Starship Asterisk*

BMAONE23 wrote:(This thread was split from Planetary Formation, please go there for any missing posts - makc)

The problem with water in space is that it would take atmospheric pressure to prevent it from sublimating directly to space and it would take relatively high temperatures to keep it in liquid form to allow for the time needed for the dissolved solids in the water to form around the molecule involved in the experiment. Space is a Cold, Pressureless, near void in which water molecules can only survive as Ice (cold) or individual molecules (pressureless) or in the form of hydrates. The more Water molecules you bring together in space, the best you can form is a comet of increasing size. It takes the mass of a planet, proxcimity to a star (0.7 - 1.3AU or so) for warmth and atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water at the surface. Now what you propose could be happening to a small extent on some of the distant moons that may have liquid oceans but not to the extent of forming planetary bodies.

Sorry BMA .. but science is at a mere beginning in understanding how things work .. of what energies exist .. of what the universe is composed of. All questions are open to many possible answers. The speed of light for instance .. so fast per second, right? But time slows as gravity increases, or vice versa, I can't remember which right now. So .. in the space between galaxies where there is no gravity, what clock does time run at? How fast is a 'second'? Of course you will have people tell you such and such and this and that .. but they're just guessing .. probably they haven't even considered he aspect of the changing speed of time in relation to the speed of light .. so how do we know anything/ Here's something for you. Thumbnail image of picture found for this day. APOD: November 29, 1999 - Arcs and Jets in Herbig Haro 34
Explanation: Some features of HH-34 are understood -- some are not. At the core of Herbig-Haro 34 lies a seemingly typical young star. This star, though, somehow ejects energetic "bullets" of high-energy particles, appearing as red streaks toward the lower right of the this image. Astronomers speculate that a burst of these particles might rebound when gas from a disk surrounding the star momentarily collapses onto the star. Visible near the end of each light-year long jet is a glowing cap. HH-34 lies about 1500 light-years away in the Orion Nebula star-forming region. The cause of the large arc of gas on the upper left known as the waterfall remains unexplained.

mopedtothemoon wrote:Sorry BMA .. but science is at a mere beginning in understanding how things work .. of what energies exist .. of what the universe is composed of. All questions are open to many possible answers. The speed of light for instance .. so fast per second, right? But time slows as gravity increases, or vice versa, I can't remember which right now. So .. in the space between galaxies where there is no gravity, what clock does time run at? How fast is a 'second'? Of course you will have people tell you such and such and this and that .. but they're just guessing .. probably they haven't even considered he aspect of the changing speed of time in relation to the speed of light .. so how do we know anything...

Science is not just at the beginning of understanding how things work. Much of nature is well understood. We have a good understanding of the energies that exist. We have a good idea of what the Universe is composed of, at least so far as we can use this to understand observations. We understand how to specify time, and distance, and speed. The relativistic behavior of massive objects traveling near c is well understood, and doesn't involve light itself. We understand how both matter and radiation behave "between galaxies" (which are not areas without gravity).

Above all, our explanations for the behavior of nature are not "just guessing", but are rational explanations supported by observation, and in most cases highly predictive of future behavior.

Certainly, in the context of this discussion, BMAs observations about the behavior and states of water fall well inside an area of scientific theory and knowledge that is understood deeply and fundamentally. What he said is beyond any possible controversy, and fully believed by every scientist. It is as close to being fact as any scientific explanation can get.

mopedtothemoon wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:(This thread was split from Planetary Formation, please go there for any missing posts - makc)

The problem with water in space is that it would take atmospheric pressure to prevent it from sublimating directly to space and it would take relatively high temperatures to keep it in liquid form to allow for the time needed for the dissolved solids in the water to form around the molecule involved in the experiment. Space is a Cold, Pressureless, near void in which water molecules can only survive as Ice (cold) or individual molecules (pressureless) or in the form of hydrates. The more Water molecules you bring together in space, the best you can form is a comet of increasing size. It takes the mass of a planet, proxcimity to a star (0.7 - 1.3AU or so) for warmth and atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water at the surface. Now what you propose could be happening to a small extent on some of the distant moons that may have liquid oceans but not to the extent of forming planetary bodies.

Sorry BMA .. but science is at a mere beginning in understanding how things work .. of what energies exist .. of what the universe is composed of. All questions are open to many possible answers. The speed of light for instance .. so fast per second, right? But time slows as gravity increases, or vice versa, I can't remember which right now. So .. in the space between galaxies where there is no gravity, what clock does time run at? How fast is a 'second'? Of course you will have people tell you such and such and this and that .. but they're just guessing .. probably they haven't even considered he aspect of the changing speed of time in relation to the speed of light .. so how do we know anything/ Here's something for you. Thumbnail image of picture found for this day. APOD: November 29, 1999 - Arcs and Jets in Herbig Haro 34
Explanation: Some features of HH-34 are understood -- some are not. At the core of Herbig-Haro 34 lies a seemingly typical young star. This star, though, somehow ejects energetic "bullets" of high-energy particles, appearing as red streaks toward the lower right of the this image. Astronomers speculate that a burst of these particles might rebound when gas from a disk surrounding the star momentarily collapses onto the star. Visible near the end of each light-year long jet is a glowing cap. HH-34 lies about 1500 light-years away in the Orion Nebula star-forming region. The cause of the large arc of gas on the upper left known as the waterfall remains unexplained.

Moped
I don't quite understand how your ramblings about Gravity, Time, and Speed of light relate to the thread subject of a Water Planetary Body. Perhaps you could elaborate on the tie in between Water forming a stable planetary body with a liquid surface and your ramblings about gravity, time, and speed of light WRT event horizons.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of zzzzzzzzz


Planet formation
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3788
Ice Lines, Planetesimal Composition and Solid Surface Density in the Solar Nebula

Authors: Sarah E. Dodson-Robinson (1), Karen Willacy (2), Peter Bodenheimer (3), Neal J. Turner (2), C. A. Beichman (1,2) ((1) NASA Exoplanet Science Center, (2) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, (3) UCO/Lick Observatory)
(Submitted on 23 Jun 2008 (v1), last revised 4 Dec 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: To date, there is no core accretion simulation that can successfully account for the formation of Uranus or Neptune within the observed 2-3 Myr lifetimes of protoplanetary disks. Since solid accretion rate is directly proportional to the available planetesimal surface density, one way to speed up planet formation is to take a full accounting of all the planetesimal-forming solids present in the solar nebula. By combining a viscously evolving protostellar disk with a kinetic model of ice formation, we calculate the solid surface density in the solar nebula as a function of heliocentric distance and time. We find three effects that strongly favor giant planet formation: (1) a decretion flow that brings mass from the inner solar nebula to the giant planet-forming region, (2) recent lab results (Collings et al. 2004) showing that the ammonia and water ice lines should coincide, and (3) the presence of a substantial amount of methane ice in the trans-Saturnian region. Our results show higher solid surface densities than assumed in the core accretion models of Pollack et al. (1996) by a factor of 3 to 4 throughout the trans-Saturnian region. We also discuss the location of ice lines and their movement through the solar nebula, and provide new constraints on the possible initial disk configurations from gravitational stability arguments.

Exactly - 'No simulation that accounts for ..." It's nice to find an honest voice. Accretion is a theory. Almost every piece of of "knowledge" in astronomy is subect to new knowledge .. isn't it time astronomers REALLY stoped pretending they know something? By the way .. I demand a trial by my peers .. bring on some evidence of my attacking anyone on the forum. Nereid is a bad girl. I attacked no one. I only presented arguments that the consensus had no answers for. I've done a lot of reading lately .. a lOT of scientific reading, history and otherwise, and it's always "Off with his head! Off with his head!" when someone comes up with something the consensus can't understand. Bunch of deadheads.

Chris Peterson wrote:

mopedtothemoon wrote:Sorry BMA .. but science is at a mere beginning in understanding how things work .. of what energies exist .. of what the universe is composed of. All questions are open to many possible answers. The speed of light for instance .. so fast per second, right? But time slows as gravity increases, or vice versa, I can't remember which right now. So .. in the space between galaxies where there is no gravity, what clock does time run at? How fast is a 'second'? Of course you will have people tell you such and such and this and that .. but they're just guessing .. probably they haven't even considered he aspect of the changing speed of time in relation to the speed of light .. so how do we know anything...

Science is not just at the beginning of understanding how things work. Much of nature is well understood. We have a good understanding of the energies that exist. We have a good idea of what the Universe is composed of, at least so far as we can use this to understand observations. We understand how to specify time, and distance, and speed. The relativistic behavior of massive objects traveling near c is well understood, and doesn't involve light itself. We understand how both matter and radiation behave "between galaxies" (which are not areas without gravity).

Above all, our explanations for the behavior of nature are not "just guessing", but are rational explanations supported by observation, and in most cases highly predictive of future behavior.

Certainly, in the context of this discussion, BMAs observations about the behavior and states of water fall well inside an area of scientific theory and knowledge that is understood deeply and fundamentally. What he said is beyond any possible controversy, and fully believed by every scientist. It is as close to being fact as any scientific explanation can get.

Chris, you're not even at the beginning of scientific understanding .. I just gotta shake my head in wonder at your pretensiousness. Pick up some books. Learn something.

IPRider wrote:By the way .. I demand a trial by my peers .. bring on some evidence of my attacking anyone on the forum... I attacked no one... Bunch of deadheads.

IPRider wrote:Chris, you're not even at the beginning of scientific understanding .. I just gotta shake my head in wonder at your pretensiousness. Pick up some books. Learn something.

I wonder how do these two quotes fit together? aristarchusinexile, what would you say?

Chris Peterson wrote:

apodman wrote:I abandoned the "water" idea for a moment to see how the last "liquid" planet I heard about was doing. That's Uranus with liquid ammonia and liquid methane. I was surprised to find that now some think there is solid and even rock at the core, but I was unable to identify a prevailing view. Is there one?

I'm pretty sure that all modern models of Uranus's interior require a rocky core. Also, the intermediate layer, what you are calling liquid ammonia and methane (and also contains water) would be better described as a fluid ice layer, not a liquid layer. It certainly behaves nothing like a liquid ocean in any context we are familiar with.

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001841/ wrote:
<<The results of a new computer model developed by Burkhard Militzer and four coauthors suggest that deep inside the solar system's largest planet sits an inner rock-and-metal core the mass of 14 to 18 Earths, surrounded by an envelope of ices of methane, ammonia, and water, surrounded by an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium containing few ices. Essentially, the model says that Jupiter = Neptune with a whole lot of hydrogen and helium around it. Past computer models have suggested that Jupiter had a core that was much smaller, smaller than seven Earths, and maybe that it had no core at all.>>