Creating a newish planet like Venus (on the fly) / Brad Guth

[Brad Guth]

K-12s and their teachers should really get a kick out of this one,
because it blows mainstream lids off.

With a sufficient new supply of molecular metallicity, could a new
planet ever be created within an existing and well established solar
system?

Perhaps creating an entirely newish planet like Venus isn’t nearly as
hard or unlikely to come by as once thought. Considering all of the
spare energy and mass that’s floating about our galaxy (mostly outside
and far away from our established solar system), how improbable is it
for a new planet to get created within our solar system?

Was Venus captured or was it simply created as somewhat materialized
more recently on the fly(so to speak), such as when that truly
enormous and massive molecular/nebula cloud which created those
terrific nearby Sirius stars had also surrounded and engulfed our sun
for those thousands and perhaps a million some odd years before
getting blown away by those absolutely horrific Sirius winds
(especially from Sirius B)?

We’re being told by our ever vigilant science overlord peers and
masters of FUD that usually claim to know everything and seem to go
out of their way in order to topic/author stalk in order to
systematically discredit anything offered by outsiders, and telling us
that planet creation is quite similar to stellar creation, in that any
sufficiently dense molecular/nebula cloud of metallicity can produce
new planets, especially when that molecular/nebula cloud is situated
near a given star that’s also reacting to being surrounded by this
temporary or migratory dense cloud of molecular mass. Perhaps this
nearby star could just as easily have been our sun when it encountered
yet another substantial cloud of heavy elements, such as those
molecular elements which obviously contributed to the making of those
nearby Sirius stars as of 250~300 million years ago.

No doubt any planets associated with Sirius(B) would have been hard
pressed to stick with their original binary or trinary Sirius solar
system, especially as their parent star had lost near 8 fold of its
original mass, and having given off such a horrific red supergiant
wind or outflux of mass in the process of rapidly becoming a WD, and
so much so that perhaps other planets like Venus itself that once
belonged to the Sirius(B) solar system got set free before they’d
slowed down enough to hold onto their depleted star, although it seems
more likely the molecular/nebula mass of that progenitor star system
of Sirius had more than sufficient reserve mass and volumetric radii
to have easily encompassed or engulfed our sun.

This revised interpretation of our solar system being surrounded by a
considerable molecular mass, of having encountered such a metallicity
rich nebula cloud of perhaps 2.5e37 kg, would have likely terminated
most forms of terrestrial life as we’ve known it, as kind of wiping
most of our biological and evolution slates clean as of that most
recent planet forming era. At least a common event like this could
help explain why Venus is keeping itself so extra hot from the inside
out (as though the planet just isn’t old enough to have cooled off),
in addition to the solar influx making its global environment much
worse. This type of planet creation might also explain why its spin
is so minimal.

Perhaps this type of delayed or random happenstance planet creation
might also help to explain why its spin is so minimal, quite possibly
because it never had been given much conventional spin from any newish
star to start off with.

Before, I honestly had no idea that planets themselves could also be
produced directly from molecular/nebula clouds w/o involving any
newish star, whereas instead just about any old star would do as long
as a sufficient cloud of molecular/nebula mass came by or was passing
through.

This method of planet creation within an established solar system
would seem to be logical enough, and it should help us to understand
that we have far more planets than stars to deal with. No doubt our
sun would have reacted to this passing nebula cloud that had been
creating those nearby Sirius stars, and this too should have
negatively impacted our planet during this encounter that lasted
several thousand years, disrupting and likely modifying most forms of
complex evolution (including those of our human species).

250 million years ago is also roughly when those ice-ages started to
materialize, although this local thermodynamic freeze/thaw cycle could
still be unrelated as to other stars, except our association with
those terrific Sirius stars seems kind of hard ignore.

Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Brad Guth]

Newsgroup “alt.astronomy” must be one of the few unmoderated public
newsgroups that’s actually read by a very limited number of K-12s and
the independent media, although they seem to be forbidden to share or
contribute anything.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/topics?hl=en

As the decades go on and the same old mainstream status quo of those
above whomever we elect or appoint remain in charge, the chances of
any K-12s even looking outside their failsafe cozy box becomes more
unlikely, and the same old social/political as well as faith-based
mantra of pretending and obfuscation that goes on and on isn’t
disrupted, and because policing their own kind is simply not an
option. Apparently it’s their mainstream mission-critical policy that
the general public be kept as intellectually snookered and dumbfounded
past the point of no return, as possible.

Unfortunately, what only a few others and myself have to say is going
to keep causing bumps in that mainstream road of artificial
complacency they have us on. By attempting to point out any other
deductive interpretations of the best available science, is kind of
like our trying to dismantle the Great Wall of China, or attempting to
edit most any Bible so that a more balanced and understandable version
of history can be told, as well as updating science and physics is
even worse at not allowing any revisions to their insider published
and subsequent textbook versions of just about everything, because
they employ an army of FUD-masters and those brown-nosed clowns in
order to topic/author stalk and bash us outsiders for all they can
muster.

There are galaxies or perhaps galactic mergers capable of producing
ten thousand new stars per year, although our well established galaxy
isn’t nearly so prolific. In addition to our galaxy creating roughly
10 new stars and perhaps 1000 new planets, planetoids, moons and big
nasty asteroids per year, our galaxy also seems to have any number of
spent solar systems as having become white dwarf and subsequently
having lost their gravitational grip on its planets, planetoids and
those adjoining moons plus countless asteroids, as having been set
free to migrate off in all directions. That is unless there is
something other than gravity holding everything of orbital dynamics
together, whereas this tally of rogue/wandering planets and other
spent solar system items could be rather considerable, especially
extra numerous if planets themselves can be created from molecular/
nebula clouds without any need of a spinning progenitor star.

[Brad Guth]

For some odd or era happenstance reasons, my limited public schooling
and continued mainstream indoctrination in astronomy and physics had
me thinking that planets only got created along with new progenitor
stars that spin quickly enough to initially fling off some of their
heavy elements before settling into their main sequence of fusion, and
those elements combined with the given metallicity of the surrounding
molecular/nebula cloud is what gave the vast bulk of those heavy
elements with the typical rotation or spin that new forming planets
needed to start off with.

Obviously there was something terribly wrong with the rather
insignificant spin of Venus, and the matter of its geothermal activity
being so newish like, is what got me into rethinking that perhaps
instead of our solar system having captured a new planet, that instead
it simply got created on the fly (so to speak), as our well
established solar system encountered the very same molecular/nebula
cloud which created those impressive and nearby Sirius stars.

At first, even this alternative planet creation method seems rather
unlikely, but I’ve been informed by our resident astronomy and physics
wizards that any creation of a new star doesn’t necessarily mean that
planets need be created, however these same peers as well as others
have more recently speculated as I have, that our galaxy has more
planets than stars, and perhaps that’s even a good hundred fold more
if we’re including those metallicity worthy items like our second moon/
asteroid Cruithne and larger. Being that our galaxy offers perhaps as
many as 1e12 stars (mostly those of red dwarfs) is suggesting that by
now our galaxy could easily host 1e14 (possibly 1e15) planets,
planetoids, moons and significant planetoid/asteroids, and that’s if
only 10% of stars are currently hosting a solar system, and otherwise
because of WDs as having lost their tidal radii grip on whatever
planets originated with those once vibrant stars.

I’m betting the higher resolution and IR sensitivity of our spendy and
badly delayed JWST is going to identify some of these locally
wandering/rogue planets, whereas perhaps some of these icy items may
have settled into our Oort cloud or simply caught in wildly elliptical
orbits between us and the nearby Sirius star system that’s still
dominating our area of this galaxy, and its proximity to us could
still be the cause of our cosmological ice-ages, as Henry Kroll and
myself have long speculated.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 18, 3:14 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even if only 10% of the stars are currently solar system worthy, by
now we could have a galaxy hosting 1e14 wandering/rogue planets, moons
and those big enough asteroids to be considered as Ceres and larger
planetoids, in addition to all that exist within proper functioning
solar systems. That's an all-inclusive accounting approaching a grand
tally of perhaps 1e15 significant items other than stars, especially
so numerous if we're including items as small as our second moon/
asteroid Cruithne, and perhaps that’s not even taking into account the
six to ten new stars along with whatever planets as having been
getting formed per year.

If a molecular/nebula cloud of at least 2.5e3 to 2.5e4 /cm3 average
density had in fact surrounded our well established solar system, as
of roughly 300e6 years BP seems perfectly logical enough to conceive
that another planet like Venus could easily have been formed (on the
fly) as that enormous cloud of sufficient metallicity lingered for a
good million some odd years before moving on.

Supposedly all progenitor stars start off with a great deal of spin
before their final formation into a sufficiently dense ball of main
sequence fusion that ever so gradually slows that initial spin down
over time. However, applying another nebula could of sufficient
metallicity around an established main sequence star should by rights
allow a new planet and conceivably even moons to form. That nebula
cloud which gave us those nearby Sirius stars was certainly vast and
capable of engulfing our solar system, or at the very least getting
blown through our solar system upon those Sirius stars firing up.

This method of contributing a new planet to our established solar
system is certainly physics-101 logical enough, and there’s certainly
not much doubt as to the necessary molecular mass of that nebula cloud
being more than sufficient, especially when other contributing local
factors are added in, such as a sufficiently massive CME of 1e14 kg
and their 3~4r starting particle density of 5e6/cm3, giving a residual
density of perhaps 2.5e3/cm3 at the orbital radius of Venus, could
easily help seed a new planet when the surrounding nebula cloud is
providing another 2.5e3 up to 2.5e4 of extra molecular items/cm3, of
essential metallicity elements that would tend to bind with that local
CME cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium ions, thereby eventually
forming a new planet exactly like Venus.

Supposedly our sun on average only looses a million tonnes per second,
and roughly 2% of that is metallicity because the other 98% is ions of
mostly hydrogen and helium, although given an increased activity in
those nasty CMEs above 5e13 kg could easily increase the annual
average mass loss and provide those considerable CME clumps of ions
that couldn’t help but contribute as to creating a newish planet,
especially if other nebula metallicity was made constantly available.
For example, a 1e15 kg CME might conceivable offer an ion cloud
density of 1e6/cm3 at the orbital radii of Venus.

[Brad Guth]

K-12s and their teachers should really get a little extra kick out of
this one, because it blows mainstream lids off, because it resolves a
few issues pertaining to the planet Venus.

With a sufficient new supply or resupply of molecular metallicity
density (say encountering a 200 ly diameter nebula cloud averaging
2.5e3/cm3), could a new planet ever be created within an existing and
well established solar system?

With an existing star like our sun that’s still spinning much faster
than its planets, adding in a nebula surrounding cloud of 2.5e37 kg
should make it a whole lot easier for our sun to generate those super-
XX class of 1e14 kg to 1e15 kg CMEs that start off with their equator
orbital velocity of roughly 26 days (polar rotations of 36 days),
could help seed another planet like Venus.

I would suppose that migrating nebula clumps could easily be worth ten
fold, or 2.5e4/cm3 and even upwards of 5e5/cm3. I would further
suppose or speculate that an existing planet or substantial asteroid
would make a perfectly good seed for that incoming new matter to
combine with, so there may even have been a sufficiently solidified
item to start off with. The central or core density of Barnard 68 is
supposedly worth 2.5e5 up to Bok Globules of 1e6/cm3, with an average
dark cloud density of perhaps 2.5e2~2.5e3/cm3.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0102/

Perhaps creating an entirely newish planet like Venus isn’t nearly as

hard or unlikely to accomplish as once thought. Considering all of

the spare energy and mass that’s floating about our galaxy (mostly
outside and far away from our established solar system), how

improbable is it for a new planet to form within our solar system?

Was Venus captured or was it simply created as somewhat materialized
more recently on the fly(so to speak), such as when that truly
enormous and massive molecular/nebula cloud which created those

terrific nearby Sirius stars had likely surrounded and engulfed our
sun for those tens of thousands and perhaps a million some odd years

before getting blown away by those absolutely horrific Sirius

progenitor winds (especially from Sirius B)?

We’re being told by our ever vigilant science overlord peers and

masters of FUD, that usually claim to know everything and seem to go

out of their way in order to topic/author stalk in order to

systematically banish or discredit anything offered by outsiders, as
having been informing us that planet creation is quite similar to

stellar creation, in that any sufficiently dense molecular/nebula
cloud of metallicity can produce new planets, especially when that
molecular/nebula cloud is situated near a given star that’s also
reacting to being surrounded by this temporary or migratory dense
cloud of molecular mass. Perhaps this nearby star could just as
easily have been our sun when it encountered yet another substantial
cloud of heavy elements, such as those molecular elements which
obviously contributed to the making of those nearby Sirius stars as of
250~300 million years ago.

No doubt, planets associated with Sirius(B) would have been hard

pressed to stick with their original binary or trinary Sirius solar
system, especially as their parent star had lost near 8 fold of its
original mass, and having given off such a horrific red supergiant

wind or CME outflux of mass in the process of rapidly becoming a WD,

and so much so that perhaps other planets like Venus itself that once
belonged to the Sirius(B) solar system got set free before they’d

slowed down enough to hold onto their badly depleted star, although it

seems more likely the molecular/nebula mass of that progenitor star
system of Sirius had more than sufficient reserve mass and volumetric

radii of 100+ ly to have easily encompassed or engulfed our sun that’s
still spinning much faster than its planets.

This revised interpretation of our solar system being influenced as
overtaken and surrounded by a considerable molecular mass, of having

encountered such a metallicity rich nebula cloud of perhaps 2.5e37 kg,
would have likely terminated most forms of terrestrial life as we’ve
known it, as kind of wiping most of our biological and evolution
slates clean as of that most recent planet forming era. At least a
common event like this could help explain why Venus is keeping itself
so extra hot from the inside out (as though the planet just isn’t old
enough to have cooled off), in addition to the solar influx making its
global environment much worse. This type of planet creation might
also explain why its spin is so minimal.

Perhaps this type of delayed or random happenstance planet formation
might also help to explain why its spin is so minimal, as quite
possibly because it never had been given much conventional planet spin

from any newish star to start off with.

Before, I honestly had no idea that planets themselves could also be
produced directly from molecular/nebula clouds w/o involving any

newish star, whereas instead just about any old star would likely do

as long as a sufficient cloud of molecular/nebula mass came by or was
passing through.

This method or theory of planet creation within an established solar

system would seem to be logical enough, and it should help us to

further understand why we have far more planets than stars to deal

with. No doubt our sun would have reacted to this passing nebula
cloud that had been creating those nearby Sirius stars, and this too
should have negatively impacted our planet during this encounter that
lasted several thousand years, disrupting and likely modifying most
forms of complex evolution (including those of our human species).

250 million years ago is roughly when those ice-ages started to

materialize, although this local thermodynamic freeze/thaw cycle could
still be unrelated as to other stars, except our association with

those terrific Sirius stars seems kind of hard ignore (especially when
they were at full performance and perhaps tree of them combined worth
12.5 Ms). I have no idea what happened to Sirius(C), other than it
may have combined with Sirius(B) in the red supergiant phase, or
simply having been entirely tossed out if it was the odd pup at less
than 2 Ms.

[Brad Guth]

K-12s and their teachers should really get a little extra kick out of
this one, because it blows mainstream lids off, because it resolves a
few issues pertaining to the planet Venus.

With a sufficient new supply or resupply of molecular metallicity
density (say encountering a 200 ly diameter nebula cloud averaging

2.5e3/cm3); could a new planet ever be created within an existing and
well established solar system?

Seems unlikely, however with an existing star like our sun that’s

still spinning much faster than its planets, adding in a nebula
surrounding cloud of 2.5e37 kg should make it a whole lot easier for

our sun to generate those super-XX class of 1e14~1e15 kg CMEs that

start off with their equator orbital velocity of roughly 26 days

(polar rotations of 36 days), as such could help seed another planet

like Venus.

I would suppose that migrating nebula clumps could easily be worth ten

fold, or 2.5e4/cm3 and even upwards of 5e5/cm3 shouldn’t be
unlikely. I would further suppose or speculate that an existing

planet or substantial asteroid would make a perfectly good seed for
that incoming new matter to combine with, so there may even have been
a sufficiently solidified item to start off with. The central or core
density of Barnard 68 is supposedly worth 2.5e5 up to Bok Globules of
1e6/cm3, with an average dark cloud density of perhaps 2.5e2~2.5e3/
cm3.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0102/

Perhaps creating an entirely newish planet like Venus isn’t nearly as

hard or unlikely to accomplish as once thought. Considering all of

the spare energy and mass that’s floating about our galaxy (mostly

outside and far away from our established solar system), so how

improbable is it for a new planet to form within our solar system?

Obviously planets with any crust like Earth and Venus have been formed
by the billions within our galaxy, and it’s the metallicity of those
nebula clouds combined with the centrifuge transfer of stellar
metallicity that makes this happen. Such as, when a new dosage of
nebula cloud encounters and existing star that’s still a spinner, by
rights this encounter should manage to centrifuge those heavier
elements away from the star.

Was Venus captured or was it simply created as somewhat materialized
more recently on the fly(so to speak), such as when that truly
enormous and massive molecular/nebula cloud which created those

terrific nearby Sirius stars had likely surrounded and engulfed our
sun for those some odd millions of years before getting blown away by
those absolutely horrific Sirius progenitor winds (especially from
Sirius B)?

Of course Sheldon Cooper of “The Big Bang Theory” would never allow
himself nor much less anyone else to think outside the failsafe
mainstream box. So why bother?

We’re being told by our ever vigilant science overlord peers and

masters of FUD, that usually claim to know everything and yet seem
compelled to go out of their way in order to topic/author stalk, in
order to systematically banish or discredit anything offered by
outsiders, as their peer worthiness having been informing the rest of

us that planet creation is quite similar to stellar creation, in that
any sufficiently dense molecular/nebula cloud of metallicity can

manage to produce new planets, especially when that molecular/nebula

cloud is situated near a given star that’s also reacting to being
surrounded by this temporary or migratory dense cloud of molecular
mass. Perhaps this nearby star could just as easily have been our

sun, such as when it encountered yet another substantial cloud of

heavy elements, such as those molecular elements which obviously
contributed to the making of those nearby Sirius stars as of 250~300
million years ago.

No doubt, planets associated with Sirius(B) would have been hard

pressed to stick with their original binary or trinary Sirius solar
system, especially as their parent star had lost near 8 fold of its
original mass, and having given off such a horrific red supergiant

wind or CME outflux of mass in the process of a few million years for
having rapidly become a WD, and so much so that perhaps other planets

like Venus itself that once belonged to the Sirius(B) solar system got

set free before they’d slowed down enough to hold onto their badly

depleted star, although it seems more likely the molecular/nebula mass
of that progenitor star system of Sirius had more than sufficient

reserve mass and volumetric radii of 100+ light years to have easily
encompassed or engulfed our sun that’s still spinning much faster than
its planets orbit.

This revised interpretation of our solar system being influenced as
overtaken and surrounded by a considerable molecular mass, of having

encountered such a metallicity rich nebula cloud of perhaps 2.5e37 kg,
would have likely terminated most forms of terrestrial life as we’ve
known it, as kind of wiping most of our biological and evolution
slates clean as of that most recent planet forming era. At least a
common event like this could help explain why Venus is keeping itself
so extra hot from the inside out (as though the planet just isn’t old
enough to have cooled off), in addition to the solar influx making its
global environment much worse. This type of planet creation might
also explain why its spin is so minimal.

Perhaps this type of delayed or random happenstance planet formation
of Venus might also help to explain why its spin is so minimal, as

quite possibly because it never had been given much conventional

planet spin from any newish star to start off with.

Before, I honestly had no idea that planets themselves could also be
produced directly from molecular/nebula clouds w/o involving any

newish star, whereas instead just about any old star encounter would
likely do as long as a sufficient cloud of molecular/nebula mass came

by or was passing through.

This method or theory of a more recent planet creation within an

established solar system would seem to be logical enough, and it

should help us to further understand why we have far more planets than

stars to deal with. No doubt our sun would have reacted to this
passing nebula cloud that had been creating those nearby Sirius stars,
and this too should have negatively impacted our planet during this
encounter that lasted several thousand years, disrupting and likely
modifying most forms of complex evolution (including those of our
human species).

250~300 million years ago is roughly when those ice-ages started to

materialize, although this local thermodynamic freeze/thaw cycle could
still be unrelated as to other stars, except our association with

those terrific Sirius stars seems kind of hard to keep ignoring

(especially when they were at full performance and perhaps tree of
them combined worth 12.5 Ms). I have no idea what happened to
Sirius(C), other than it may have combined with Sirius(B) in the red
supergiant phase, or simply having been entirely tossed out if it was

the odd pup star at less than 2 Ms.