December 13, 2017

Shorter transit times for hot jupiters around red dwarf star?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , — zankaon @ 11:52 am

If a hot jupiter were in orbit about a red dwarf star, it’s period would have to be shorter (1 day vs 10?). Perhaps inside Corona distance? Thus the transit duration time (i.e. decreased luminosity via photometry) would be markedly shorter. Proof that red dwarfs can have planetary systems? Also would any long term stability of such close in orbit, lean against any coalescense?

Would the resolution and error limits be adequate for such task? Might one utilize absorption lines (infrared only) of the dwarf star as a measure of a finer resolution of any timing interuption of such lines, due to transit?

Some like it hot – Jupiter

twinkle, twinkle, little star

how i tug at what thou art


July 20, 2017

Earth as a solid sphere rotation, with no contribution to conservation of angular momentum from interior? Angular momentum exchange for closed systems. Angular inertia for Oort cloud, and even for our galaxie?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , — zankaon @ 3:39 pm

Since the Moon is still receding, then an increasing moment of inertia mr^2, and lesser angular orbital velocity. And for earth, an associated slowing angular velocity, and hence in angular momentum; with concomitant momentum exchange with Moon. So can one consider not only conservation of angular momentum, but also angular momentum exchange, for variously considered closed systems?

For a closed system, one can have exchange of angular momentum. Did the solid earth core form comparatively early, by ~100 million years? If so, then there would be a shift (decrease) of mr^2 moment of inertia i.e. mass re-distribution to a lesser radius. Would this then account for a compensatory increase in moment of inertia (i.e. increase in orbit radius) for the moon? Might the moon`s present increase in orbit radius, in part be due to an increase in momentum of inertia, somewhat (?) relating to solidifying inner core, and/or ongoing transfer of momentum, from associated slowing of earth’s rotation?

Might even the Moon not be gravitationally bound; rather does the Moon’s essentially circular orbit just reflect it’s angular inertia, from such angular momentum transfer? Not unlike our artificial satelites?

What is the gravitational potential, and calculated Ricci tensor (i.e. curvature) magnitude at Moon’s radial distance?

For early on, did one also have some increase in angular velocity for earth, consistent with core formation and conservation of angular momentum for earth? Was there also any significant angular momentum transfer to the sun (similar for Mercury, Venus?), associated with such decrease in angular momentum for earth?

Also might there be adjustments to our system’s planets due to transfer of angular momentum between planets and other objects, involving spin (rotation rate) and orbit angular momentum transfer? Hence rationalization for a broader perspective (i.e. entanglement) of past and ongoing angular momentum re-distribution for our solar system, inclusive also of KBO objects, Oort cloud, any ejected planets or nacent cores, and even for neutrino belt formation?

For example, did Oort cloud objects form closer in, and then via angular momentum exchange with KBO objects, recide i.e. increasing momentum of inertia? Might this be consistent with slower rotation for large KBO objects such as Pluto, Sedna (?)  etc. i.e. spin orbital angular momentum transfer?

Also rather than a spherical symmetrical Oort cloud, might such distribution of objects be closer to solar plane, even if not gravitationally bound? Might there also be a relevent analogy to suggested galaxie spiral arm formation? That is, via angular momentum transfer, and alleged resultant angular inertia, might one have (nascent?) formation of spiral arms for Oort cloud? Probably not infrared visible, due to distant infrared confluence effect?

Would gravitational field (calculated?) be insufficient to account for circular (?) orbiting of Oort cloud objects? Thus is transfer of angular momentum not only involved with migration of KBO objects outward, but also essentially alone is such angular momentum transfer responsible for circular orbital motion of Oort cloud objects? Likewise for surmised circular orbit of neutrino belt?

Such orbital motion, in absence of gravitational field, and hence no central force, would not follow Kepler`s Laws. Thus such considered circular orbital motion would have invariant magnitude – hence the designation of such motion as angular inertia. That is, the angular velocity axial vector ω=v_t/r , remains invariant; in contrast to an eliptical locus of positions.

So does angular inertia alone describe such objects in circular orbit? Hence obviating tapering gravitational potential model? Also then would the outer extent of our solar system (and all stellar systems?) seem to be defined by angular inertia (from angular momentum transfer) in a flat 3-space, and not by curvature i.e. gravitation? Also see tapering gravitation potential model vignettes for further discussion.

Rheologically, the earth seems quiet in regards to differential rotational motion? Such as for core – mantle interface, wherein deep plumes seem to be fixed. Also the solid core has perhaps just slight rotation. The asthenosphere (upper mantle) apparently has some flow; always in step with lithospheric plate motion? Still insufficient to contribute to any decrease in angular velocity and momentum? Thus must one consider other possible contributions to angular momentum, and momentum exchange, if earth is considered as essentially a solid rotating sphere?

Might there have been more than one planetesimal collisions with proto-earth? However might there not be any isotope compositional differences, since all such objects in close orbits, and hence a shared solar nebula environment?

Mercury has a strong magnetic field, and hence fluid interior. Yet Mercury has essentially no precession. Might this be consistent with no planetesimal collision, contributing to any hypothetical precession?

While for earth, precession of the equinoxes, and resultant changing polar star, gives only one periodicity i.e. one frequency. This would seem consistent with only one collision, with resultant external torque changing the angular momentum vector. Whereas multiple planetesimal collisions with earth would seem to give multiple periodicities.

Since earth`s rotation is slowing down currently, then consistent with angular momentum exchange with the moon; and also with the sun to lesser extent? That is, also increasing angular velocity, and hence angular momentum of our star?

Might any preferential angular momentum transfer for 2-body vs 3-body be modeled as a Venn diagram, with 2-body entanglement considered in context of a larger 3-body entanglement scenario, with an inner sub-system depiction having preference i.e. starting from simpler smaller closed sub-system consideration? So is angular momentum transfer not based on distance, but rather on simplicity of sub-system vs concomitant larger system?

For example, since earth and moon revolve about a center of mass (near to inner core boundary?), might any slowing of such motion result in a transfer of angular momentum from such 2-body sub-system to an overall concomitant 3-body system?

Analogously, if one has observed parallax for the sun, then this would be consistent with our sun revolving about a center of mass for a binary system, such as also inclusive of a nearby red dwarf. Then any change in such tight close in sun’s orbital motion, or in it’s spin rate, could result in angular momentum transfer, wherein the moment of inertia of such red dwarf could change i.e. becoming further distant, for such closed binary system. Such red dwarf could still be bound to solar system via angular inertia, and hence circular orbit, even if gravitational potential is negligible; hence such binary red dwarf would be bound, but not gravitationally. Also could one have tidal locking for such dwarf star?

Likewise might Proxima centauri’s extremely large radius circular (?) orbit, as part of a triple system, be non-gravitationally bound? That is via angular momentum transfer, might such Proxima centauri be bound in it’s triple system just by angular inertia?

Also if tidal locking is possible for a dwarf star, then might Proxima centuari be in tidal locking; not just for photosphere outer surface gaseous layer, but also for internal layers with differential rotation?

Assuming earlier faster rotation, one would seem to have momentum transfer for Mercury, which is in 3:2 resonance with the sun i.e. 2 rotations per 3 orbits; and also for Venus, with tidal lock i.e. one rotation per revolution.

Might hot Jupiter, although supposedly in long duration stable orbit close to it’s star, still have further dynamics? That is, might there have also been transfer of angular momentum from hot Jupiter to it’s star? Thus has the rotation rate (angular velocity) of a hot Jupiter slowed down, with consequential increased angular velocity and momentum of it’s star? Hence might one predict tidal locking (one rotation per revolution) for such hot Jupiter?

Also might the orbit of such hot jupiter be circular; the latter consistent with just angular inertia accounting for orbit binding? Might the apparent long term stability of such close in hot jupiter’s orbit suggest a role for orbit/spin angular momentum transfer, and resultant final circularizing of orbit, denoted as angular inertia; together with tidal locking – both stabilizing boundedness for such hot jupiter’s orbit? Might tidal locking lessen any wobbling tendency, and prevent any possible chaotic orbitng?

So might tidal locking, as well as circularizing orbits, be considered as manifestation of such angular momentum transfer, and in fact end points for such angular momentum exchange and resultant stable angular inertia?

Thus although such exo-planet orbits might be considered as long term gravitationally stable, still in terms of angular momentum, might such exosystems be considered as active as our solar system, in regards to angular momentum exchange in essentially closed systems?

Might such scenario of angular momentum exchange for closed 2 body (and more) systems be considered as examples of entanglement, wherein the system as a whole has to be considered in order to fully explain observations? So attention to conservation of angular momentum, as well as exchange of angular momentum can be considered in concomitant descriptions.

Thus is our solar system still very active, in sense of angular momentum transfer, such as for any ongoing Oort cloud formation from outward migrating KBO objects, associated with decreased spin (rotation) for larger KBO objects? Likewise for any distant orbiting neutrino belt? Based on angular inertia concept, would one expect a circular orbit for both Oort cloud objects, and for neutrino belt?

Then would the outer extent of our solar (stellar) system not seem to be described by gravitationally bound Oort cloud objects, nor by gravitationally bound neutrino belt, but rather by angular inertia of such circular orbiting objects in a flat 3-space; the latter part of inter-stellar flat 3-space? Not unlike for Proxima centauri’s circular orbit, a non-gravitationally bound object, as denoted by angular inertia?

Nevertheless, Pluto (slow (?) rotating KBO object) has an elliptical orbit, consistent with Keplers laws and central force; hence a Newtonian description would still seem valid in flat 3-space, far out for our stellar system.

If our Sun revolve in our galaxy over ~240 Myrs, and reside at a radius of ~26-30 klyrs, what is the gravitational potential at Sun’s radial distance from center of galaxy? One might assume Newton’s 2nd Theorem, and consider all of galaxie’s luminous and Dark matter (?) as a central point mass. Then might one consider a scenario wherein such potential is negligible at Sun’s distance?

Alternatively, might the Sun’s circular (?) revolution (tracing spiral mass?) about our galaxie be described as angular inertia, resulting perhaps from angular momentum transfer within our galaxie? Also once such spiral mass is set in angular inertia, then no necessity for further maintenance of such spiral motion. So is our galaxie not a gravitationally bound object?

Might then the angular inertia concept apply to physical massive galactic spiral arm(s); once (if?) set in slow motion, continuing such angular inertia? Wherein most stars are formed in such density wave arm; while do others slowly enter or leave such density wave arms? Might differential rotation (for different galactic radii) result in overall more static-like spiral pattern; without any necessity of angular momentum transfer?

In contrast, is gravitational potential, and/or Newtonian descripion, just for solar system scale? However does apparrent gravitational lensing, Einstein cross of multiple images of one quasar, dwarf galaxies’ (motion?) and Magellanic streaming for our Local Group – all suggest cluster scale gravitational effect? As an alternative, might interaction, such as reverberation, of light with matter, result in multiple images of an object? Such as ‘sun dogs’ images from ice crystal reflection?

Might angular momentum transfer, if originating from bar and/or bulge, and/or angular inertia of massive spiral densities, play a greater role than realized for our galaxie’s ‘dynamics’ ; describing our galaxie as not a gravitationally bound entity? 

Might simulations of galaxie rotation curves indicate no necessity of dark matter (1) ; consistent with not gravitationally bound? Hence consistent with dark matter, critical density, and gravitation not of importance in re-contraction of ‘universe’ scenario?

Also might not only influx through magnetic pole (and any associated jetting) affect stability and binary compact object coalescence, but also might any ongoing transfer of spin/orbit angular momentum retard or prevent coalescence of compact binary objects?

For example, might one have resultant circularizing of such binary orbiting, and even tidal locking (?); hence stabilizing such orbiting – not unlike apparent stabilized hot jupiter orbit? Might any tidal locking reduce any wobbling tendency, and possible chaotic orbiting; hence contributing to stabilizing circular orbiting?

So does angular momentum transfer, and angular inertia, play a larger role than recognized, as in various above considered examples of closed systems?

also see zankaon site, Modified black hole page, Entanglement and Coalescense sections.

(1) Declining rotation curves at z=2: A natural phenomenon in ΛCDM cosmology.   Adelheid F. Teklu, Rhea-Silvia Remus, Klaus Dolag, Alexander Arth, Andreas Burkert, Aura Obreja, Felix Schulze.

April 9, 2015

Migrating hot jupiter as a model for non-coalescing black holes, and for always disjoint manifolds? Model for mathematical conjecture?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , — zankaon @ 3:20 pm

Could hot jupiter`s inward migration to current assumed stable orbit serve as a model for possibility of coalescing compact objects, such as neutron stars and black holes?

Assuming a past 2-body interaction of gas giants, resulting in an additional vectorial component for subsequent inward spiraling hot jupiter; why would such inward spiraling cease?

Might it result from spin orbital dynamics, respectively for star and planet?  That is, might such hot Jupiter not ony be in tidal locking, but also circularized it’s orbit, due to angular momentum transfer? So not related to just curvature. How would such model differ from inward spiraling compact objects, and simulations thereof? Hence another model, and rationalization, for no coalescense of compact objects?

Since orbital velocity of earth is ~30 km/s, what would the orbital  velocity of a hot jupiter be? For conservation of angular momentum, with decrease in moment of inertia, would angular velocity be quite high? Would inward migration of hot jupiter be gradual; hence favoring settling into a stable circular orbit for billions of years? Might distant orbits, like for Proxima centuari, also only be possible if there is gradual settling into such extremely far out non-gravitational circular orbits i.e. angular inertia, from angular momentum transfer?

Would orbital velocity of hot jupiter be much increased, consistent with reduced moment of inertia, and angular momentum conservation? If not, would this be be evidence for, and consistent with, an ejected third body, and it`s contribution to changes in observed angular momentum components?

Might one consider such inward spiraling as approximation of equiangular spiral? Then use rectification of spiral to get distance along such inward spiral path; that is the distance from original orbital distance (of cold jupiter) to rectilinear axis passing through it`s star. If one then assumes the orbital velocity remained reasonable, with any change of a gradual nature, then the duration for such hot jupiter to arrive could seemingly be estimated – less than 500 million years?

Would such hot jupiter scenario seem more likely than coalescence of mass, in principle as well as for simulations? Likewise then for consideration of merging of other massive objects, such as for NS-NS stars or BH-NS merging for GRB origin, or for hot Jupiter and associated star?

That is, does nature have a problem with such massive merger models; perhaps related to angular momentum transfer?

Is this in turn related to larger theme that manifolds act as though they want to be left alone; perhaps they can not change. That is, disjoint, then aways disjoint; and if intersecting, then always intersecting; also resistance to deformation; hence, for the former, no new manifold formation? Consistent with mathematical conjecture: manifolds are neither created nor destroyed?

So might a hot jupiter migratory model, and assumed current stable circular orbit (and perhaps tidal locking) serve as an example of what might happen for black holes, or neutron star binaries, attempting to coalesce, as well as also representative of manifold behavior in general?   TMM

Rectification of equiangular spiral.

April 8, 2015

Aurora effects of hot Jupiters; possible spectroscopic magnetic field detection? Radio signal determination of closeness to stellar corona?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , , — zankaon @ 12:55 pm

For hot Jupiter transits of their respective stars, if one could only visualize the former’s aurora. Our Jupiter has such aurora, and a strong magnetic ‘field’. For a hot jupiter, it’s orbit would be far inside of Mercury’s orbit; but how far from (or in?) such star’s corona?

Such intense corona, like for our sun, is probably a result of magnetic ‘field’ energy, magnetic re-connect, and hence redistribution of such magnetic energy. Might strong magnetic energy density of such hot Jupiter be close enough to such star’s corona for enhanced interaction, and thus enhancement of any aurora effect?

Might one have spectrographic detection, such as Zeeman effect etc. i.e. energy level splitting emission line from electron spin-orbit effect in magnetic field? Might one have a periodic ‘hot spot’ effect (such as periodic increase in number of emission lines?) from stellar and hot Jupiter magnetic field interaction, consistent with orbital dynamics? However rotation of the star can give periodic variability, and result in broadening of emission line and affect separation of lines. Differences in right and left polarization of such lines; perhaps helpful in increased sensitivity of detection of such magnetic effects?

In principle, might one visualize such transit, in optical or uv band emission lines; hence indicating how close such hot jupiter is to such star; limits, for example less than ~10 solar radii, and/or 1-2 x10^6 km? In comparison, Mercury`s perihelion is ~46 x10^6 km.

How else might one perhaps ascertain how close such hot jupiter is to corona? Our Jupiter has a strong radio signal. Might a hot jupiter have enhancement of such radio signal from interaction of such planet with the star’s magnetic ‘field’ and magnetic reconnect and energy of corona region?

Also since such hot jupiter has a short period, one would expect periodicity to such radio signal, such as for edge on view of transit hot jupiter, wherein one might have a periodic gap in radio signal when planet is occluded by star. Then would tangent velocity estimate, together with period, give circumference and thus radius?

Conversely, for transverse velocity of 13 km/s, and for assumed radial orbit of 1 million km (corona 1-2 million km radius?), then derived circumference, and estimated resultant period of ~3.6 days?

So might such hot jupiter be in corona, or even at a shorter radius? How would this affect a radio signal; amplification or distortion? For more detail, see related radio source blog link below. TMM

J.D. Landstreet Magnetic fields


Sun’s corona

January 17, 2015

Comet 67P – a 3-body problem? Model for hot jupiter re-location? Ice. Neutrino belt? Gravitational interactions, or angular momentum transfer, with resultant angular inertia? Cryo-chemistry. Titan’s chemistry?

Might the short period orbit of comet 67P have occurred from momentum transfer with another body, through exchange of angular momentum, relocated to inner aspect of solar system? Likewise for hot Jupiter exo-planet gas giants? But where is Lagrange point for Jupiter and Sun? Why wouldn’t 67P comet continue it’s orbital trajectory into Sun’s gravitational well? It’s as if there were a ‘curvature valley’ ; but where then is the missing mass? Alternatively, might 67P’s current unusual orbit be stable; just the result of historical transfer of angular momentum?

Assuming neutrinos have mass (~.01-.1 ev?), how many neutrinos have been emitted by Sun over ~4.6 Byrs? How much mass equivalent has been loss? What is the number of neutrinos emitted per second x 10^8 sec./yr. x 4.6 Byrs? Electron volts, ergs, joules. 1 ev = 1.6 x 10^-19 J, and 1 kg= 9 x 10^16 J. So what is the accumulative neutrino mass equivalence? Is it gravitationally significant? Also what is the relative total mass, in comparison of asteroid belt, KBO belt, and Oort Cloud?

Might there be significant hidden mass in solar system? Not percentage wise in comparison to Sun, but sufficient to account for some apparent anomalies?

Might there be an inapparent neutrino belt ; would it be near to, or in solar plane? Might not such considered low momentum orbiting massive neutrinos account for apparent anomalous abridged orbit of 67P comet?

In terms of resonance, might such neutrino belt locate to an orbit between asteroid belt and Jupiter, if solar nebula was just out to Neptune orbit? Or might such neutrino belt  circular orbit be beyond Oort cloud, at ~50,000 .i.e. ~.24 lyrs? Hence no gravitational effect; rather just constant speed angular inertia effect? For comparison, Proxima centauri is at ~15,000 AU. Likewise a neutrino belt for all stars, including pulsars and black holes?

Proxima centauri

That is for tappering gravitational field, or for transfer of angular momentum alone, without any tappering model, could such massive clouds, belts, be extremely far out. Might transfer of angular momentum alone, account for orbiting of Oort cloud objects; likewise for Proxima centauri’s far out orbit? Could one desigate such constant speed (i.e. no central force, and thus no Kepler Laws) orbiting, as angular inertia, a result of angular momentum transfer? Hence the greatest extent of our solar system would seem to be from such angular inertia in a flat 3-space, and not from gravitation i.e. no curvature?

E=mc^2 indicates that a small mass contains a lot of energy; conversely, one requires an enormous number of electron volts to result in macroscopic gravitational effect. For example, 1 solar mass of 10^30 kg is estimated to be ~10^66 neutrinos of 1 ev. Also Milky Way mass of 10^12 solar masses would be ~10^78 neutrinos of 1 ev. Would neutrinos still be a dark matter candidate? also see solar neutrino belt neutrino detector details in revised c/p/c 236.

Would cubesats (satellites), together with small volume (1-8 cm^3?) deuterium water, and with Cenrenkov photo detector (or radiation detector?) be of sufficient sensitivity to detect such neutrino belt? Any such increase in radiation would be abrupt; not unlike for electric and magnetic respective potentials; and unlike inverse gravitational potential? Have cubesat orbits encompassing any surmised additional resonance belt(s) for our solar system? Would cosmic cascade pattern be sufficiently different from low momentum neutrino interaction; thus built in comparison control?

Nevertheless would not any ‘curvature valley ‘ requires mass? Perhaps examine the space enclosed by 67P comet’s orbit, but in infrared band; looking for optically inapparent set i.e. ‘cloud’ of small objects with sufficient collective mass to account for such unexpected curvature and resultant short period comet’s unusual orbit.

Instead of focusing on 67P comet’s geodesic, perhaps one could consider entire orbit as a geometric object. Then might one be observing a snapshot of an ongoing process of increasing eccentricity (i.e. further elongation) of such orbit (i.e. geometric object) by gravitational field of Sun? Hence would such comet’s unusual orbit be better understood as an overall geometric object’s changing shape and extent; no inverse cube tidal interactions, nor just inverse change in gravitational potential.

Was such short period comet left over from early solar system? However if it intersected earth’s orbit, then over 4 byrs a collision would have occurred. Reference indicates perihelion of ~1.2 AU ; so no intersection with earth’s orbit. Thus might it’s present orbit and period have occurred earlier, and persisted? Was it originally from KBO region, or further out? Then via angular momentum exchange, would it’s present trajectory seem more reasonable? Would it’s inclination angle of 7 degrees to elliptic suggest a KBO origin? Whereas a higher inclination angle would seem to suggest a wider Oort Cloud origin?

Might infrared spectroscopy (stretching, bending, vibration) of such comet 67P surface ice be consistent with a stronger covalent like hydrogen bond for between water and/or ammonia molecules? Hence consistent with 4 byr old ice, perhaps not unlike so-called alleged sub-surface ancient water Martian rock ice; however a very different more exposed environment. see December 28, 2013 Measuring temperature of space via molecular vibration etc.? Dark Age Cryochemistry?

Do many asteroids not have surface ice, unlike comets? Why? Over 4 byrs might the collision potential (i.e. density) of a set of asteroids be greater than for KBO and Oort cloud objects? Hence more sublimation for heated surface ice for the former? For example, Vista in asteroid belt, is an example of not only early differentiation, but also subsequent collisional history. However Ceres’s composition is largely ice; indicative of greater water abundance for different place and time of formation? Also if a smaller object had an atmosphere, then perhaps originating from sub-surface ice and ongoing ice geysers, not unlike Saturn’s moon Enceladus.

What about Titan’s markedly different hazy (hydrocarbons?) atmosphere? Not from uv effect on methane alone; rather sub-surface extended carbon chain formation (alkanes etc.?) perhaps associated with shearing (frictional temperature increase?) hydro-ice vents with interior conduit surfaces containing metals as catalytic impurities? Or cryo-chemistry from impurities of ice adsorbed on dust grains – slower solid state surface cryo-chemistry? Then sublimation of surface ice, contributing to atmosphere?

For example, if present in Titan atmosphere, where might alkanes carbon chains come from? Perhaps from synthesis of alkyl halides, together with heat, resulting in intermediate radicals, in turn interacting; ending with carbon chain extension? Might there be enough focused light (off ice crystals?), heat, and halogens – chlorine, bromine, or halides on Titan, or in atmosphere? Or perhaps alkylation of ammonia with  methyl halides to give alkyl amine extended carbon chain compounds? Ammonia perhaps, but with presence of halogens or methyl halide water ice impurities? Perhaps utilization of metals, such as lithium and copper, for alkyl chain length extension? Any comparison to possible in situ molecular cloud cryo-chemistry?

More recently ALMA data has been interpreted as spectroscopically indicating C_2H_5CN ethyl cyanide at ~200 km high in atmosphere of Titan, formed supposedly via photochemistry. But where is light intensity coming from? Any N_2 abundance in Titan atmosphere would have a very strong triple bond; likewise for forming CN triple bond. Is such chemistry feasible in Titan’s atmosphere? see reference.

Also is apparent riverine system on Titan suggestive of current, or recent, flowing surface fluid? If flowing ammonia surface liquid; then required comparatively higher temperature range of ~ 195 -240 K.

Titan has an atmosphere; hence enhancement of surface temperature? Liquid hydrogen forms at < 20 K. So for example for surface temperature range of ~50-100 K, then the possibility of surface liquid nitrogen for 63-90 K range , and/or liquid oxygen for 54-77 K range. Perhaps also the possibility of nitrogen oxides such as N0, N0_2, N_20 etc., components of smog for earth’s atmosphere? But triple bond N_2 is of high energy, and thus less reactive. Perhaps ammonia, methyl halide – giving alkyl amines? Nitrogen oxides

A key question would seem to be what is Titan’s surface temperature? For Titan’s surface, for temperature range of 50-100 Kelvin, might one paint a scenario of perhaps frozen ammonia lakes, with liquid nitrogen flowing riverine system, with perhaps in part alkylamine extended carbon chains, as part of assumed hydrocarbon atmospheric mix?

Alternatively, because of nitrogen’s narrow liquid temperature range (63-90 K), might one have a physical phase change homologous to that of water ice/liquid? That is, for example, might one have frozen surface nitrogen with liquid nitrogen beneath for both ‘lakes’ and for riverine system? Analogously so, possibly for oxygen narrow liquid temperature range (54-77 K) for ‘lake’ and riverine system’s ice/liquid phase change? Or possibly a mixture of both, since N_2 triple bond is quite inert, as here on earth.

Would any of this seem consistent with Titan’s surface findings and atmospheric coloration? In addition to surface temperature determination, might one also land cube sat probes on Titan’s ‘lakes’ to see if impact is consistent with solid ice or liquid? Also a probe approaching riverine system, for better imaging and ground penetrating high frequency radar; likewise for ‘lakes’ ?

Alternatively might darken coloration of Titan be similar to Martian darker coloration, more evident from afar? And for Titan, might one have ice crystals in atmosphere, as well as light reflection off icy surface, giving illusory distorted light imagery? Likewise for any Pluto’s blurry discoloration (moving?) imagery, from afar? Or might one have cryovolcanoes spewing out a mineralized fluid (N_2 ?), giving a discolorized ‘Tharsis like’ plateau effect?

In addition to laboratory cryochemistry simulations, for Jovian, Saturnian satellites, and Pluto etc., perhaps one could use orbital reflective  or absorptive spectroscopy; utilizing a low angle ‘limb’ view of, for example,l Triton surface or atmosphere, respectively. Greater brightness of surface and atmosphere from ice crystal reflectiveness?

Might Titan exploration be easier if main spacecraft is firstly put into Saturian orbit; then is gradual catch up with outermost Saturian moon, Titan feasible? Then parallel tracking of Titan; hence avoiding an impossible Titan orbit? Thus a master ship, with cube satellites, to Saturian system’s Titan; with successive release of such cube satellites (6 etc.?) with multiple experiments, and competing teams?

Likewise repeat New Horizon 2 (identical), but crashing into largest KBO, Pluto, of an otherwise very low density Kuiper belt? Incidentally, in comparison of asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and Oort Cloud, for assumption of ~ same total mass, then for such successive increased volume, thus progressively lower density of objects; assuming some minimal size for objects. All such belts, clouds have very low number density.

Perhaps utilize an array of cube satellites, launched at various times, and at various angular displacements, with greater propulsion for closer to Pluto launch. So perhaps an earlier launch of array of 6 cube satellites would suffice to ensure that Pluto is not missed on a fast fly by.

Planets  Holst  chemistry caveats?

Observations of Icy Universe  [astro-ph.GA] 21 Jan 2015

Kpcosmic ice  astrochemistry lab 691  cosmic Ice laboratory

Ethyl cyanide on Titan: Spectroscopic detection and mapping using ALMA

May 19, 2013

Radio source: a new way to detect hot Jupiters? Our Jupiter as a FM modulated radio emission? Sustainable amplified energy from giant planet`s magnetic field?

Might a hot Jupiter’s orbit be near, or intersect, a corona of it’s host star? Do all stars have a corona, and hence (?) magnetic field? Might such hot Jupiter have an internal organized current (ionized hydrogen plasma flow; similar for a star?) with magnetic field and magnetosphere, like for Jupiter? Might any hot Jupiter magnetic field per se, or also interaction of such hot Jupiter with it’s host star magnetic field, give rise to electromagnetic radiation i.e. radio source?

Compared to Jupiter, might one have a plasma current arising from the atmosphere of such hot Jupiter, or from any Io-like moon? Might there be flow into polar region, associated with a more intense magnetic field, and a cone like directionality to radio emission? Might there be both rotational and orbital periodic modulation of such radio emission? Hence another way of confirming hot Jupiters’ existence? However might not a cold gas giant for such same system also perhaps be a radio source; hence obscuring such confirmation?

Jupiter has a magnetic field; so too for 2 jovian moons, and for our sun. A plasma stream from Io, together with Alfven waves (jovian Aurora borealis?), creating a torus, and then flowing into polar region of Jupiter’s more intense magnetic field, giving rise to radio waves? Would such radio wave emission give rise to a cone like directionality?

For such hot Jupiter, or for our cold Jupiter, might any advanced technological civilization (including us, now?) residing in such system, modulate the frequency of such partial directional radio source, embedding an artificiality, such as harmonic wave of given frequency? Are we the aliens? Jupiter’s radio transmission is probably just noise-like over a radio frequency bandwidth. Thus via Fourier analysis could one break down such set of frequencies, looking for an artificial periodicity; wave number pi?

Would a sustainable sufficient energy source for such modulation be difficult? Via magnetic inductance such as for ferromagnetic surface (with high magnetic permeability), and for such satellite’s orbital motion, together with increased number of wires in coil (i.e. solenoid with ferromagnetic core) and thus enhanced magnetic field, with rapid rotation i.e. dynamo all enhancing inductance (generating) a current (leading to an artificial periodicity of electro-magnetic emission); thus deriving electric energy from such magnetic field?

Jupiter’s radio emission probably has a noise like spectrum. However one would not need a wave pulse as a ‘signal’; rather a harmonic wave of given frequency, and hence of any (or interesting?) wave number, would seem to suffice to reveal an artificial frequency embedded in Jupiter’s noisy radio emission.

A resultant radio transmission range of how many light years; a beacon denoting present or past technological civilization? Perhaps a small Cubesat piggyback launch to jovian system? In contrast, wouldn’t periodic optical reflective emissions  (or better yet, from a laser?) from current lunar orbiters, have a much deeper transmission range than such embedded radio transmission?

So might one be able to generate a sufficiently powerful and sustainable current from magnetic field of our Jupiter or Saturn to be useable for a continuous space beacon?

How might such energy be stored? Perhaps utilize such generated current to drive an electric motor and then utilize a gyroscope stabilized fly wheel to store energy.

Might one utilize such more powerful energy storage process to look for a gaseous/liquid deeper interior interface with amplified ground penetrating low frequency radar? That is, irregardless of incidence angle, might one be able to ascertain a change in signal consistent with a physical phase change i.e. physical interface? Hence addressing and answering the question of whether or not Saturn and/or Jupiter has a liquid or gaseous interior circulation accounting for respective magnetic fields? Might a cube satellite prototype be utilized to initiate exploration of such considered planet`s magnetic field source of a sustainable amplified energy supply for such ongoing experiments?    TMM

Create a free website or blog at