Project Genesis
Ian Beardsley
Project Genesis, by Ian Beardsley
Since other stellar systems may not even exist as we need them, and the
distances between them are so immense, it might be better to unlock the
mysteries of making them, and find the structure in ours that allows for
so much life. There is, I have found, a correlation between the
microworld and the macroworld, where our solar system is concerned. It
may be related to why it is life bearing.
Abundant in the early earth atmosphere
were methane (CH 4), ammonia (NH 3) and water vapor (H 2O). Methane is
tetrahedral in structure, a carbon atom sourounded by 4 hydrogens.
Ammonia is trigonal pyramidal, a nitrogen atom surrounded by 3 hydrogen
atoms, and water vapor is triangular, or bent, an oxygen atom surrounded
by two hydrogens. These represent stable structural systems as they are
all systems of triangles, which are the only stable polygons. These
substances combined under energy with hydrogen gas form amino acids, the
building blocks of life. The core atoms of these molecules, carbon,
nitrogen, and oxygen, are all in period two of the periodic table and
follow directly one after the other.
When plants perform
photosynthesis, they combine carbon dioxide with water and release
oxygen. The reaction is:
CO 2+2H 2O----->CH 2O+O 2+H 2O
As can be seen a sugar is made. Important to most plants to do this is
nitrogen. Nitrogen (N 2) is the most abundant gas in the earth
atmosphere, comprising about 78.03% of it. We
now calculate the molecular masses of these special gases:
CH 4=(12.01+4(1.01))=16.05
NH 3=(14.01+3(1.01))=17.04
CO 2=(12.01+2(16.00))=44.01
H 2O=(2(1.01)+16.00)=18.02
N 2=(14.01+14.01)=28.02
O 2=(16.00+16.00)=32.00
We now form some ratios between these molecular masses:
O 2/CH 4=1.992~2
NH 3/CH 4=1.061~1
O 2/N 2=1.142~sqrt(2)
CO 2/N 2~1.6=(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi
O 2/H 2O=1.776~sqrt(3)
Notice that these values are given by the sequence: |2cos(pi/n)|
n=1,2,3,4,5,6 pi/n radians
Observe:
2=|2cos(pi)|
0=|2cos(pi/2)|
1=|2cos(pi/3)|
sqrt(2)=|2cos(pi/4)|
(sqrt(5)+1)/2=|2cos(pi/5)|
sqrt(3)=|2cos(pi/6)|
Geometrically sqrt(2) is the ratio of the side of a square to its
radius. Phi is the ratio of the chord of a regular pentagon to its side.
sqrt(3) the ratio of the side of an equilateral triangle to its radius,
and 1 is the ratio of the side of a regular hexagon to its radius. The
square, the regular hexagon and the equilateral triangle are the
tessellating regular polygons. The regular pentagon is one of the
archemedian tessellators.
Note: All of the compounds considered above are combinations of any of
the two
elements that always occur in amino acids, the building blocks of life.
They are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.
We compare the mass of the earth to the mass of the sun, and multiply
that ratio by the distance between them. Let the mass of the earth be M
e and the mass of the sun be M s. Let the distance between them be r. (M
e)r/(M s)=
(5.976E27)(1.495979E13cm)/(1.989E33)
=4.495E7cm=449.5km
We now divide that result by the radius of the earth, R e:
449.5km/6378.5k=0.07
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and nitrogen is
the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere. We now compare their
molar masses:
H/N=1.01/14.01=0.07
And we see that
H/N=(M e)r/(M s)(R e)
Now it becomes mystic. We apply the same concept to mars and get the
same result. The most abundant gas in the mars atmophere is CO 2.
(H)/(CO 2)= 1.01/44.01=0.02
M m=mass of mars, M s=mass of sun, r = the distance between them and R m
= the radius of mars. We have
(M m)r/(M s)(R m)=0.02
M m=6.418E26g
r=2.279409E13cm
M s=1.989E33g
R m=3.393096E8cm
(H)/(CO 2)=(M m)(r)/(M s)(R m)
Keep in mind these equations hold for a solar system that is at its peak
as an orderly arrangement of parts. Eventually the order will
degenerate. The sun is losing mass every day and therefore r for any of
the planets will grow.
The data for this study comes from "Handbook of Space Astronomy and
Astrophysics" by Martin V. Zombeck, 1982 Cambridge University Press.
The relative surface gravities of the earth and mars respectively are
1.000 and 0.380. Let that of the earth be g_e and that of mars be g_m.
Then
(g_e)/(g_m)=1.000/0.380=2.63
The mass of a mole of oxygen gas (O_2) is 32.00 grams and a mole of
carbon (C)
is 12.01 grams. Therefore
(O_2)/(C)=32.00/12.01=2.66
Thus we have
(g_e)/(g_m)=(O_2)/(C)
Earth and mars are the two terrestrial planets upon which we can set
foot and are next to one another. Carbon is the basis of life, and
Oxygen gas its neccesity (for animal life). Carbon and Oxygen are next
to one another in
the periodic table of the elements, separated only by nitrogen. The last
equation says it takes the
same amount of energy to lift a mole of carbon on the earth as it does
to lift a mole of oxygen gas on mars (the same distance).
Project Genesis (continued)
mercury 1, 1
venus 2, 1.8
earth 3, 2.5
mars 4, 3.8
asteroids 5, 5.3
jupiter 6, 13.33
saturn 7, 24.49
uranus 8, 49.26
neptune 9, 78.21
pluto 10, 101.54
r=0.2(2^n)+0.6
I have fit the above data to a mean curve given by r=0.2(2^n)+0.6, where
n is the planet number and r is its distance from the sun.
adrastea 1, 1
amalthea 2, 1.4
thebe 3, 1.7
io 4, 3.3
europa 5, 5.2
ganymede 6, 8.3
callisto 7, 14.6
r=0.1(2^n)+0.9
I have fit the above data for the natural satellites of Jupiter to a
mean curve of r=0.1(2^n)+0.9. I have started with andrastea as the first
satellite, even though it is Metis. In any case the equation would
remain the same (the two satellites are so close together, they can be
considered one.)
janus 1, 1
mimas 2, 1.22
enceledus 3, 1.57
tethys 4, 1.94 r=0.05(2^n)+0.9
dione 5, 2.49
Rhea 6, 3.48
titan 7, 8.06
hyperion 8, 9.78
iapetus 9, 23.5
phoebe 10, 85.5
Distribution of the satellites of Saturn greater than 100 miles in
diameter.
Here I have fit a mean curve to the satellites of Saturn. Any satellite
less than 100 miles in diameter was not considered to be a satellite.
The mean curve is r=0.05(2^n)+0.9.
Thus we see that the equation for the distribution of bodies around a
central body is geometric and of the form a(2^n)+c. This is different in
form than the Titius-Bode rule, because n=1 is the first satellite or
planet, and with the Titius-Bode rule the first planet is n=minus
infinity. The arithmetic mean for a is 0.1 and for c is 0.8. Thus we
write for orbital systems in general: r= 0.1(2^n)+0.8.
This puts the third planet away from any star at 1.6 times further than
than the first, which is the golden mean, or phi. It would seem that in
the way that orbital bodies distribute themselves around a central body,
the third planet from any star would be the one where the conditions
would be right to support life, in so far as the distribution rate is
related to the mass of the central body and the luminosity of any star
is related to its mass. (It is given by L~M^3.5, where L is in solar
luminosities and M is in solar masses.)
Let’s assume that d=xm, where d is the mean distance of the first
orbital body from the central body, m is the mass of the central body
and x a constant of proportionality. Then for the sun, with mercury as
the first planet:
1.989*10^30kg(x)=57809197km
and
x=2.91*10^-22km/kg
and for Saturn and Pan:
133583km=5.686*10^26kg(x)
and
x=2.349*10^-22km/kg
For Jupiter and Metis I get x=6.74*10^-23km/kg
Assuming that Jupiter is anomalous, and the sun is the best
representation for this model, we average the Sun and Saturn to get
x=2.63*10^-22km/kg. Hypothesis: The size of a planet is given by its
density, its density by its mass, the density of its atmosphere by its
surface gravity, and it surface gravity by the luminosity of the main
sequence star. This is all part of my & #8220;Project Genesis†.
Aims: I believe it may be better to learn how to build life bearing
stellar
systems than to seek out other stellar systems for our survival, in that
there may not be many, if any at all, that exist as we will need them.
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Robert Geake
"Ian Beardsley" <ianbea...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13598-414...@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net...
Letâ?Ts assume that d=xm, where d is the mean distance of the first
orbital body from the central body, m is the mass of the central body
and x a constant of proportionality. Then for the sun, with mercury as
the first planet:
1.989*10^30kg(x)=57809197km
and
x=2.91*10^-22km/kg
and for Saturn and Pan:
133583km=5.686*10^26kg(x)
and
x=2.349*10^-22km/kg
For Jupiter and Metis I get x=6.74*10^-23km/kg
Assuming that Jupiter is anomalous, and the sun is the best
representation for this model, we average the Sun and Saturn to get
x=2.63*10^-22km/kg. Hypothesis: The size of a planet is given by its
density, its density by its mass, the density of its atmosphere by its
surface gravity, and it surface gravity by the luminosity of the main
sequence star. This is all part of my & #8220;Project Genesisâ?ť.
Aims: I believe it may be better to learn how to build life bearing
stellar
systems than to seek out other stellar systems for our survival, in that
there may not be many, if any at all, that exist as we will need them.
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
----
Honk if, like me you have not a clue what this rather clever sounding
chap is going on about!!
and yes, i did read it all...
R
Chris Taylor
"Robert Geake" <rob...@dogthegeakes.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41495b92$0$20250$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "Ian Beardsley" <ianbea...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13598-414...@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
> Project Genesis, by Ian Beardsley
>
> Honk if, like me you have not a clue what this rather clever sounding
> chap is going on about!!
>
> and yes, i did read it all...
>
> R
>
>
I stopped reading at """Now it becomes mystic."""
Chris
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 10:29am (PDT+7) From:
not.t...@you.ha (Chris Taylor)
news:41495b92$0$20250$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
"Ian Beardsley" <ianbea...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13598-414...@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net...
Project Genesis, by Ian Beardsley
<SNIP> ----
<<Honk if, like me you have not a clue what this rather clever sounding
chap is going on about!!>>
I assure you I am not clever, just a trip to Italy made filled my head
with all kinds of ideas, and a trip to Spain made me realize you have
got to try and save the world, even if you can't.
<<I stopped reading at """Now it becomes mystic.""">>
I knew I should not have used the word mystic, because then you are all
to easily dismissed as a quack. I used the word in that it means "as of
yet understood". But then I had to do this paper Italian style, and they
indulge in mysticism more than folks out this way.
--Ian
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Jonathan Silverlight
<not.t...@you.ha> writes
atmosphere..." (which sounds like something Yoda would say) because
people haven't believed that ammonia and methane were abundant for
years. The primeval atmosphere was anoxic but not reducing - it
contained nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 6:59pm (PDT+8) From:
jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid (Jonathan Silverlight)
<not.t...@you.ha> writes
"Robert Geake" <rob...@dogthegeakes.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41495b92$0$20250$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
"Ian Beardsley" <ianbea...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13598-414...@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net...
Project Genesis, by Ian Beardsley
<SNIP> ----
Honk if, like me you have not a clue what this rather clever sounding
chap is going on about!!
and yes, i did read it all...
R
I stopped reading at """Now it becomes mystic."""
Chris
<<That long? I knew he was wrong when he said "abundant in the early
atmosphere..." (which sounds like something Yoda would say) because
people haven't believed that ammonia and methane were abundant for
years. The primeval atmosphere was anoxic but not reducing - it
contained nitrogen and carbon dioxide.>>
--
there. Funny thing though, my chemistry book by Charles H. Corwin, third
edition 2001 published by Prentice Hall says "Miller simulated Earth's
primordial atmosphere. He placed hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water
vapor in a glass sphere and..." (Chaper 11.9 page 308.)
Paul Henney
> atmosphere..." (which sounds like something Yoda would say) because
> people haven't believed that ammonia and methane were abundant for
> years. The primeval atmosphere was anoxic but not reducing - it
> contained nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
Was it?
Cite a reference please.
pj
Noble Gases will outgas........
Jonathan Silverlight
Beardsley <ianbea...@webtv.net> writes
Of course. In the 1950s it made perfect sense - they looked at the
atmospheres of the outer planets. But it was soon found to be largely
incorrect. Look at <http://www.astrobio.net/news/article5.html> for
instance.
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 8:08pm (PDT+7) From:
ph014...@blueyonder.co.uk (Paul Henney)
atmosphere..." (which sounds like something Yoda would say) because
people haven't believed that ammonia and methane were abundant for
years. The primeval atmosphere was anoxic but not reducing - it
contained nitrogen and carbon dioxide.>>
Abundant was not actually a neccessity, just present. But the fact that
they all have in common a molecular structure that is systems of
triangles, while having their core atoms carbon, nitrogen and oxygen
next to each other in the periodic table, and are constituents of amino
acids along with their vertex elements of hydrogen, also in amino acids,
the relationship is interesting, as shown. Only the first quarter of the
paper refers to this.
Jonathan Silverlight
<ph014...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
I was too emphatic as usual, but most of the secondary sources I've
found agree with me. "The New Solar System" has an interesting chapter
on planetary atmospheres. "Mildly reducing" is a phrase I find a lot.
But there seems to be good evidence for very low levels of oxygen.
How about "The first 800 million years - Environmental models for early
earth" Earth, Moon, and Planets (ISSN 0167-9295), vol. 37, Feb. 1987, p.
187-199
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1987EM%26P...37.
.187A&db_key=AST&high=41194bdeb819072>?
You won't be surprised to learn that the creationists have seized on
this change in ideas - The Word Of God never changes.
BTW, Ian also posted this on sci.astro where it hasn't attracted a
reply, so at least we're getting some here.
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 9:43pm (PDT+8) From:
this, so he can revise the next addition. In any case, it is not even
really neccessary that these substances existed on the earth, even
though they actually do today. There has been much speculation that
amino acids formed in the protoplanetary cloud before the earth ever
formed. They have actually found evidence of them in space. I will see
if I can find the article. They can form on there own accord from
methane, ammonia and water if there is sufficient energy.
Ian Beardsley
Jonathan Silvernight, I have re-written parts and re-posted the whole
thing updated.
Grimble Gromble
news:15166-414...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
/Re: Project Genesis
...
/It does not really matter if they were abundant, as long as they were
/there. Funny thing though, my chemistry book by Charles H. Corwin, third
/edition 2001 published by Prentice Hall says "Miller simulated Earth's
/primordial atmosphere. He placed hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water
/vapor in a glass sphere and..." (Chaper 11.9 page 308.)
/--Ian
Miller was experimenting in 1953. The primordial soup has changed since
then!
Grim
Grimble Gromble
/Re: Project Genesis
...
/ But the fact that
/they all have in common a molecular structure that is systems of
/triangles, while having their core atoms carbon, nitrogen and oxygen
/next to each other in the periodic table, and are constituents of amino
/acids along with their vertex elements of hydrogen, also in amino acids,
/the relationship is interesting, as shown. Only the first quarter of the
/paper refers to this.
Why do I bother? You can take any 3 points from any distribution of 3 or
more points, and if the are not colinear, they will form a triangle.
Grim
Grimble Gromble
news:41495b92$0$20250$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> news:13598-414...@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net...
>> Project Genesis, by Ian Beardsley
> Honk if, like me you have not a clue what this rather clever sounding
> chap is going on about!!
> and yes, i did read it all...
I wish you hadn't. I felt compelled to see if it made any sense only to have
my brain glaze over when he started selecting very approximate ratios to fit
a series it didn't etc. etc. In short, here is a man astonished by
apparently meaningful numerical 'coincidences'. It's not a coincidence when
you fit an odd selection of numbers to a curve (give or take an order of
magnitude) and realise that the curve now roughly (give or take another
order of magnitude) approximates the odd selection of numbers. And this is
at the start, never mind getting to the mystical part! Now I have to go and
take another tablet.
Grim
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 11:05pm (PDT+7) From:
grimble...@virgin.net (Grimble Gromble)
news:1390-414...@storefull-3114.bay.webtv.net... /Re: Project
Genesis
..
/they all have in common a molecular structure that is systems of
/triangles, while having their core atoms carbon, nitrogen and oxygen
/next to each other in the periodic table, and are constituents of amino
/acids along with their vertex elements of hydrogen, also in amino
acids, /the relationship is interesting, as shown. Only the first
<<<<Why do I bother? You can take any 3 points from any distribution of
3 or more points, and if the are not colinear, they will form a
triangle. Grim>>
Is what I mean is there are only three structural systems, the
tetrahedron, the octahedron, and the icosohedron. They are the only
stable solids, that is non-collapsing flex corners whose faces are
triangles. Most compounds are something other than these, like pentagons
with linear off shoots for example, that comprise the wrong number of
atoms to make a "solid" unit, and I mean solid as in the pythagorean
solids, the geometric term. Both methane and ammonia make different
variations of the tetrahedron, a pythagorean solid. --Ian
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 11:05pm (PDT+7) From:
grimble...@virgin.net (Grimble Gromble)
said "this is where it gets interesting." I would disagree that these
are an "odd selection of numbers", but represent two interesting
families of numbers that may have something in common as oulined in the
"Project Genesis (update)" after the intro.--Ian
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Grimble Gromble
>Is what I mean is there are only three structural systems, the
tetrahedron, the octahedron, and the icosohedron. They are the only
stable solids, that is non-collapsing flex corners whose faces are
triangles.
I think what you're trying to say is that these are the only platonic solids
which can be constructed from rods joined at the vertices with ball sockets
(which don't support bending) which would not collapse into a heap. This is
a consequence of the rigidity of triangles as you note.
>Most compounds are something other than these, like pentagons
with linear off shoots for example, that comprise the wrong number of
atoms to make a "solid" unit, and I mean solid as in the pythagorean
solids, the geometric term. Both methane and ammonia make different
variations of the tetrahedron, a pythagorean solid. --Ian
This isn't helping. Let's take a specific example - methane, say. The
hydrogen atoms lie at vertices of a tetrahedron. The lines between the
vertices of the tetrahedron would connect the hydrogen atoms to each other.
But the hydrogen atoms are not bonded to each other, they are linked via the
central carbon atom. To take your pentagon analogy, methane is simply a
point with 4 linear offshoots.
Grim
Grimble Gromble
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2004, 11:05pm (PDT+7) From:
said "this is where it gets interesting." I would disagree that these
are an "odd selection of numbers", but represent two interesting
families of numbers that may have something in common as oulined in the
"Project Genesis (update)" after the intro.--Ian
The word mystic didn't phase me at all. If the other newsgroup members don't
object, I'll throw my tuppence in. You don't agree that these are an odd
selection of numbers. Perhaps you could tell me what the criteria are for
selecting these particular numbers (I won't worry about them being wrong for
the moment).
Grim
Andy Guthrie
3 lives
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Fri, Sep 17, 2004, 3:28pm (PDT+7) From:
grimble...@virgin.net (Grimble Gromble)
Would not the constant bond angle suggest that there are lateral forces
as well as the radial forces, like electron repulsion?--Ian
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Fri, Sep 17, 2004, 3:28pm (PDT+7) From:
grimble...@virgin.net (Grimble Gromble)
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Fri, Sep 17, 2004, 3:28pm (PDT+7) From:
grimble...@virgin.net (Grimble Gromble)
ratio of the distances to the balancing point between the two bodies
considered if they were on a cosmic teater-totter. I then compare that
ratio to the radius of the planet being considered. The interesting
thing, though, is that Mars and the Earth are connected to the
microworld, in the same way.--Ian
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Fri, Sep 17, 2004, 7:51pm From:
ianbea...@webtv.net (Ian Beardsley)
Correction: That is (M_e/M_r)r=(d_1/d_2)(d_1+d_2) the ratio of the
distances to their balancing point of the distance between them. It is
compared to the radius of the planet.
Grimble Gromble
Re: Project Genesis
/////////////////////////////////////////
There are indeed. However these forces are tiny compared to the bonds that
hold the molecule together. Even the slightest repulsion would produce this
result.
Not immediately similar, but if you consider cyclohexane, the bond angles
between adjacent carbon atoms gets increased to 120 deg. Smaller carbon
rings are possible in which the bond angles get reduced (I90 deg in cubane).
That carbon chains can get strained to such an extent demonstrates that the
energy involved in repulsion, which causes the attached atoms to adopt the
configuration they do, is considerably less than the bond energies.
To take another of your examples, one of the vibration modes of ammonia is
just the inversion of the 'vertex' (the nitrogen atom switches from one side
of the plane of hydrogen atoms to the other) that does not occur in the
platonic solids.
Grim
Grimble Gromble
[snip]
Correction: That is (M_e/M_r)r=(d_1/d_2)(d_1+d_2) the ratio of the
distances to their balancing point of the distance between them. It is
compared to the radius of the planet.
--Ian
Sorry, Ian, if I had the will to live, I'd have lost it.
Grim
Jonathan Silverlight
Beardsley <ianbea...@webtv.net> writes
>
>Assuming that Jupiter is anomalous, and the sun is the best
>representation for this model, we average the Sun and Saturn to get
>x=2.63*10^-22km/kg. Hypothesis: The size of a planet is given by its
>density, its density by its mass, the density of its atmosphere by its
>surface gravity, and it surface gravity by the luminosity of the main
>sequence star.
I'm going to ignore the numerology, and just dissect this bit. It
doesn't begin to make sense. You can't just "assume Jupiter is
anomalous". Jupiter _is_ the solar system. All the rest - the four gas
giants (the rocks are just debris :-) add up to a fraction of its mass.
Working backwards, the surface gravity of a planet has nothing to do
with the luminosity of its star. It's a function of the mass and size,
and in fact the surface gravity of most of the planets in "our" solar
system is about the same as Earth's. It's usually less, because the
planets are either smaller than Earth or have much lower density.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the density of its atmosphere", because
the densities change by factors of ten with height. Earth and Venus have
almost identical mass and surface gravity, but Venus has a surface
density 1/10 that of water (100x that of Earth).
And the size of a planet is only given by its density for a gas giant. A
brown dwarf is supposed to be about the size of Jupiter despite a much
higher mass, because the core collapses to form degenerate matter.
Ian Beardsley
Re: Project Genesis
Group: uk.sci.astronomy Date: Sun, Sep 19, 2004, 12:57am (PDT+8) From:
jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid (Jonathan Silverlight)
Beardsley <ianbea...@webtv.net> writes
<<<<Assuming that Jupiter is anomalous, and the sun is the best
representation for this model, we average the Sun and Saturn to get
x=2.63*10^-22km/kg. Hypothesis: The size of a planet is given by its
density, its density by its mass, the density of its atmosphere by its
surface gravity, and it surface gravity by the luminosity of the main
sequence star.>>>>
<<I'm going to ignore the numerology, and just dissect this bit. It
doesn't begin to make sense. You can't just "assume Jupiter is
anomalous". Jupiter _is_ the solar system.>>
I am going on the idea that the truth is hidden in a strange way, and
that perhaps what may seem logical, does not make sense, with this part
of the study. I decided I would start doing that when I realized that
somthing had to come into existence from nothing, at some point,
uncaused, or we, the planets and the stars would not be here, yet that
is impossible, and, we are here. No sir, something very unusual is going
on here, and I am determined to get to the bottom of it against all
odds. The main problem with the hypothesis part, is that I called it a
hypothesis. Everyhing is related to everything is some sort of a way, it
is just a matter of finding the function. The important thing is what
the function might tell us. I admit when it came to this part of the
study, I had decided to do art with numbers. This is somewhat of an
impressionist picture of the solar system, if not abstract, or surreal.
--Ian
John went on to say:
<<<<All the rest - the four gas giants (the rocks are just debris :-)
add up to a fraction of its mass. Working backwards, the surface gravity
of a planet has nothing to do with the luminosity of its star. It's a
function of the mass and size, and in fact the surface gravity of most
of the planets in "our" solar system is about the same as Earth's. It's
usually less, because the planets are either smaller than Earth or have
much lower density. I'm not sure what you mean by "the density of its
atmosphere", because the densities change by factors of ten with height.
Earth and Venus have almost identical mass and surface gravity, but
Venus has a surface density 1/10 that of water (100x that of Earth). And
the size of a planet is only given by its density for a gas giant. A
brown dwarf is supposed to be about the size of Jupiter despite a much
higher mass, because the core collapses to form degenerate matter.>>
http://community.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/Logica
http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ydyw/