Comments on: Did Astronomers Catch Sight of an Exoplanet in Its Death Throes?

By: energy efficient

energy efficient — Thu, 05 May 2011 09:23:20 +0000

Hi there, A very good post, I have to admit this is really what we are here for, this forum definitely needs posters like you. Filling the place with some good tips and information, I did follow A couple of your posts, they been relevant and important points were elaborated. I must say we ought to always be ready to post in our best knowledge to compliment people. Really appreciate your posting.

By: Bjarne Lorenzen

Bjarne Lorenzen — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:11:38 +0000

UPDATE
The conclusion in my previous post was wrong.
It’s not enough only to consider the possible force that can be pass by, – based on the angel velocity as a result of a astronomic bodies rotation (centrifugal force) affecting the planet (WASP-18b).

It’s also necessary calculating the possible energy requirement and compare that to the (rotation) energy available due to the stars rotation..
This shows that even though if enough energy fast “could” be transmitted to Wasp-18b, it’s simply not available.
Wasp-18b will therefore approach the star, and will not only be affected by the tidal effect (expected 2.8 s. per year) but will probably also be effected by too weak rotation energy (+ 2 s per year) Total 4.8 s. per year.

However Wasp-18b should have been dismissed for several hundred million years ago. How could it “hide it self” from the tidal force so long time?
The answer seems to be “written in the stars”.
By comparing with other solar systems we can easy understand the logic. (The site is now updated and much better now) >

http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystems.htm

Sorry for the confusion…

By: Bjarne Lorenzen

Bjarne Lorenzen — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:54:23 +0000

New calculations shows that WASP-18b probably not will be stable in its present orbit, but will be thrown away with from the star, with a velocity 3 times higher than the velocity astronomers today believe it “should” approach the star.

This certainly will be a big chock, and something we should be able to confirm within 1 to 2 years.

The idea that also planets are affected of the same accelerating force that space probes (by fly by) support this new theory and make it also possible to understand the cause of the 4 following mysteries:

1.)Why gas-planets can be found very closed to starts ( with their atmosphere intact)
2.)Why huge planets can be found more as 15 billion km. from their mother stars.
3.)How Jupiter’s was created (longer away from the Sun) and what brought it closer to the Sun.
4.)How water came to earth.

Introduction

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

Updates:
http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

By: Bjarne Lorenzen

Bjarne Lorenzen — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:45:34 +0000

Mathematical Breakthrough
It is now mathematical proven that the decelerating force that affected the Pioneer probes and the accelerating force that had caused many Fly-by anomalies:
1.) Both affect the Earth (and the planets) as well, – and with full force.
2.) Automatically equalize each other (when affecting the planets).
3.) This explains the cause of the WASP-18b mystery and all the probes anomalies as well.

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:54:55 +0000

Saying that the odds are one in a billion is an overstatement. What are the odds of a star system having an infalling gas giant in its first million years? Doesn’t it stand to reason that the chances of this phenomenon go up as a star system ages (to a point at least).

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:14:10 +0000

Adding to prior postings only.

The odds would only be 1/1,000 for any single planet (in fact, for this specific system, not just any random system). But we don’t know just one exoplanet! We know, what, 400 odd? That’s not so far from a thousand. I’d hesitate to say that our odds of finding such an end-stage exoplant at 1/1, but they are certainly falling, and pretty rapidly I’d guess.

Also, our detection methods are still biased towards “hot Jupiters” so far as I know, and we’ve detected lots of those. So many that the planetary formation theorists have had to incorporate some new ideas to make room for the new data.

Finally, an orbital year of one (Earth) day–obviously that’s fast. Really, really fast! But is it so improbable? Consider: HAT-P-7b, orbital period 2.2 days. HD 209458 b, orbital period 3.5 days. HD189733b, orbital period 2.2 days.

It doesn’t sound so improbable when put that way.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:21:19 +0000

Agree with YouRang above. Given that we’ve already discovered several hundred exoplanets, and our methods are prejudiced towards large, close-in ones, odds of 1/1000 aren’t actually all that bad. We’d have close to a 50-50 chance of having found one already. Maybe this is it.

By: YouRang

YouRang — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:58:28 +0000

The odds are 1 in a thousand, so what? There are a hundred billion stars in the galaxy. And 999/1000 ^100,000,000,000 is almost zero probability that there aren’t planets at the appropriate stage to be found. (And that’s ignoring the preferential method of finding planets (both for raising the probability and lowering it).)