Archive for dezembro 2nd, 2011

Descoberta de Mais 18 Planetas Muda a Teoria Acadêmica sôbre a Formação dos Planetas.

sexta-feira, dezembro 2nd, 2011


Aos poucos a teoria astronômica acadêmica vai evoluindo e imitando o mesmo roteiro que aconteceu com a teoria da origem da vida. As duas começaram com a insustentável idéia da “geração espontanea” e ao acaso. Sendo mais velha, a teoria da origem da vida foi descobrindo que o “espontaneo” não foi tão espontaneo assim, ou seja, ao invés de mosquitos surgirem de trapos suados largados num canto, o processo foi muito mais complicado e gastou bilhões de anos. A teoria astronômica por sua vez, que no inicio acreditou que de uma nebulosa de poeira surgiam já prontos uma estrêla e os planetas à volta, agora está descobrindo que o processo é mais longo e complicado.

isto é o que deduzo do artigo publicado hoje:

This artist's image shows a newly formed planet swimming through the gas and dust surrounding the star. Such a planet might scoop up gas and dust to build an atmosphere, which it could lose as it moves closer to its sun. Thus it could shift from a gas planet to a terrestrial planet.

Astronomers discover 18 new alien planets—and they’re huge
Bounty should help us learn how giant planets form and grow in nascent solar systems

Antes de iniciar a leitura e analise do texto, já chamo a atenção para o que está escrito abaixo da figura:

“Esta imagem artistica mostra um recente formado planeta “nadando” através do gás e poeira da estrêla. Tal planeta poderia (scoop up) gás e poeira para construir uma atmosfera, a qual perderia enquanto êle move próximo de seu sol. Assim êle poderia mudar de um planeta gasoso para um planeta terrestre (solidificado).

Estás percebendo como o “espontaneo” está se elasticando cada vez mais?

Para a Teoria da Matrix/DNA, na sua tímida inserção em cosmologia, a qual não era nossa intenção inicial mas os resultados aqui na Terra nos empurraram para as estrêlas tambem, esta noticia de inicio tem dois aspectos:

1) A constatação de que o processo de formação foi mais complexo e duradouro coincide com nossos modêlos que preveem ainda maior complexidade e duração;

2) A informação ajuda-nos a desenvolver os calculos sôbre a diferença entre formação astronomica primordial e formação por reciclagem. Não muito porque ainda fica a questão se êstes planetas são velhas reminicências de uma formação primordial ou se são planetas novos formados por reciclagem.

Texto do artigo traduzido e comentado a seguir:

Planet-formation theories
In addition to boosting the ever-growing alien planet tally, the new finds lend support to one of two theories that attempt to explain the formation and evolution of planets, researchers said.

This theory, called core accretion, posits that planets grow as gas and dust glom onto seed particles in a protoplanetary disk. Core accretion predicts that the characteristics of a planetary system — the number and size of planets, for example — depend strongly on the mass of the star.

The main competing theory, called gravitational collapse, holds that planets form when big clouds of gas and dust in the disk spontaneously collapse into clumps that become planets. According to this idea, stellar mass should have little impact on planet size, number and other characteristics.

(Tenho que interromper isto agora, mas seria bom ler-mos o artigo e retornar para a nossa análise completa)


Meu comentário postado no

Louis Morelli – #17 – Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:40 PM EST

I have a question: How the observable results from universal
evolution we have here today were produced if these two theories was right?!

There is a third theory about astronomical formations based on facts we have
here and now, called “The Matrix/DNA Theory”. And about this news the theory is
suggesting that:

Gradually the stronomical academic theory is evolving and imitating the same route that happened to the theory of the origin of life. The two started with the
unsustainable idea of ​​”spontaneous generation” and by chance alone. Being older,
the theory of the origin of life was discovering that the “spontaneous” was not as spontaneous as well, i.e., instead of mosquitoes emerge sweaty rags lying in a corner, the process was much more complicated and has spent billions of years. The astronomical theory in turn, believed that at the beginning of a cloud of dust appeared ready a star and planets around it, is now discovering that the process is long and

To the Theory of Matrix / DNA, in its tentative inclusion in cosmology, which was not our original intention but the biological results here on earth has pushed us towards the stars also, this news has two starting points:

1) The finding that the formation process was more complex and enduring coincides with our model that predicts even greater complexity and duration;

2) The information helps us to develop the math on the difference between the early and first astronomical systems formation and the late modern formation by astronomical recycling. Not much because it still remains the question whether these planets are old reminiscences formation of a primary galaxy or they are new planets formed by recycling.


Meu ” reply” para o seguinte comentário:

Claus Hackenberger – #5 – Fri Dec 2, 2011 7:31 PM EST

Why do they call these planets “New Worlds”? And why doesn’t anyone say how far they are away from us? Posibly impossible to ever get there even with robots only.

I cannot help feeling that those scientists have large EGOS needing to be fed by speculations upon speculations.

We have AIDS and Cancer and in a few years we will be out of food and water, We should work on those issues, work on keeping us, you and me alive. Claus

Reply from: Louis Morelli

#5.8 – Fri Dec 2, 2011 9:09 PM EST

Claus, you are right we have a lot of problems to solve here for to improve the life of our loved species, but think in these issues:

1) We discovered a new approach for understanding viruses because we study the Cosmos. Viruses are the systemic biological and biospheric counterpart that mimics the functions of comets in astronomical systems. Then, starting
here, we found that RNA performs the same function at cell’s systems. And the nitrogenous base called “uracil” do the same at nucleotide systems. Now we have a new vision about cells, DNA, genetics, etc. Maybe this approach can produce the
cure for such diseases caused by viruses.

2) Humanity is suffering also because it has made wrong things, like our disastrous relationship with our mother planet. Maybe AIDS, cancer are results from these mistakes. But, Humanity is a new phenomenon in Nature and our self-consciousness woke up only minutes ago in relation to the universal time. We are like children without a better and correct t world vision. This is our principal problem: wrong worldviews, like I think are still wrong the theories of core accretion and gravitational collapse. And how we can have a better more real world view if we do not understand the Cosmos that created us?! I support NASA the way I can because I believe it is in the right track.