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

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

Meet the planet COROT-exo-3b. It orbits a star slightly larger, hotter, and brighter than the Sun. The star is not an unusual one in any way, but the planet is definitely weird: it orbits the star in just over 4 days, which is pretty close in, though not a record breaker in and of itself. What’s bizarre is that it has about the same diameter of Jupiter, but has 21.6 times Jupiter’s mass. That makes it denser than lead.


That's one dense planet!



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


In other words, nothing can survive



This is by far the most massive planet found so close to its parent star. There is another extrasolar planet found with about that mass, but it orbits its star much farther out. The ones we’ve found that orbit their stars so close tend to have masses much smaller than this. For comparison, Jupiter takes 12 years to circle the Sun once. Mercury takes 88 days. So we’re talking big planets, really close to their stars.


Amazing...


This planet is challenging to models. How did it form? It most likely formed farther out from the star — gravitational influences make it hard for a large planet to form close to a star — and then gradually moved in. This can happen due to friction, of all things: when the star and planet are young, there is a disk of material leftover from the planetary formation. As the planet sweeps through this material it slows its orbit. It spirals in due to gravitational interaction with the disk, and eventually settles down when the disk material thins out a few million kilometers from the surface of the star itself.


This story is from October but after a couple ATS searches turned up nothing I decided to post it.

visit the Source for the story in full.



[edit on 12/4/2009 by Alaskan Man]



Maybe planets like Jupiter, when spit out of the star , start out as very dense planets and as they move away lose their mass......

and maybe only certain types of those planets actually can do that..




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Here's a calculator that takes the weight of you, and converts of how much you weigh on other planets and stars......... Yes I said stars.
www.exploratorium.edu...

163 pounds of meat would weigh 4412.7 pounds on the Sun 211,900,000 pounds on a White Dwarf, and 22,820,000,000,000 pounds on a Neutron Star (holy smokes!! I wonder how much my poop would weigh?!?!?) Okay so 0.441 pounds (200 grams) of poop would be..... 61,740,000,000 pounds on a Neutron Star. That's heavier than a few trains.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

Meet the planet COROT-exo-3b. It orbits a star slightly larger, hotter, and brighter than the Sun. The star is not an unusual one in any way, but the planet is definitely weird: it orbits the star in just over 4 days, which is pretty close in, though not a record breaker in and of itself. What’s bizarre is that it has about the same diameter of Jupiter, but has 21.6 times Jupiter’s mass. That makes it denser than lead.


That's one dense planet!



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


In other words, nothing can survive



This is by far the most massive planet found so close to its parent star. There is another extrasolar planet found with about that mass, but it orbits its star much farther out. The ones we’ve found that orbit their stars so close tend to have masses much smaller than this. For comparison, Jupiter takes 12 years to circle the Sun once. Mercury takes 88 days. So we’re talking big planets, really close to their stars.


Amazing...


This planet is challenging to models. How did it form? It most likely formed farther out from the star — gravitational influences make it hard for a large planet to form close to a star — and then gradually moved in. This can happen due to friction, of all things: when the star and planet are young, there is a disk of material leftover from the planetary formation. As the planet sweeps through this material it slows its orbit. It spirals in due to gravitational interaction with the disk, and eventually settles down when the disk material thins out a few million kilometers from the surface of the star itself.


This story is from October but after a couple ATS searches turned up nothing I decided to post it.

visit the Source for the story in full.



[edit on 12/4/2009 by Alaskan Man]


SEE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX - cause there is a planet made of lead - how can global warming be true......at last concrete proof !!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


lol





posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 




It's scientifically sound to remain open to possibilities which have yet to be scientifically proved to be false. It's only scientifically unsound to assert those possibilities as facts.


Don't misunderstand me, I was not saying to remain closed to new possibilities, as that would halt progression as much as anything else. The point was that making a hypothesis based on the fact that a negative has not been proven, while simultaneously not having any evidence in support of it, is illogical and scientifically moot.

Using our current knowledge, we can make an educated guess that life could not exist in such conditions. Saying that it can, simply because it hasn't been proven that it can't, is just silly.



If it's irrefutable, then it isn't ignorant in my opinion, but rather self evident.


Hardly. It's irrefutable because it preys on the philosophical notion that as a species we rely on a set of imperfect senses to perceive the universe; as such there may always be things that are unknowable to us and we may never fully understand anything.

While it's an interesting thought to ponder, it has no place in science which relies on empirical evidence.



Yes, and for it to be scientific and genuinely skeptical, that truth - however incorrect it may later turn out to be - must be based on proof and evidence. There is no proof that it is absolutely impossible for some form of life to exist in such an environment. There is evidence that it is improbable, however.


You sort of defeat your own point here. As you say, the truth must be based on evidence. Evidence shows that life couldn't exist on such a planet. You can't logically prove a negative.



It is my opinion that people use the terms scientific and skeptical too loosely. These are methods, and they are rigid and inflexible, but they allow for open-mindedness as well. The true scientist and skeptic cannot make the assertion that something is impossible without proving it (which would require that we visit and examine every planet in the entire universe, in this particular case.) If they do, then they are in fact not being scientific or skeptical at all. Then they are the ones following their imaginations and adopting what may merely be fiction for all they know.


Again, I am not speaking out against open mindendness. What I'm speaking out against is the "you never know" sort of reply some use as an opposing argument. If there was any evidence to support it, then by all means. However, I'm afraid logical fallacies don't count.



They can however hypothesize that it is impossible. Unfortunately, that isn't a hypothesis we can prove at present. Therefore it can't be asserted as a fact. Possibilities (not factual realities) are therefore self evidence until proved otherwise.


Possibilities are possibilities, there's nothing evident about them.

It's possible Earth's core is made of pudding, has anyone gone down there to check?

[edit on 12/5/2009 by somedude]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Read pages 1, 2 and 4.

Anyone bringing up the element it is made of has a lot of learning to do.

What is our sun made of?

Can oxygen or even helium be more dense than lead?

C'mon peeps think a little bit, just a little.

And nothing is an impossibility, or have you gone over to the Al Gore science school of thought?

How do we know it is a planet orbiting a star.

Why can it not be a burnt out dwarf circling a star?

Or better yet, think about this, you have two stars in a binary system and their orbits slowly decay over billions of years. Now, the larger of the two stars get to a point where the orbits come so close that the larger of the two begins to siphon off the matter from the other.


See, now you made me think. Quit reading stuff on the internet and open a book. Hell, especially science fiction. You might actually expand your mind.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Certainly, life as we know it wouldn't spark up on a planet like this. I suspect proteins would have no chance of forming in such an environment. The chemicals needed would most definitely not be able to form at the molecular level.
If there's life there, it's well and truly outside of anything we could theorise. If I was warping around the quadrant Star Trek style looking for life (only life), this planet wouldn't be one of my stops....
Of course, if I wasn't only out there looking for just life, then this planet would actually be near the top of my list.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
A planet denser than lead?
Man that's some heavy news right there!

IRM



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngelHeart
Why is it referred to a planet rather than a brown dwarf? Isn't 21 Jupiter masses enough to fuse deuterium?


Well, yes and no......but.....spectrophotometric studies have shown there isn't much deuterium on Jupiter, only about 1 seventh that of earth. deuterium ocurrance on earth, primarily as hydrogen deuteride, is about 154 ppm. On Jupiter it's about 22. And the only known method for making more D is Big Bang nucleosynthesis. And 21 Jupiter masses isn't quite enough to sustain a fusion reaction at the core. That takes about 8% of a solar mass, or 75 to 80 Jupiter masses. A brown dwarf (they are actually a dull red and strongly emit in the infrared band, and if they're really hot, in the x-ray band) are not really stars, but sort of a missing link between gas giants and true stellar objects.
May I please let class out early? Ultraviolet is starting on SyFy.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CASH69
This sounds like junk science to me,i thought they called this a pulsar star.


If "they" do, they missed science class. A pulsar is a spinning neutron star. Which is a post-supernova object. A neutron star is about 20 km in diameter and has the mass of about 1.4 times that of our Sun. This means that a neutron star is so dense that on Earth, one teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons. That isn't twice as dense as lead, as exo-3 is. That is 10^11 times as dense.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe


Can oxygen or even helium be more dense than lead?







Yup, just collapse it so that the electrons and protons are converted to neutrons after it supernovas and all that is left is a collection of 2 down quarks and an up quark, each with a mass of 300 MeV. Makes lead look like a feather. One teaspoon full of this neutron soup, if brought to earth would weigh a billion tons



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Well, very likely, with gravity like that, and being so close to its sun... there's simply no possible way for life to have developed. We're talking gravitational pressure that couple probably not only tear apart a water molecule, bu ignite its component hydrogen and helium in the process.

I do wonder what the planet is made of, or if it's just ultra-compressed.


Why do you think Water is required for life?

What about methane?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Wow , and I thought the people on THIS planet were the densest things in the universe? or is that just the Politicians?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
In other words, nothing can survive


thats something you cannot answer, there is life at the bottom of the oceans on or planet, how do they survive.

Life in some form, may exist in the weirdest places, thats nature. I would not make rash judgements, about what can happen on planets that are so different to ours, as no one really knows, and science has been wrong before, on where life can be.

Not saying its there, but conditions can be extreme and life can still existin very basic forms.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by somedude
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


The point was that making a hypothesis based on the fact that a negative has not been proven, while simultaneously not having any evidence in support of it, is illogical and scientifically moot.


If the hypothesis was that life does exist in that environment, then I would agree. The hypothesis is that life is at least remotely possible, however improbable. Without proof that it's absolutely, irrefutably impossible, that isn't an unscientific assertion at all.


Using our current knowledge, we can make an educated guess that life could not exist in such conditions. Saying that it can, simply because it hasn't been proven that it can't, is just silly.


I agree. Saying that it's possible that it can isn't, though, in my opinion.



Hardly. It's irrefutable because it preys on the philosophical notion that as a species we rely on a set of imperfect senses to perceive the universe; as such there may always be things that are unknowable to us and we may never fully understand anything.

While it's an interesting thought to ponder, it has no place in science which relies on empirical evidence.


I must steadfastly but respectfully disagree with you on this point. Skeptical science cannot make assertions without proof. It can only hypothesize without proof. Science relies on empirical evidence, taken together, verified, vetted, and re-verified or reproduced, to constitute proof. Evidence and a hypothesis alone is not irrefutable proof, without which there is no fact. Therefore it is not a scientific fact that life is utterly impossible in such an environment. It will be a scientific fact when we directly, empirically observe the lack of life on the planet, and not before.

In fact, I've read several articles in recent years suggesting that life may be capable of developing in far more extreme environments that science believed was possible until quite recently. Scientists themselves are saying, essentially, "Life could exist in environments where we always hypothesized that it was impossible."



You sort of defeat your own point here. As you say, the truth must be based on evidence. Evidence shows that life couldn't exist on such a planet. You can't logically prove a negative.


Evidence shows that life probably couldn't exist on such a planet. And you are correct. You can't prove a negative. As such, we can't prove that something isn't a possibility until we verify its absence directly. (And yes, even then, we might miss something. That is not an unscientific statement at all, unless you're suggesting that a scientist would take the stance that they could never be wrong. That would be quite unscientific indeed.)



Again, I am not speaking out against open mindendness. What I'm speaking out against is the "you never know" sort of reply some use as an opposing argument. If there was any evidence to support it, then by all means. However, I'm afraid logical fallacies don't count.


I don't understand how it's a logical fallacy.

There's evidence of it's improbability in this instance. So we can say that all of the empirical evidence we have thus far tells us that life in such an environment is improbable. If it told us it was impossible then we could say that. It doesn't though, because we haven't visited this planet.

We can say that evidence tells us that life is unlikely to be possible on such a planet. Nothing more. That's as far as the evidence takes us. We can hypothesize beyond that, but we cannot make factual assertions beyond that point in my opinion.



It's possible Earth's core is made of pudding, has anyone gone down there to check?


We can hypothesize much about the Earth's core based on various theories, and empirical data collected through the study of seismology. It wouldn't be scientific or skeptical to assert the precise composition down to the most minute detail of the Earth's core, however. Because, as you pointed out, no one has "gone down there to check."

Think of it this way. When I assert that something is possible, I'm not really asserting anything. I'm saying that something may be, or it may not be. When one asserts that something is absolutely not possible, then they are asserting that something is not, and cannot be. They are making the actual assertion, and therefore the burden of proof lies on their shoulders.

Really, this is just likely to remain a difference of opinion between us. I respect your point of view deeply, but I maintain my opinion that we cannot (or at least should not) make assertions without absolute, definitive proof.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Some astronomers say it's a brown dwarf:

Basic data : CoRoT-Exo-3b -- Brown Dwarf (M



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think this very dense planet was possibly the creation of some alien creature. I think what happened was the creature ate some very dense material in order to coat its stomach for a night of carousing, and the creature did not have enough fiber like from silica or asbestos. So when it took a dump into a hitech toilet consisting of a black hole connected to some sort of worm hole plumbing the black hole super compacted the dense material before it got ejected out of its event horizon into the wormhole. The worm hole ejected a hard round super dense object consisting of some hard sharp pieces of material embedded into the surface of the "planet". (That's what we call it just to make y'all happy.) Which was great for the creature cuz it was as itchy as all get out. This "planet" was pulled in by a star. And it's been circling the drain ever since so to speak.
Anyway that is how they it roun' here in Crawford, Georgia. Have a blessed day!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I'm starting to feel I directed my original post at the wrong person. I agree with most of what you are saying, I believe we might have misunderstood one another.

You are probably right that it comes down to an opinion difference between us. The part where we probably differ at is:



Think of it this way. When I assert that something is possible, I'm not really asserting anything. I'm saying that something may be, or it may not be. When one asserts that something is absolutely not possible, then they are asserting that something is not, and cannot be. They are making the actual assertion, and therefore the burden of proof lies on their shoulders.


I agree with the first part, and I'm assuming anyone that said that life could not exist in such conditions was not implying that they knew that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Where I don't agree is where the burden of proof lies. As it has been said, you cannot prove a negative. To more appropriately reword something I said before: evidence suggests that life could not exist on such a planet. And that's it, that's all we have to go by. To suggest otherwise, without any supporting evidence other than the fact that a negative has not been proven, is the logical fallacy. Or at least in my eyes.

In the end anything is indeed possible, but to dwell on that fact and not make any assertions about reality is hampering to the progression of our knowledge, especially when it involves locations we cannot physically reach.

That's not to say people should be able to assert something in the name of science as absolute fact when such an assertion is practically impossible to make in the first place. If that's the message I was conveying, it was not intentional.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


my thinking too, either neutron 'star' like or a stellar mass quark.

those are too dense though on second thought.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
In that case, we agree. The evidence at hand does indeed suggest, as you said, that life is improbable, and potentially impossible, in such an environment. Thanks for clarifying, and I hope you trust that I do respect your opinion.





top topics
 
47
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join