David Calder Hardy's Cosmology

Scientists Study Uranus, Neptune

Scientists Study Uranus, Neptune

Scientists Study Uranus, Neptune
By PAMELA SAMPSON=
Associated Press Writer=
Scientists say they may have solved a far-out mystery: how
Uranus and Neptune came to exist at the very edges of the solarsystem.A new study says the two icy planets may have been born much closer to the sun than previously thought, and ended up in their current orbits after gravitational forces from Jupiter violently hurled them away.

That would explain how the two planetary giants _ each more than 10 times the mass of the Earth _ could exist at the far edge of the solar system, where there was not enough gas and dust to make a planet eons ago.

The study is based on computer simulations conducted by Martin Duncan of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. All of the planets in the solar system are believed to have evolved through the accumulation of a large number of small bodies that circulated in a huge disk around the sun. (Many scientists believe that 99% or so of the ring mass was gas. DCH).The researchers theorize that Uranus and Neptune formed their cores near the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, within a ring of about five to 10 astronomical units from the sun. One astronomical unit
equals the distance from the sun to the Earth. (Earth, however, is thought to have formed much later than the big planets.) Previous estimates of 10 to 20 AU have been given for the birthplaces of Uranus and Neptune, which now orbit at 19 and 30 AUs, respectively. Duncan said Jupiter grew fastest because it was closest to the sun, where the planet-forming disk was the most dense, and then exerted gravitational forces on its smaller planetary siblings. Saturn may have helped eject Uranus and Neptune. (Question:- Then why was Saturn not moved, or at least had his rings ripped off)?

Renu Malhotra, a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, said the study does not explain why Uranus and Neptune did not accumulate gas like Jupiter and Saturn, since the four planets formed at roughly the same time and in roughly the same place.

Malhotra said the evidence shows that Uranus and Neptune were formed perhaps 30 percent closer to the sun than their present locations _ but not as close as Duncan proposes. (What evidence)?.The planets then may have gently migrated out to their current locations, she said. (Spiralling? Genesis Continuous, perhaps)? Malhotra also said that gravity and friction from gas that surrounded Uranus and Neptune could have prevented them from being hurled out. (What a blow !!).

Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in
Washington, said more research is needed on Duncan's theory.
``It's a radical idea,'' he said, ``but since we're in a
stalemate on Neptune and Uranus, maybe we need a radical idea.''

mailto:David Hardy

Genesis Continuous - Complete

Homepage

Several other comments exist in red within the article.

In a way I am delighted with this announcement. It must be the first time Academia has suggested that orbits may have changed. It seems that the fixed orbits syndrome has ruled astrophysical research like a rod of iron. Question; who was it who claimed that the planets have been in fixed orbits since their collective birth, and how was it proven?

The whole scenario of planet formation, in the scientific world to the present day, has had to be worked into this foundational supposition. Having to explain gases, rocks and solids, all fusing together in the cold remoteness of space proposes an atomic alchemy that could not exist. 

Suggesting that a planetisimal orbits around within a ring of these nebulous particles, sweeping them up as it goes, is contrary to common sense. 

Then converting that impoverished gas and dust into all the elements we know of, is asking us to believe that every planet and possibly their moons has been a magical alchemic laboratory that could only have worked if it had had enormous heat and pressure well beyond its gravitational ability. 

Also expecting the outer planets to accomplish the sweep-up of their gases and solids in about the same time-scale as the inner ones, is physically warped, because the inner ones belt around their tiny orbital terrain in a fraction of the time compared with their distant sisters. It all seems contrived to make it fit.

There are more than one or two problems with this idea. The one some may laugh at, but which I think cannot be ignored. Bode's Law. But for Neptune, (forget Pluto which was probably a moon of Neptune's) all the planets, Mercury to Uranus, fit the progressive pattern so closely as to not be a phenomenon that can be overlooked. And Jupiter, the bad guy in Duncan's theory, fits Bode's Law perfectly. Of all the planets, it is right where it should be. Surely, in its 'slinging match', wouldn't it have been slung itself a bit out of its 'perfect' orbital position?

Science suggests that both Neptune and Uranus were slung out by Jupiter in a 'sling-shot' event, (or separate events) in the same way as space vehicles are helped on their way to outer regions. The unformed rings that were to become the asteroid belt, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury, because of their closeness to Jupiter, would surely have been violently scattered by such an event. But, no, this did not occur.

This is suggesting that planets do not evolve. Who said that Uranus and Neptune did not have an atmosphere eons ago? However, this claim is contradicted in the last sentence of this paragraph, which just goes to prove how the flaws in the existing theory of the origin of the solar system create nothing but confusion, even among scientists, or should I say, especially among scientists

I believe planets evolve, or grow. Jupiter has become a gas giant simply because it has reached gravitational pressures within to convert liquids and solids into gas, or it has collected gas from a passing gas cloud. (A good guess is as good as a mystery). Recent observations in the milkyway has revealed that other gas giants exist in the universe. After all, what is a nebula if not a giant gas giant?

It follows that all orbitting bodies are collectors of material from the space within their gravitational range, but stars are emitters of energy and, I'm saying, matter as well. Our sun definitely loses more than it gains, thereby losing gravity and gradually releasing its hold on the orbiting bodies around it. Spiralling outward, equally, by all orbiting bodies, has to be the result. 

The 90 plus elements that make up these orbitting bodies, had to have been mostly produced in the furnace of the sun, erupted into orbit around it and slowly released from it.

O.K. That is a very radical supposition. And it completely contradicts the scientifically accepted scenario of how the system of planets could have originated. Spiralling away from the sun fits Bode's Law into a normal progressive pattern of planetary birth, growth and destiny. (The Duncan theory says that the outer planets are older than the inner ones, yet the inner ones had a far smaller orbital field to collect in, and therefore, by the present scientific rules, should be older). Thankyou.

There can surely be no doubt that the birth collection of semi-molten solids of each planet has taken place near to the sun where the core material is fluid enough to form a hot roundish planetisimal, containing the required known elements, that when slowly released, cools down and gathers its mantle material from solids in space. Mercury is a perfect example of a young planetisimal just starting to gather mantle material. It is covered with impact craters, no doubt collected from solar and more remote ejecta.

Yes, extra gold and other heavier metals probably did impact with the planets as the years rolled on. Why not? But starting the ball rolling required iron. Iron gave it polarity and an equatorial alignment. (Sorry if Uranus is the odd ball out). hmmm.