Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Weitter Duckss

Jupiter in internal orbits?

29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss

What would Jupiter look like in internal orbits?

Would the atmosphere remain the same?

How much the temperature of Jupiter would be in orbit of Mercury and closer to the star?

What would be the temperature in the orbit of Venus, Earth, Mars?

Would the chemical composition of Jupiter be the same or similar to the inner planets? Would Jupiter possibly become a star?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

@ XenoFish

Unfortunately, the outdated information is also incorrect.

Planet

Mass of Jupiter

Temperature °K

Distance AU

GQ Lupi b

1-36

2650 ± 100

100

ROXs 42Bb

9

1,950-2,000 

157

HD 106906 b

11

1.800

~650

DH Tauri b

12

2.750

330

CT Chamaeleontis b

10,5-17 

2.500

440

HD 44627

13-14

1.600-2.400

275

Etc.

 

@Piney

These are outer planets. Now the outer planet is to be placed in the inner orbits. The atmosphere on Earth and Venus are different even though they are similar in size. Mercury is slightly smaller than Titan and a similar distance ratio from the parent body. Mercury has no atmosphere (negligible, volatile exosphere).

There is little or no information on this topic.

Some links to get started on research. The truth needs to dive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Planetary_systems_with_one_confirmed_planet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-90h Kepler-90h is a gas giant with no solid surface. Its equilibrium temperature is 292 K (19 °C; 66 °F).[3] It is around 1.2 times as massive and around 1.01 times as large as Jupiter.[3] This makes it very similar to Jupiter, in terms of mass and radius.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Pictoris_b Beta Pictoris b is a super-Jupiter, an exoplanet that has a radius and mass greater than that of the planet Jupiter. It has a temperature of 1,724 K (1,451 °C; 2,644 °F), most likely due to its dusty atmosphere and mass (normally it would be much colder). It has a mass of between 9 and 13 Jupiter masses (MJ)[3], and a radius of 1.46 RJ.[1] In 2018, a study directly measured the astrometric perturbation of Beta Pictoris by Beta Pictoris b, one of the first examples of an exoplanet being measured directly by its astrometric perturbation. Its mass was directly measured as 11±2 MJ.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQ_Lupi_b GQ Lupi b has a spectral type between M6 and L0, corresponding to a temperature between 2,050 and 2,650 kelvins.[1] Located at a projected distance of about 100 AU from its companion star, giving it an orbital period of perhaps about 1,200 years, it is believed to be several times more massive than Jupiter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD_0806−661

Details

Component A

Mass

0.58 ± 0.03[5] M

Surface gravity (log g)

8.00 ± 0.05[5] cgs

Temperature

10205 ± 390[5] K

Age

1.5–2.7[6] Gyr

Component B

Mass

7–9[6] MJup

Surface gravity (log g)

4.2–4.3[6] cgs

Temperature

325–350[6] K

Metallicity

<0[6]

Position (relative to A)

Component

B

Angular distance

130.2 ± 0.2 [8]

Position angle

104.2 ± 0.2° [8]

Observed separation
(projected)

2500 AU [8]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Andromedae_b  12,8; 1 700 K

The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia — Catalog Listing exoplanet.eu

Exoplanet Catalog | Reference – Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System exoplanets.nasa.gov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I honestly do not care. I just replied to your original question. This topic doesn't interest me all that much. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
19 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I just replied to your original question.

„In the migration hypothesis, a hot Jupiter forms beyond the frost line, from rock, ice, and gases via the core accretion method of planetary formation.“ Your link

 

Reality

„There are parts of space around every object with a fast (or relatively fast) rotation, where matter is concentrated (the most frequently, gas or dust, or it is inside objects).

In our system, such spaces are from Jupiter to Neptune, at Jupiter: from Io to Callisto, at Uranus: from Miranda to Oberon (Major moons),  at Neptune: from Proteus to Nereid. Saturn has more smaller spaces and the main disc from Rhea to Iapetus. „

 

Hypotheses need to be proven because they are no evidence at all. Etc.

Stellar Disks
Stellar Disks, credit: iopscience.iop.org Sean Andrews (Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) December 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.astronomy.20200901.02.html

International Journal of Astronomy

p-ISSN: 2169-8848    e-ISSN: 2169-8856

2020;  9(1): 3-11

doi:10.5923/j.astronomy.20200901.02

 The Processes that Determine the Formation and Chemical Composition of the Atmosphere of the Body in Orbit

·         Abstract

·         Reference

·         Full-Text PDF

·         Full-text HTML

Weitter Duckss

Independent Researcher, Zadar, Croatia

Correspondence to: Weitter Duckss, Independent Researcher, Zadar, Croatia.

Email:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

My book has been published (Weitter Duckss is my pseudonym in astrophysics).
194_weitter_duckss_0_b0WXG-scaled-1.jpg?189db0&189db0

https://www.generis-publishing.com/product/the-universe-is-rotating-after-all-svemir-ipak-se-vrti/
The Universe is Rotating, after all = Svemir, ipak se vrti
€84.50
Author: Weitter Duckss
Pages: 633
Published: 2020
ISBN: 978-9975-154-02-4
Category: Science

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

€84.50 is pretty expensive for toilet paper.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

But cheap is for deletion of ignorance and stupidity.
One page before comments is recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I hope no one buys it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

But cheap is for deletion of ignorance and stupidity.
One page before comments is recommended.

Cheap? For free you can learn that light exists in space.  Something you have yet to understand.

You are a complete charlatan.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

For free you can learn that light exists in space.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.
You can get what is wiped with toilet paper for free.
Fairy tales are no longer read by children either.
The universe is dark and there is a hard point. Believers should seek faith in the sermon from the altar.
If there is no visible matter and a close source that emits waves there is no light either.


I suggest we now write hymns about this year's and  general the Nobel for physics.

"Nobel has long been a black hole.
This is just a confirmation, another in a series."
"1 ly = 63 241 AU
The supermassive black hole has a ø of 0.001-400 AU (https://en.wikipe...perties)
The center of the galaxy has a ø of 3,000 to 30 x 40 thousand ly. (http://www.astrod...xy.html; https://en.wikipe..._Center)
For example:
Black hole 100 AU,
Bulge of galaxy 10 000 ly or 632 410 000 AU
Let's define AU, with centimeters, let 1 AU = 1 cm.
Black hole with a diameter of 100 AU is the value of 1 cm inside a ball with a diameter of 6 324 100 cm.
" here are around 10 million stars within one parsec of the Galactic Center, dominated by red giants, with a significant population of massive supergiants and Wolf-Rayet stars from a star formation event around one million years ago."

Jupiter lacks a whole body, but those who win a Nobel cannot measure it. Density of liquid and solid H2 0.07g / cm3; Helium 0.145 g / cm3; Jupiter 1,326 g / cm3!
But they are "capable" of measuring un within matter 1,500 to 15,000 light-years thick. Jupiter is there but the black hole is 29,000 + 1,500 to 15,000 light-years.

Smart "Nobel".

my comment on: https://phys.org/news/2020-10-nobel-winner-year-odyssey-black.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about.
You can get what is wiped with toilet paper for free.
Fairy tales are no longer read by children either.

They are parroted by charlatans like yourself.

 

2 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

The universe is dark and there is a hard point. Believers should seek faith in the sermon from the altar.
If there is no visible matter and a close source that emits waves there is no light either.

We know for a fact there is visible matter, we can see and detect light traveling through the universe.  You should stop with this silly denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The universe isn't dark, it's full of stars.  Even if it was dark, we can still detect invisible light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
25 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

We know for a fact there is visible matter, we can see and detect light traveling through the universe

Dear Rlyeh.
This matter has been reviewed three times by judges. That is general knowledge now.
"we can see and detect light traveling through the universe" 
It is not difficult to see white mice in complete darkness.
I only smoke evidence. 
There is no invisible light. This condition is professionally called darkness.

light and dark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
27 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Dear Rlyeh.
This matter has been reviewed three times by judges. That is general knowledge now.
"we can see and detect light traveling through the universe" 
It is not difficult to see white mice in complete darkness.
I only smoke evidence. 
There is no invisible light. This condition is professionally called darkness.

light and dark

You are completely oblivious, even your pictures show light.  No matter how many times you say something stupid you continue to get refuted.

Ultraviolet light is invisible, so you can stop talking **** now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

@Weitter Duckss  Do you possess the mental capacity to understand how pictures are made?  Light either hits light sensitive film or sensors which then construct an image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
6 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

The universe isn't dark, it's full of stars.

"The universe isn't dark, it's full of stars. "
You are copying:
"If there is no visible matter and a close source that emits waves there is no light either."

All the time is discussion about space, outside the source of waves and visible matter.
"Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Outer_space
If "Visible light is usually defined as having wavelengths in the range of 400-700 nanometers (nm)"

why is there no light just outside the atmosphere of the Earth and the Sun or just above the surface of the body without an atmosphere (moon ..)?

I repeat, "If there is no visible matter and a close source that emits waves there is no light either." Try to find evidence for the existence of light in space. The source emits only waves outside its atmosphere that begin to glow only when they collide with visible matter. No collision = no light. 

The farther away the matter is, the waves lose their intensity and the light is less intense. It is the basis of astrophysics that no one disputes, because it has been confirmed many times over.

Waves do not glow without visible matter. 
Matter does not shine without the waves hitting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

@Weitter Duckss  Why is light from stars reaching the camera if there is no light in space?

 

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I repeat, "If there is no visible matter and a close source that emits waves there is no light either." Try to find evidence for the existence of light in space. The source emits only waves outside its atmosphere that begin to glow only when they collide with visible matter. No collision = no light. 

No need to repeat your ignorant claim.  Light are photons not collisions, that's something you've pulled out of your ass.

 

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

The farther away the matter is, the waves lose their intensity and the light is less intense. It is the basis of astrophysics that no one disputes, because it has been confirmed many times over.

Therefore disproving your idiocy that there is no light in space.  You're the one disputing this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
53 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Light are photons

Good, you are not ignorant, then you will easily give an answer.
Why do your photons glow on the earth and the sun but not between the earth and the sun?
A smart person like you will know this right away and attach evidence.
So, why does a photon glow on the surface of the Moon but an inch above the surface does not glow?
You have 400-700 nanometers on the surface, but the darkness immediately leans on the light. Where is the incoming and outgoing “light” one cm above the surface?
Please do not disappoint readers with a trivial and evasive response.
Remember, you are learned and smart and you are no ordinary idiot.
Let's go. Forward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Good, you are not ignorant, then you will easily give an answer.
Why do your photons glow on the earth and the sun but not between the earth and the sun?

They don't glow.  Things that glow emit photons.

 

Quote


A smart person like you will know this right away and attach evidence.
So, why does a photon glow on the surface of the Moon but an inch above the surface does not glow?

Show evidence that photons glow on the surface of the moon.

Again you show you have no idea what you're rambling about.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
17 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Things that glow emit photons.

You suggested photons as an explanation of light.
I have nothing against photons if you can prove them beyond any doubt. If a photon is a particle or a wave (or both) why within one centimeter do they behave quite the opposite.
If we see the Moon then it's your photons there are none in arrival nor in departure. " Things that glow emit photons." The moon does not emit photons, it does not produce photons.

If the space between the Sun and the Earth is black, then it cannot be bright at the same time. 
It's either black or it's white.

The article in which I briefly outlined this matter was viewed by more than 20,000 readers on my site.
American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2018, Pages: 72-80
Received: Aug. 27, 2018; Accepted: Sep. 30, 2018; Published: Nov. 7, 2018
Views 998      Downloads 151
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=301&doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13

It is not easy to accept new ideas and new evidence If you live your whole life in sreviranim delusions by scientists.
Yet for discussion I would offer a topic within which we discuss other topics. 
This topic is also on the forum here.

"Growth is dependent on the arrival of material from a space that is mostly hydrogen. Helium is coming from its migration from smaller bodies but also by the formation of concentrated hydrogen. The ratio of materials in space is recognizable in the chemical composition of nebulae: hydrogen 90%, 10% helium and other elements (maximum 2%) (britannica.com [19]). It is also the chemical composition of the Milky Way (Ken Croswell 1996 [20]).
Depending on the speed of rotation of the body and the presence of material in space, belts are formed around the body that is richer in matter. In these belts, the body growth is significantly larger than the body in front of and behind that or these belts. This is very visible in our system.
Table 8. Belts where denser matter is concentrated

Sun system Jupiter system Saturn (main belt) Uranus Neptune
5,2 to 30,11 AU 0,4217 to 1,883 M km 0,527 to 3,561 M km 0,129 to 0,584 M km 0,118 to 5,514 M km
Jupiter Io Rhea Miranda Proteus
Saturn Europa Titan Ariel Triton
Uranus Ganymede Hyperion Umbriel Nereid
Neptune Callisto Iapetus Titania  
      Oberon  

  Table 8. The largest bodies in orbit are within a belt rich in matter

Observing the overall picture of the body, one or more bands are visible in the orbit of individual bodies. If there are more of them as in Saturn, one is the main one that is comparable and similar to the only belt of other bodies. A larger amount of matter, which collects in the belt, directly affects the speed of rotation of the body if they are not tidal bodies (natural satellites).
Attractive forces can form a wide range of possibilities of forming a system with two or more bodies. A body of greater mass becomes a central body. This association may vary significantly in terms of mass, rotation and temperature as well as distances which may be small (Pluto / Charon) or very distant (Ross 458 c 1 168 AU; 2MASS J2126-8140 6 900 (> 4 500) AU; WD_0806−661 2 500 AU). The system can be formed by two or more bodies of similar masses (2M1207 25 / 4.6 MJup distance 40,6 AU etc.) (James  B. Kaler 2013 [21]).  This type of association is very common, but in essence does not differ significantly from the classical formation, when a larger body gathers smaller bodies that gradually grow. Gradual growth excludes the possibility that we have bodies of large mass in the inner orbits because their growth is outside the zones of concentration of matter or belts. These processes contribute to the formation of the atmosphere in a different course."
The Processes that Determine the Formation and Chemical Composition of the Atmosphere of the Body in Orbit
Weitter Duckss
pp. 3-11
DOI: 10.5923/j.astronomy.20200901.02  217 Views  109 Downloads
http://www.sapub.org/journal/currentissue.aspx?journalid=1088

or about the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
15 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

You suggested photons as an explanation of light.

Photons ARE light.

 

15 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

If we see the Moon then it's your photons there are none in arrival nor in departure. " Things that glow emit photons." The moon does not emit photons, it does not produce photons.

The Moon reflect photons.

 

15 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

If the space between the Sun and the Earth is black, then it cannot be bright at the same time. 

If the space between the Sun and Earth is black we'd never see the Sun.

I'm not going to play your stupid game, for someone who claims to be an astrophysicist you really are an ignorant one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
26 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If the space between the Sun and Earth is black we'd never see the Sun.

Dear Rlyeh,

Games (puzzles) serve to come to an understanding of the problem.
"we'd never see the Sun."
At night you see distant light, regardless of the density of darkness.


I insist on the definition of photon = light. When you adopt this then you will understand the question: why is the surface of the Moon light but 1 cm above the surface there is no light.
Something invisible comes (waves) to the surface of the Moon and the surface begins to glow. Something invisible (weakened waves) leaves the surface of the Moon because the space between the Moon and the Mesosphere is complete darkness.
We can only measure light on visible matter in relative proximity to a wave-emitting source.
I do not seek belief but I just offering evidence that the multiple can check.
This evidence was provided by astronomers around the world and made public.

Best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.