this planet is.
You have to understand biology, and physics to make an "intelligent" assumption about things involving life, and it's properties...

It's easy to just state, oh sure life can exist on a black hole planet! Why not! Completely ignoring the facts that the gravimetric pressures would not even allow cells or molecules to form, slowed to a state of inanimate, due to the paralyzing gravity...


[edit on 12/5/2009 by Brainiac]

reply to post by Brainiac


Aliens = magic. Didn't you know? Haven't you ever watched Star Trek, man? IT'S ALL THERE!

Originally posted by Bspiracy
Nothing can survive?
Don't you feel a TAD arrogant with that statement?

b

lighten up

to everyone getting upset over my "nothing can survive" on a planet the size of Jupiter with the density of lead comment.


please provide proof otherwise.


p.s. how is calling me arrogant and retarded useful to an adult discussion?





[edit on 12/5/2009 by Alaskan Man]

This sounds like junk science to me,i thought they called this a pulsar star.

Originally posted by somedude

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ugg that's the first thing that came to my mind as well. Internet, what have you done to me?

This is pretty incredible to imagine. How close it must be to have a 4 day orbit combined with its density. I wonder how much more mass it would need before it got pulled into the star.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by somedude]

if its orbit has been calculated to 4 days then its a pretty good guess its well on its way to having a close encounter with its star. earth is moving towards the sun although a very slow pace but we are getting closer even the moon is getting closer to us we may not notice it but it is.

reply to post by xalaran


im not sure on the sun statement,

but i do know the moon moves away from the earth about 2inches a year.

they measure it with lasers.






[edit on 12/5/2009 by Alaskan Man]

*Suggests a compromise*

It is possible that life can evolve and survive on a planet with such high gravity and temperatures, however we have yet to see any evidence of such life, so if it exists, it is of an order and composition we can not yet readily imagine, predict, or conceive. That doesn't mean that such life does exist, however, it is possible. We can assert that it is possible, but we cannot scientifically and skeptically assert that it DOES exist without proof, lest we stray into the realm of pseudo-skepticism.

Remember - it's impossible to prove a negative, and the absence of proof is not proof of absence. It is not scientific or skeptical to make assertions without proof, including the assertion that something does not or cannot exist. If we're trying to be strictly skeptical and scientific, we can only assert that no form of life we can presently conceive of or theorize could exist or thrive in such an environment, not that it is irrefutably "impossible." We can hypothesize, based on available evidence, that by all appearances it is "improbable," though. We could be wrong, however.

*Thinks that's a fair and logical compromise.*