Evidence that Jupiter is 1/2 old as Sun; SCIENCE 2FEB96,p583
Archimedes Plutonium
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> > There is news in support of the above Growing Solar System theory. It
> > was recently reported that the supply of water on Jupiter is anamolous.
> > This is because Jupiter and the gas giants are of a different age than
> > the sun and inner planets and hence the chemistry should bespeak of a
> > different chemical composition--- a younger age.
>
> SCIENCE NEWS 30MAR96, p 199 reports.
>
> --- quoting SN, p.199 in part ---
>
> REVISED GALILEO RESULTS POSE JOVIAN PUZZLE
>
> Some 4.5 billion years ago, a sizable fraction of the gas and dust
> that cloaked the infant sun assembled into a solid core 10 times as
> massive as Earth. This solid body then grabbed nearly 30 times its
> weight in hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula, forming the
> biggest planet in the solar system.
> On that, planetary scientists generally agree. But a new analysis of
> data gathered by the Galileo probe, which parachuted into Jupiter last
> December has thrown detailed theories about the giant planet's origin
> into disarray.
> Jupiter's atmosphere -- at least the region explored by the Galileo
> probe-- appears unusually dry, containing only one-fifth the abundance
> of water scientists had predicted. They used as a benchmark the sun's
> oxygen-to-hydrogen ratio because Jupiter originated from material that
> swaddled the sun. Donald M. Hunten of the University of Arizona in
> Tucson reported the latest analysis last week at the annual Lunar and
> Planetary Science Conference in Houston.
> The new report contains the second revision of the scientists'
> estimate of Jupiter's water supply, which they derive from data
> recorded by the probe's mass spectrometer. The current value, announced
> after researchers carefully calibrated a duplicate of the spectrometer
> sent to Jupiter, is nearly the same as the original value reported by
> SCIENCE NEWS last December and one-fifth that calculated in January
> (SN:1/27/96,p.55).
> Other detectors on the probe also found evidence of a dry Jupiter.
> The absence of water clouds, the relative rarity of lightning, and the
> infrared emission that water would have blocked all suggest that the
> probe encountered little water vapor. "It's overwhelming," declared
> atmospheric scientist Andrew P. Ingersoll of ..Caltech...
> --- end quoting SN, p.199 in part ---
>
> Let it be known that my theory of different ages for CellWell1 and
> CellWell2 where Jupiter and the gas giants are of 1/2 the age of
> CellWell1 is not quite a month old as evidenced in this older posting.
>
> ---- begin old post ---
> From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
> Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,
> sci.physics.electromag
> Subject: Re: Growing Solar System Theory
> Date: 17 Mar 1996 01:21:35 GMT
> Organization: PLutonium College
> Lines: 37
> Message-ID: <4ifpev$k...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> References: <4if20q$t...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>
> In article <4if20q$t...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> > If the above is correct would mean that in the distant future, the
> > gas giants would come together to form a new star and the Solar System
> > would then be a double star. And so pluto will have grown bigger and be
> > exploded just as Mercury was to our Sun. And our Sun was a group of gas
> > giant planets which also joined to make our Sun
>
> In article <4iar9d$9...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
> vjej...@wam.umd.edu (Spinoza's God) writes:
>
> > THE SURFACE OF PLUTO HAS BEEN IMAGED for the first time. The Hubble
> > Space Telescope has snapped a series of high- resolution pictures
> > throughout Pluto's 6.4-day rotation period. The photo sequence
> > reveals that Pluto possesses more visible large-scale features than
> > any planet except for Earth. The features include a variety of dark
> > and bright spots and a dark stripe across the frosty north pole.
> > Pluto had not previously been imaged clearly before, even with
> > the bigger Earth-based telescopes, because its angular size on the
> > sky is only a tenth of an arcsecond across. All of this comes at
> > a time when some astronomers want to take away Pluto's status as
> > a planet. (NASA press release, 7 March 1996.)
>
> The immediate proof of the Growing Solar System Theory would be the
> discovery that the Sun and inner planets are far older than the outer
> gas giant planets and Pluto. If it were discovered that the Sun ,
> Mercury, Venus, Earth , Mars, Asteroid belt were 16 billion years old.
> And, Jupiter, gas giants and Pluto were only 8 billion years old, then
> the Nebular Dust Cloud theory bites the dust.
>
> One way to answer this is, I suspect, a detailed chemical composition
> analysis. If the Sun and inner planets are composed in relative
> abundance of isotopes and elements of a concentration attainable only
> through older age than the gas giants relative abundance. For instance,
> if the inner planets have twice the concentration of iridium than the
> gas giants would support the different ages of the Solar System
> ----- end old post ----
> I later remarked that uranium isotopes of long life should be a good
> test for the ages of the gas giants and Pluto as compared to the inner
> planets.
>
> But the water test is a nice surprize. What about the water supply on
> the other gas giants?
--- quoting SCIENCE 2FEB96, p583 ---
...The set of three predicted cloud layers was nowhere to be seen,
and preliminary data suggested that Jupiter-- or at least the spot the
probe happened to hit-- is far drier than expected.
... "Whenever you have an influx of new data," said Galileo project
scientist Torrence Johnson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
... "it usually doesn't fit existing models very well.
But even if the probe hasn't immediately shed light on Jupiter's
origin, it is offering a clue to the planet's history since then. The
probe's helium abundance detector, which was built by Ulf von Zahn of
the University of Rostock, Germany, confirmed earlier Voyager data
indicating that the outermost regions of Jupiter now contain much less
helium than the planet started with, a figure calculated from the
helium-to-hydrogen ratio in the sun. A reduced helium content is in
keeping with a suggestion made 20 years ago that Jupiter's helium is
now condensing into droplets under the deep interior's megabar
pressures; the droplets then fall even deeper into the planet. So the
gravitational energy released as heat by the fall of helium raindrops
must in fact be fueling Jupiter's infrared "glow," which is brighter
than anything the solar energy reaching the planet could account for.
--- end quoting SCIENCE 2FEB96, p583 ---
When the old theories and models are fakes, of course they will not
agree with the new data. Fake theories and ideas seldom match reports
of data.
The reason that Jupiter is drier than the Sun and inner planets is
because the gas giants were all created 8 billion years ago and not
like the Sun and inner planets created 16 billion years ago.
The reason that such little helium is found on Jupiter is because it
is 1/2 as old as the Sun and because the law of gravity is an algorithm
a fake physics law. Gravity works nice over massive warm objects such
as stars but in the gas giants where superfluid helium exists,
superfluid helium does not obey gravity and as readily seen in a
laboratory, superfluid helium just climbs out of the container and
does-its-own-thing-baby. Superfluid helium disobeys gravity because
gravity was never a physics law, instead, gravity was a algorithm, a
rule.
John Chunko
If the sun was 16 billion years old, we'd all be orbiting a samll,
dying white dwarf, if not a black dwarf. If you would have read the above
references you posted you'd realize that a possible explanation for the
lack of helium in Jupiter is because of helium condensation resulting
from incredibly high pressures. Remain open minded please. Also, the
reason superfluid seems to 'disobey' the law of gravity is not because
gravity is just an 'algorithm' but because superfluid helium is obeying a
quantum mechanical phenomenon wherein it will creep up the sides of a
container due to quantum interaction w/ the sides of the container.
Consider this for a though experiment: place a blob of superfluid helium
in proximity of a massive body in deep space; it has no container to
creep out of, therefore your previous argument of it 'disobeying' gravity
is defunct. What it will almost certainly do is be attracted to that more
massive body in accordance w/ the law of gravity. I say we should do this
experiment to find out - instread of passing judgement on something w/out
evidence try running an experiment.
John Chunko.
Franklin Jordan
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu says...
>superfluid helium does not obey gravity and as readily seen in a
>laboratory, superfluid helium just climbs out of the container and
>does-its-own-thing-baby. Superfluid helium disobeys gravity because
>gravity was never a physics law, instead, gravity was a algorithm, a
>rule.
Again, as I've seen before your ignorance and stupity outweighs anything you
have to say. You're still spouting nonsense.
How do you support yourself when you take so much time in producing your
daily drivels on so many channels?