This Giant Planet Shouldn’t Exist – But Astronomers Just Found It Around a Tiny Star. Why exactly?

[jhixon]

Scientists don't understand why a big planet is orbiting a small planet. When Newton wrote F=MA, his calculus actually takes the "mass" and "calculates the curve of an object or volume", so it's really Mass divided by Volume (or calculus) which is density. It's the density of an object that makes mass/volume. So in the case of the small planet, it has more mass than volume. The larger planet has more volume, but less mass. So the moral of the story is to use both mass/volume when calculating any object, or you will be like Einstein with half a formula E=MC2 and it should be E=M/VC2

 

[promytius]

Are there measurements to show your results? Say 1 microgram of an element is transformed into energy, in joules. Can that be accurately measured? If so, how can you obtain the same results by moving the speed of light to the denominator?

 

[jhixon]

Calculus is a branch of mathematics that deals with rates of change. It allows us to study how things change over time, find the rate of change of velocity, and "calculate area or volume". Clearly this definition of calculus shows that mass is divided by volume in the formula F=MA. You need both mass and volume for this formula to work outside of calculus. Since Einstein wasn't using calculus this should be written as F=M/VC2. I also suspect that if you corrected the mass defect problem in chemistry to M/V, you will find that this is correct to fixing mass defect, along with countless other formulas. Very sad that 377 years later, we still don't understand my cousins formula F=MA is really F=M/V*A

 

[Classical Motion]

Mass is a term that describes the energy of matter, not the amount of matter. The amount of matter is quantum and set, only the motion of it, the energy, can be varied.

 

[jhixon]

Mass is a term that describes the energy of matter, not the amount of matter. The amount of matter is quantum and set, only the motion of it, the energy, can be varied.

Mass is a fundamental property of matter that "quantifies the amount of substance in an object". It is a measure of an object's inertia, which is its resistance to changes in motion. The greater the "mass" of an object, the more force is required to change its velocity. So this is describing how much motion is required to push the mass of an object, so it's referring to mass as "the amount of substance in an object". While it uses motion to determine the amount of substance, it's still measuring the mass, volume and density as this determines the amount of substance.

To calculate the mass of an object, use the formula d=m/v, where d is density, m is mass, and v is volume. So this clearly shows volume is missing, because you can't have density without M/V.

 

[Catastrophe]

Scientists don't understand why a big planet is orbiting a small planet. When Newton wrote F=MA, his calculus actually takes the "mass" and "calculates the curve of an object or volume", so it's really Mass divided by Volume (or calculus) which is density. It's the density of an object that makes mass/volume. So in the case of the small planet, it has more mass than volume. The larger planet has more volume, but less mass. So the moral of the story is to use both mass/volume when calculating any object, or you will be like Einstein with half a formula E=MC2 and it should be E=M/VC2

Dimensional Analysis shows which (if either, to be exact) is correct.

Force = Mass x Acceleration = M.(L/T^2).

The National Physical Laboratory states:
"Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. For an unchanging mass, this is equivalent to mass x acceleration.
So, 1 N = 1 kg m s-2, or 1 kg m/s^2."

What is the SI unit of force? - NPL

Historically, there have been a variety of units of force and conversion factors.

www.npl.co.uk

Introducing another variable would change the dimension of force, so that its dimensions would no longer comply with the NPL definition.

National Physical Laboratory - impact from science - NPL​

National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
https://www.npl.co.uk

As the UK's National Metrology Institute, the NPL maintains the national primary measurement standards and ensures a resilient metrology capability for UK ...

Cat

 

[jhixon]

Dimensional Analysis shows which (if either, to be exact) is correct.

Force = Mass x Acceleration = M.(L/T^2).

The National Physical Laboratory states:
"Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. For an unchanging mass, this is equivalent to mass x acceleration.
So, 1 N = 1 kg m s-2, or 1 kg m/s^2."

What is the SI unit of force? - NPL

Historically, there have been a variety of units of force and conversion factors.

www.npl.co.uk

Introducing another variable would change the dimension of force, so that its dimensions would no longer comply with the NPL definition.



Cat

So you are not going to include volume in the equation F=MA when it was "specifically written that way by Newton as part of the equation with volume in calculus", just to comply with some other definition? So Newton's equation is wrong then if you are changing it? Newton's formula is either correct or incorrect, which is it?

 

[Catastrophe]

Then you should be telling the NPL that they are wrong, since it is their responsibility in making the definition. We cannot change that.

As the UK's National Metrology Institute, the NPL maintains the national primary measurement standards and ensures a resilient metrology capability for UK ...

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is primarily responsible for developing and maintaining the UK's national measurement standards and ensuring accurate and consistent measurements across the country. It acts as the UK's National Metrology Institute (NMI). This involves undertaking research, developing and maintaining the nation's measurement infrastructure, and supporting a system of traceable measurements. NPL also collaborates with other NMIs internationally to maintain the global system of measurement.

Cat

 

[jhixon]

Then you should be telling the NPL that they are wrong, since it is their responsibility in making the definition. We cannot change that.



Cat

The right answer is ALWAYS the right answer. This is exactly why there is so much confusion, and so many things incorrect in physics fundamentals. The physics definition for atoms, the number three (3 protons, 3 neutrons, 3 electrons) is the smallest system with "two functions" and three phases of matter by energy level, a solid, a liquid and a gas is "ATOMS". What are the two functions? A function and an inverse function. A function is matter and it's inverse function antimatter. A function is Earth's magnetic field generated by matter. It's inverse function a negative field is generated by antimatter. Two different fields. So is the definition for atoms wrong or is GR wrong?

 

[Catastrophe]

Nobody here can usurp the functions of the NPL (even if anyone wanted to) so no amount of 'persuasion' here will make a jot of difference.

Be happy, if these are your 'beliefs', and act on them where it counts.

Cat

 

[jhixon]

Nobody here can usurp the functions of the NPL (even if anyone wanted to) so no amount of 'persuasion' here will make a jot of difference.

Be happy, if these are your 'beliefs', and act on them where it counts.

Cat

No wonder science has not moved forward, no worries....

 

[Catastrophe]

No wonder science has not moved forward, no worries.... I

Some might suggest that "science" is "in the eye of the beholder".

I would just quote Korzybski, in that "The Map is not the Territory".

Cat

 

[contrarian]

This is exactly why there is so much confusion, and so many things incorrect in physics fundamentals.

And this is also why we see such conclusions about why something "should not exist", or something like this or that "should not happen", when they do exist or happen.

Such comments need to include a disclaimer, like "theoretically this planet should not exist." There seems to be more of these "should not exist" comments since JWST went on line, and all those young galaxies, etc., showed up that "should not exist"......

 

[Classical Motion]

The dust of atoms and molecules(matter) is particles. The solar wind. Isolated electrons and isolated protons. Which forms the building blocks of atomic structure. Neutron and dipole building blocks. A neutron is a dampened dipole. Squeezed shut.

The mass of a particle is not the amount of particle substance, it’s the inertia of the particle. We can not measure the amount of substance, we only measure the force that takes to move it.

The reason a particle has a resistance to an external force, is because the particle is already under a constant balanced acceleration. Under a force. This is the property of inertia. Inertia is the self internal acceleration. Self balanced angular momentum rotating that substance.

This self acceleration can be added to, and/or subtracted from. This is why the “mass” gains….. without adding substance. And why emission happens without losing substance.

When inertia is increased, it takes more force to counter it, or move it, and people think it has gained substance, but it only gained inertia, not substance. Energy into inertia, and inertia back into energy.

Mass is the inertial energy of the only quantum substance, e. A single substance.

Hayseed explanation of matter and it’s inertia, “mass”.

I don’t think gravity is related to mass or inertia, I think it’s related to the number/density of atomic dipoles. A dipole property. Not a particle property. Not a fundamental “matter or mass” property. Solar wind has no gravity interaction, galactic dust does. But dust density rarefies the gravity of it. Solar wind moves extremely fast, dust moves much slower.

But that’s just another hayseed supposition.

 

[jhixon]

And this is also why we see such conclusions about why something "should not exist", or something like this or that "should not happen", when they do exist or happen.

Such comments need to include a disclaimer, like "theoretically this planet should not exist." There seems to be more of these "should not exist" comments since JWST went on line, and all those young galaxies, etc., showed up that "should not exist"......

I appreciate your thoughts, thanks...

 

[Helio]

What two planets prompted this question?

 

[contrarian]

What two planets prompted this question?

I believe he made a mistake in the text to his OP, meaning to write a "big planet is orbiting a small star", as noted in the title.

And it probably relates to this :

https://www.space.com/astronomy/exoplanets/a-tiny-star-gave-birth-to-a-giant-exoplanet-but-no-one-knows-how

 

[Helio]

I believe he made a mistake in the text to his OP, meaning to write a "big planet is orbiting a small star", as noted in the title.

And it probably relates to this :

https://www.space.com/astronomy/exoplanets/a-tiny-star-gave-birth-to-a-giant-exoplanet-but-no-one-knows-how

Thanks contrarian.

I see that the orbital period of the planet is about 1/2 the star’s rotation rate. Therefore, if the rates are correct, this planet will be found to be migrating inward and may be close to the Roche limit.

ChatGPT crunched the numbers and found it is 2.4x farther out from the Roche limit.

But it will continue to auger-in.

 

[contrarian]

I appreciate your thoughts, thanks...

Here are some more thoughts about this issue.

How many other things in the cosmos aren't supposed to be there, or aren't supposed to happen that way, but they are there and they do happen that way?

The earliest observable galaxy is now estimated at 290 mys after the BB, and it almost certainly is not going to hold the record. After all, it is a fully formed galaxy according to data, so others likely exist which are even younger. Before JWST, this was not supposed to be there until 400-800 mys after the BB, based in Hubble data.

Another good one is the origin and age of SMBHs. The age for these is also coming down, due to the JWST. If you have a galaxy only 290 mys old, you likely have a SMBH before that in order to form the galaxy.

Gotta be more of these "aren't supposed to be there, or aren't supposed to happen that way" things to consider.

 

[Classical Motion]

When we accelerate a proton at CERN, it takes time to build up the accelerating M field that propels them. When that proton gains mass, the proton shrinks. And along with that increase in inertia and weight, that compression results in a smaller volume and surface area, also requiring more acceleration to maintain the same rate of acceleration upon it. A reduced target/interaction area. Have you ever heard this before? This dynamic was denied for many years.

The mass gain makes the particle shrink and get smaller. Emission relaxes it back up in size.

And recently they found a new example of this with the fusion ignition facility. It takes time for an M field build up, but a full power laser is just a switch, not needing build up time. When they hit a proton with it, the only acceleration the proton did, was to shrink. It shrunk so much they couldn’t find it for quite a while. This was very surprising to these scientists. This time they documented it. And another problem for fusion engineering. And theory.

So when matter gains mass it shrinks in size and volume.

A peek at the physical particle world.

Hayseed particle physics. A severely limited one and only one solution universe.

 

[contrarian]

The mass gain makes the particle shrink and get smaller. Emission relaxes it back up in size.

This mass gain is due to its acceleration and is relativistic, I am reading.

How do you know it shrinks and gets smaller? Entropically that makes sense, since the increase in mass represents an increase in energy - order within the proton, one supposes.

 

[Classical Motion]

It was first predicted by the Parson Magneton model of 1915. The neutron had not been detected and discovered yet. It was the Zenith Theory at the time, most highly praised.

This model was updated in the early 2000s, by a group of fusion scientists who failed to contain and corral plasma for a fusion method of energy generation. And was also predicted with their updated model.

A few years ago, this was documented by the laser ignition prototype of fusion reactor. It took them awhile to realize what was happening. They were quite surprised.

Haven’t heard much about it since. I have been supposing it for about 10 years.

This model uses a physical substance and structure with motion to explain particle properties. Matter properties. And the process of emission and absorption. Bonding and inertia.

With mechanical like interaction dynamics. Only with the E and the M field.

With a new type of motion, a hybrid of linear and angular motion, the velocity of a twist motion.

By taking a linear constant length, with a constant velocity, and twist it into a helix, one can take that constant length velocity and convert it into a relative length and relative velocity, without losing the absolute length OR it’s absolute velocity. With the diameter and/or pitch of the helix. It can be tuned.

A particle dynamic. A tuned relative velocity.

If you cut the circumference of a twisted string, add a dozen more twists, close the string, the circumference, the loop of the string, will be smaller. It shrinks. That’s what absorption(induction) does, it adds turns(twists) to the loop. Emission relaxes turns.

10 years ago if you searched for Parson Magneton, you might get 3 results. Today, there must be a hundred variants, all kind of alternate physics theories. It’s a nut house.