Extra gas giants

You spend some time observing the universe. Then you spend some time thinking about why the universe is the way it appears to be. And you come up with an idea (aka theory or model) and your idea explains most of the things you have seen. And it even makes a few predictions that turn out to be right.

Then your neighbor does just about the same thing. but she does it with a different idea. The list of things it does not predict is a little different from yours.

And then another neighbor, using a yet another idea, is also able to explain most of the data. The list of things it does not predict is a little different from the others.

If you and your neighbors are good enough to coax some equations out of your ideas, you will find that each idea produces the same, or at least equivalent, equations as the other ideas. This MUST be the case, because otherwise these ideas could not make mostly the same predictions.

It is those little lists of anomalies from each idea that gives all the other ideas a chance. This particular idea (the Extra Giant Planet [EGP] model?) offers a way to get around some of the anomaly list of the mainstream idea. But it is going to have its own anomaly list.

The Fission model we prefere here also offers a way to get around some of the anomaly list of the mainstream idea. But it is not perfect either.

===

There is just a hard limit on how much we can do with remote sensing and thought experiments. Until we can go there and touch stuff, we are very likely to be wrong. Probably not 'way out in left field' wrong (although this is not impossible) - just 'not exactly right on all counts' wrong.

===

Ptolemy had a model that actually was out in left field, but it made (and still makes) useful predictions for some purposes. If we spent a lot of money on it, we could make it as good as Newton. A lot more money and we might even make it as good as Einstein. (But it would still be way out in left field. And I find it amazing that an idea known to be *so wrong* can still make such great predictions.)

Newton had a model that was very close. Good enough to plan most of our space missions. But still not right.

Einstein had a model that was very close. Good enough to plan a GPS system. But still not right.

Van Flandern had a model that was very close. Same math as GR, so also good enough to plan a GPS system. But (probably) still not right.

It can get frustrating. I really wish I could go out there and start touching stuff.

Regards,
LB

It really would be 'something' if we could go out there and touch the 'stars' (or planets, asteroids etc.). Too bad it is still so difficult to get there...
Off topic - how is Meta Research doing these days without Dr Van Flandern? Seems even this site has been really quiet.

I found this interesting. Does DRP suggest any explanation?

A giant extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, has been discovered orbiting a distant star. But this is no "ordinary" alien planet -- it shouldn't exist. To put it bluntly, it's an affront to current planet formation theories.

HD 106906b is a gas giant exoplanet with a mass 11 times that of Jupiter. But this one is peculiar in that it orbits its star 650 times the distance the Earth orbits the sun. It's this 650 AU (astronomical unit) distance that is causing some serious astronomical confusion.

Source: news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exop...6.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1

<b>[shando] "Does DRP suggest any explanation?"</b>

Not specifically. But it does acknowledge that small stars and large planets have many similarities. And also many differences. It is possible that we might find, someday, a small star that is smaller than a large planet.

The main thing that makes a mass a star rather than a planet is that the core is fusing hydrogen into helium. Size and mass are factors. But other factors can also come into play.

<ul>Consider:

Jupiter has a diameter of about 143,000 Km and an orbit from its primary of about 5 AU

Proxima Centauri has a diameter of about 200,000 Km and is about 12,000 AU (~0.2 LY) from the barycenter of the Alpha/Beta binary pair. (It is not known for sure if it is actually in orbit. We have not been tracking it long enough.)

If Proxima was just a <u>little</u> smaller, and had not ignited, we would call it a Jupiter sized planet 12,000 AU from its parent stars.

And we would probably have never detected it.</ul>

***

For a planet to form at 650 AU by nebular collapse / over spin / and fission as hypothesized by DRP seems a bit of a stretch, but we have so little observational experience it seems foolish to completely rule it out.

Also, consider that DRP does not say that fission after collapse and over spin is the ONLY way that planets can form around stars and moons can form around planets. It's just the most likely way.

***

The biggest problem I see here is that the main stream is still imagining that they have answered all but a few tiny questions, so something like this (that doesn't fit) is an embarrassment to them. On the other hand DRP sees something like this and just says "wow, too bad we can't go there and see what's really happening ... but here is a short list of possibilities based on what we know today".

This is more likely to be a failed second star, IMO. So sayeth DRP.

One of the items that retard the advancement of astronomy is faith in a model having nothing to do with reality. Your model is based on theory, the theory is nothing more than belief. The real universe has not yet been figured out not never will be using these models as the only truth and way to understand observations.

Isn't that what I just said?

***

Question for you - do you know the difference between belief and faith? Can you state that difference in writing?

LB