Thread: The Curious Case of Kepler-78b.

In a previous thread, I stated that the number of detected exoplanets is increasing.
During the quest for exoplanets, astronomers have found odd ones, such as PSO J318.5-22. Another planet that baffles astronomers, is Kepler-78b.

Measurements (Sanchis-Ojeda, R. et al., 2013) have shown that Kepler-78b is an scorching exoplanet (surface temperatures of ca. 2700 K), with a radius of about 7400 km that orbits a Sun-like star in less than 9 hours.
Further analyses (Pepe, F. et al., 2013) have indicated that Kepler-78b resembles Earth, because it weighs 1.86 times more than Earth and its density is estimated to be 5570 kg/m³, which is a bit more than the density of the Earth (5514 kg/m³).

What makes this planet so special, is explained by ScienceDaily:

"Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn't exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles -- one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn't have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there."

The existence of this planet is a mystery, because when this planetary system was forming, the Sun-like star was larger than it is now.
As a result, the current orbit of Kepler-78b would have been inside the swollen star, which is impossible according to the current theories about planetary formation.

Yet, astronomers still have plenty of time to study the curious case of Kepler-78b, because predictions point out that it will be ripped apart by its star in about 3 billion years. Interestingly, the article states that it might be possible that, during the formation of the Solar System, a Kepler-like planet could have existed in our Solar System.

What do you think?


Sources:
Sanchis-Ojeda, R., et al. (2013), "Transits and occultations of an Earth-sized planet in an 8.5 hr orbit", The Astrophysical Journal 774(1), pp. 54-62
Pepe, F., et al. (2013), "An Earth-sized planet with an Earth-like density", Nature
Earth Fact Sheet
Lava world baffles astronomers: Planet Kepler-78b 'shouldn't exist'

impossible according to the current theories about planetary formation

Here's a theory that wants evolution.

nor could it have moved there.

I wonder what they based the above conclusion on; I see no reason why it couldn't have been forced into this rather unusual orbit, for example by a large mass passing through the system at some stage, disturbing the planets' orbits.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

nor could it have moved there.

I wonder what they based the above conclusion on; I see no reason why it couldn't have been forced into this rather unusual orbit, for example by a large mass passing through the system at some stage, disturbing the planets' orbits.

Is it also possible that it was a wandering planet that got caught by the gravitational pull of the star?

I bet they don't sell ice cream there.

if they did, you wouldn't be able to afford it.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

In a previous thread, I stated that the number of detected exoplanets is increasing.
During this quest, astronomers have found odd planets, such as PSO J318.5-22. Another planet that baffles astronomers, is Kepler-78b.

Measurements (Sanchis-Ojeda, R. et al., 2013) have shown that Kepler-78b is an scorching exoplanet (surface temperatures of ca. 2700 K), with a radius of about 7400 km that orbits a Sun-like star in less than 9 hours.
Further analyses (Pepe, F. et al., 2013) have indicated that Kepler-78b resembles Earth, because it weighs 1.86 times more than Earth and its density is estimated to be 5570 kg/m³, which is a bit more than the density of the Earth (5514 kg/m³).

What makes this planet so special, is explained by ScienceDaily:

"Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn't exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles -- one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn't have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there."

The existence of this planet is a mystery, because when this planetary system was forming, the Sun-like star was larger than it is now.
As a result, the current orbit of Kepler-78b would have been inside the swollen star, which is impossible according to the current theories about planetary formation.

Yet, astronomers still have plenty of time to study the curious case of Kepler-78b, because predictions point out that it will be ripped apart by its star in about 3 billion years. Interestingly, the article states that it might be possible that, during the formation of the Solar System, a Kepler-like planet could have existed in our Solar System.

What do you think?


Sources:
Sanchis-Ojeda, R., et al. (2013), "Transits and occultations of an Earth-sized planet in an 8.5 hr orbit", The Astrophysical Journal 774(1), pp. 54-62
Pepe, F., et al. (2013), "An Earth-sized planet with an Earth-like density", Nature
Earth Fact Sheet
Lava world baffles astronomers: Planet Kepler-78b 'shouldn't exist'

There is a period before the star goes thermonuclear that it is at its smallest, the planet forms then. (Close-in Planets form before the stars goes thermonuclear.) Further out planets just keep on building but close in planets are gradually stripped to their cores. [Now this is based on work I did in the thread I sent you in the PM.]
All the Kepler exoplanet finds seemed to fit into (confirm) this planet formation method.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

There is a period before the star goes thermonuclear that it is at its smallest, the planet forms then. (Close-in Planets form before the stars goes thermonuclear.) Further out planets just keep on building but close in planets are gradually stripped to their cores. [Now this is based on work I did in the thread I sent you in the PM.]
All the Kepler exoplanet finds seemed to fit into (confirm) this planet formation method.

Well then, if you are back, feel free to provide the evidences.
And no, a link to another forum discussion is not sufficient.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn't have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there."

What do you think?

I know nothing of planetary formation, so dare I say it Cogie, science could be wrong.

I'm guessing that the planet has an orbit which is only very close to stable, and that far back in the history of that star system it was much further away from the star, and over time has slowly spiraled in, closer and closer. Seems to make sense to me.

Similarly, it could have begun its existence in a more distant orbit, and been disturbed by other astronomical objects, causing it to drift toward the star... maybe regaining a stable, but ridiculously close orbit, or maybe as before, an orbit that is only close to stable, and slowly spiraling in.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

There is a period before the star goes thermonuclear that it is at its smallest, the planet forms then. (Close-in Planets form before the stars goes thermonuclear.) Further out planets just keep on building but close in planets are gradually stripped to their cores. [Now this is based on work I did in the thread I sent you in the PM.]
All the Kepler exoplanet finds seemed to fit into (confirm) this planet formation method.

Well then, if you are back, feel free to provide the evidences.
And no, a link to another forum discussion is not sufficient.

I read those words yesterday. It went something like "the protosun went to a dense state before thermonuclear energy resisted the gravitational collapse".
At the same pressure a cold gas will take up less volume than a hot gas, so I logically claim that once the Sun became Alpha Tauri it expanded from the core outward counteracting the gravitational collapse. (a bounce)
The actual statement that "for a moment the volume of the protosun was smaller than the Sun" seems to be missing but to me it seems a logical conclusion. The moment of compression prior to ignition could well be the smallest proto-star state.
Does anyone know if anyone else agrees with that statement?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I read those words yesterday. It went something like "the protosun went to a dense state before thermonuclear energy resisted the gravitational collapse".
At the same pressure a cold gas will take up less volume than a hot gas, so I logically claim that once the Sun became Alpha Tauri it expanded from the core outward counteracting the gravitational collapse. (a bounce)
The actual statement that "for a moment the volume of the protosun was smaller than the Sun" seems to be missing but to me it seems a logical conclusion. The moment of compression prior to ignition could well be the smallest proto-star state.
Does anyone know if anyone else agrees with that statement?

There are more knowledgeable people on this forum if it comes to astronomy and planetary science,
so I suspect that, if you are right, that those people will confirm what you have stated.

Nonetheless, it might come in handy if you provided some citations that support your statements (these one and the ones in post #7).

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I read those words yesterday. It went something like "the protosun went to a dense state before thermonuclear energy resisted the gravitational collapse".
At the same pressure a cold gas will take up less volume than a hot gas, so I logically claim that once the Sun became Alpha Tauri it expanded from the core outward counteracting the gravitational collapse. (a bounce)
The actual statement that "for a moment the volume of the protosun was smaller than the Sun" seems to be missing but to me it seems a logical conclusion. The moment of compression prior to ignition could well be the smallest proto-star state.
Does anyone know if anyone else agrees with that statement?

There are more knowledgeable people on this forum if it comes to astronomy and planetary science,
so I suspect that, if you are right, that those people will confirm what you have stated.

Nonetheless, it might come in handy if you provided some citations that support your statements (these one and the ones in post #7).

I'm kicking myself now. I should have copied it.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I'm kicking myself now. I should have copied it.

Well, if you have the appropriate sources, feel free to provide them.

Cogito - now please realize we are trying to explain the formation of a planet that does NOT fit into the current nebula contraction theory. There is not much wrong with the theory but as I was saying I think there is a missing step, the one where the early proto-star contracts to be smaller than the star is when it is in the Main Sequence state.

Now because I am saying it is "missing" obviously it is near impossible to find references to it. (You can't have it both ways!).
Nevertheless I think there is enough evidence analogous to it and logic available to put forth a serious argument for this "missing stage".
Logic.
1. We are talking about stars not yet glowing so they are going to be hard to see. ( Maybe visible in the IR spectrum)
2. We are talking about a short duration stage so there won't be many stars in this stage.

3. We are talking Pre-T.Tauri stage stars (Are there any known?)

Analogous situation.

Now this sequence for the change to a Red Giant gives us the clue.
Stellar Evolution Stellar Evolution - Universe Reference Library - redOrbit

New stars come in a variety of sizes and colors. They range from blue to red, from less than half the size of our Sun to over 20 times the Sun’s size. It all depends on how much gas and dust is collected during the star’s formation.

The color of the star depends on the surface temperature of the star. And its temperature depends, again, on how much gas and dust were accumulated during formation. The more mass a star starts out with, the brighter and hotter it will be. For a star, everything depends on its mass.
Throughout their lives, stars fight the inward pull of the force of gravity. It is only the outward pressure created by the nuclear reactions pushing away from the star’s core that keeps the star “intact”. But these nuclear reactions require fuel, in particular hydrogen. Eventually the supply of hydrogen runs out and the star begins its demise.
Beginning of the End
After millions to billions of years, depending on their initial masses, stars run out of their main fuel – hydrogen. Once the ready supply of hydrogen in the core is gone, nuclear processes occurring there cease.
Without the outward pressure generated from these reactions to counteract the force of gravity, the outer layers of the star begin to collapse inward toward the core. Just as during formation, when the material contracts, the temperature and pressure increase. This will force helium fusion in the core.
The newly generated heat temporarily counteracts the force of gravity, and the outer layers of the star are now pushed outward. The star expands to larger than it ever was during its lifetime — a few to about a hundred times bigger. The star has become a red giant.
What happens next in the life of a star depends on its initial mass. Whether it was a “massive” star (some 5 or more times the mass of our Sun) or whether it was a “low or medium mass” star (about 0.4 to 3.4 times the mass of our Sun), the next steps after the red giant phase are very, very different.

You could just about use the same words for the situation prior to the Hydrogen fusion: (I have amended the words already)
"Without the outward pressure generated from the Hydrogen fusion reactions to counteract the force of gravity, the outer layers of the star begin to collapse inward toward the core. During stellar formation, when the material contracts, the temperature and pressure increases. This will force hydrogen fusion in the core.The newly generated heat counteracts the force of gravity, and the outer layers of the star are now pushed outward. The Proto-star expands to a size larger than it was before it was a T. Tauri or Main Sequence star."

Question for you Cogito: If this size change occurs when Helium fusion occurs why not also when the Hydrogen fusion commences?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Question for you Cogito: If this size change occurs when Helium fusion occurs why not also when the Hydrogen fusion commences?

I do not know. My knowledge about planetary science is not sufficient enough to answer that question.
Hence I wait for the input of other, more knowledgeable members.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Question for you Cogito: If this size change occurs when Helium fusion occurs why not also when the Hydrogen fusion commences?

I do not know. My knowledge about planetary science is not sufficient enough to answer that question.
Hence I wait for the input of other, more knowledgeable members.

It will be something NASA will need to answer. But to me the logic is correct. Once the proto-sun turns on the thermonuclear show the extra heat in the core will make the star expand (rebound from the compressed state). Gas pressure laws demands this.

If there wasn't this balance you could imagine all the hydrogen in the Sun being involved in one enormous explosion. There has to be some regulation of the internal temperature - pressure and density for the Sun to have the expected 10 billion year life span (approx). I haven't thought it through fully but re-expansion from internal heat could further slow the reaction rate and extend the life of the Sun during the Main Sequence stage.
Surely this has been described before!
Yet I don't recall seeing it being described that often.

So the other point and a real important one is that I'm saying this close in planet, Kepler 78B, formed before the star rebounded.
Can you accept that for that is the most important part of my new hypotheses and that was that planets close in to the stars form during the late proto-star period not once the star becomes T.Tauri or Main Sequence.

In our solar system Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars had formed before the Sun fired up, and the Asteroid Belt was in the process of forming into a planet when this happened. Now that was what I thought was the real important thing to know - when do planets form, and I haven't seen NASA back me up on that one yet, but Kepler 78B just about proves it.

Can anyone accept that?

Having just read of what 'Robittybob1' has been saying.. and can not find argument with much if any of it. Astronomers have learned that the strange and odd are often shown as correct. I also understand that those whom demand such as documented revue and test are going to be disappointed as no such revue will be found. I will contest that when you form a idea from logic and reason that is not wildly held. Finding quotes might be just not going to happen. It's a idea. Find fault. State it. Argue the case for or against.. That is what Robettybob wants of you. You may not like that he has a argument of some merit. I think he has. I also understand he might not have the depth of knowledge of some of the pear group but has a well thought through theory. The scientific method that he need not prove it right if he can not be shown as wrong. Bring it on.

Could it have been some kind of failed binary star system?

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

I bet they don't sell ice cream there.

In space no one can eat ice cream.

It's a idea. Find fault. State it. Argue the case for or against..

It's an idea.

Use your favourite search engine.

Check Google Scholar for relevant papers.

Check the archives of Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, or the relevant discipline's journals.

Ask questions about things you find there that support or undercut your idea.

Refine your idea.

Do it all again.

Originally Posted by astromark

Having just read of what 'Robittybob1' has been saying.. and can not find argument with much if any of it. Astronomers have learned that the strange and odd are often shown as correct. I also understand that those whom demand such as documented revue and test are going to be disappointed as no such revue will be found. I will contest that when you form a idea from logic and reason that is not wildly held. Finding quotes might be just not going to happen. It's a idea. Find fault. State it. Argue the case for or against.. That is what Robettybob wants of you. You may not like that he has a argument of some merit. I think he has. I also understand he might not have the depth of knowledge of some of the pear group but has a well thought through theory. The scientific method that he need not prove it right if he can not be shown as wrong. Bring it on.

Sounds like you understand me really well. I am a veterinarian not a astronomer but I always been good at physics and so in my spare time I have thinking about how the Solar System developed. From 1998 I think it was when I first started the project and a lot has changed since then, Google , YouTube, science forums, Hubble, Kepler, and the missions to Mars and Mercury (Messenger). It has been an amazing time in history.

The scientific method that he need not prove it right if he can not be shown as wrong.

Interesting.
You know, I saw a pink unicorn in my garden the other day - according to you, if you cannot show me wrong, I don't need to prove myself right; I must be right by default, and pink unicorns exist !

Sometimes you guys really crack me up with your arguments

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

The scientific method that he need not prove it right if he can not be shown as wrong.

Interesting.
You know, I saw a pink unicorn in my garden the other day - according to you, if you cannot show me wrong, I don't need to prove myself right; I must be right by default, and pink unicorns exist !

Sometimes you guys really crack me up with your arguments

Give us a chance. What if I said the unicorn in your garden was white not pink? Could you then consider maybe what you saw was wrong?
Do you ever have doubts about the pink unicorns?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What if I said the unicorn in your garden was white not pink? Could you then consider maybe what you saw was wrong?
Do you ever have doubts about the pink unicorns?

That's exactly it; assuming something to be "correct until proven wrong by someone" is a very serious logical fallacy. That is not how science works. New ideas and hypothesis need to be supported, tested and verified; they are not considered right until proven wrong by mainstream science, but exactly the other way around. Mainstream science has become mainstream through rigorous testing and peer review, not because someone failed to prove it wrong.

Give us a chance.

By all means, continue on. Planetary science is not my area of expertise, so I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread; I just wanted to point out the above fallacy.

~ Yes gentlemen I agree with you's. ~ As we have no record of unicorns being in existence the chance sighting of a pink one in your garden may indicate a unreliable sensory perception. Was the champagne bath being frequented by Shetland ponies ? You might even be barking mad. How much of that Champagne had you been drinking ? The proposal stated by Robittybob1 is not impossible or a out of reality realm subject. What part of his ideas do you find as false ? Why at the tabling of a idea does such hysteria ensue..? Understanding of the subject astronomy is not challenged by Bobs ideas. Kepler 78b does present some issue of understanding of how it got where it is. That the birthing of a star might clear out planet formatting debris is very close to the understanding we all have. It might even be wrong. being receptive of the proposed ideas are not compulsory.. It's a interesting area of some discussions yet. Some times the model of a long held idea can be challenged and found as faulty. That strange and normal are interchangeable factors of discovery. I will keep a eye on this..

Originally Posted by astromark

~ Yes gentlemen I agree with you's. ~ As we have no record of unicorns being in existence the chance sighting of a pink one in your garden may indicate a unreliable sensory perception. Was the champagne bath being frequented by Shetland ponies ? You might even be barking mad. How much of that Champagne had you been drinking ? The proposal stated by Robittybob1 is not impossible or a out of reality realm subject. What part of his ideas do you find as false ? Why at the tabling of a idea does such hysteria ensue..? Understanding of the subject astronomy is not challenged by Bobs ideas. Kepler 78b does present some issue of understanding of how it got where it is. That the birthing of a star might clear out planet formatting debris is very close to the understanding we all have. It might even be wrong. being receptive of the proposed ideas are not compulsory.. It's a interesting area of some discussions yet. Some times the model of a long held idea can be challenged and found as faulty. That strange and normal are interchangeable factors of discovery. I will keep a eye on this..

It is a shame your telescope is not powerful enough to look at the situation. Thanks Astro you are very perceptive. Cheers to that and pick up another bottle of champagne on the way out.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What if I said the unicorn in your garden was white not pink? Could you then consider maybe what you saw was wrong?
Do you ever have doubts about the pink unicorns?

That's exactly it; assuming something to be "correct until proven wrong by someone" is a very serious logical fallacy. That is not how science works. New ideas and hypothesis need to be supported, tested and verified; they are not considered right until proven wrong by mainstream science, but exactly the other way around. Mainstream science has become mainstream through rigorous testing and peer review, not because someone failed to prove it wrong.

Give us a chance.

By all means, continue on. Planetary science is not my area of expertise, so I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread; I just wanted to point out the above fallacy.

We will need your math expertise for sure. For any new idea has to be mathematically sound as well, and math I will admit is not my best subject. (You can find there are just thousands of math topics on YouTube so I'm not as dumb as I was last year.)

New report of how a star can operate.
"Gamma-ray burst brightest ever seen"
BBC News - Gamma-ray burst brightest ever seen
Now why I posted that was the connection between collapsing in the core, releasing energy, but followed by the secondary expansion of the star.

"The star was previously living quite happily, fusing material in its core. And then it ran out of fuel," explained Prof O'Brien, who is part of the Swift team.The core of the star would have collapsed into a black hole, while liberating a powerful jet of energy - the gamma-ray burst.
A blast wave would have also caused the rest of the star to expand outwards, creating another dazzling event called a supernova.

Does it age backwards?

~ 'Age backwards' is a ugly conclusion that has no place here. Time can not be said to reverse. By accident of perceptions time can fly or drag.. but NO is the answer you seek.

Originally Posted by astromark

~ 'Age backwards' is a ugly conclusion that has no place here. Time can not be said to reverse. By accident of perceptions time can fly or drag.. but NO is the answer you seek.

"Age backwards" - sounds a bit like going downhill, and that is how I've felt too. What did age backwards mean to Shlunka?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

We will need your math expertise for sure.

I'll be happy to help out if and when I can, but bear in mind that I am not a mathematician by trade...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

We will need your math expertise for sure.

I'll be happy to help out if and when I can, but bear in mind that I am not a mathematician by trade...

That is the best thing anyone has ever said to me. Thanks mate. Have you ever run the three body problem program "Mathematica"?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

That is the best thing anyone has ever said to me. Thanks mate. Have you ever run the three body problem program "Mathematica"?

I am not overly fond of Mathematica ( maybe I just haven't learned it in sufficient depth ), I usually use MAPLE or - for quick and dirty calculations - WolframAlpha.

As for the three body problem, I would probably go for dedicated simulation software, of which there seem to be several around - just Google it. Take careful note though that most if not all of these are based on Newtonian mechanics; the fully relativistic 3-body problem is a formidable beast, and I don't know of any freeware software for that.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

That is the best thing anyone has ever said to me. Thanks mate. Have you ever run the three body problem program "Mathematica"?

I am not overly fond of Mathematica ( maybe I just haven't learned it in sufficient depth ), I usually use MAPLE or - for quick and dirty calculations - WolframAlpha.

As for the three body problem, I would probably go for dedicated simulation software, of which there seem to be several around - just Google it. Take careful note though that most if not all of these are based on Newtonian mechanics; the fully relativistic 3-body problem is a formidable beast, and I don't know of any freeware software for that.

It would all be slow speed calculations. Moon Earth Sun slow stuff. We'll come to that later. I don't want to scare you off just yet.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It would all be slow speed calculations.

It is not the speed which determines whether the system is relativistic or Newtonian, but the rest masses of the bodies. So long as the masses are on the order of the planets of the solar system, Newtonian gravity is a good approximation.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It would all be slow speed calculations.

It is not the speed which determines whether the system is relativistic or Newtonian, but the rest masses of the bodies. So long as the masses are on the order of the planets of the solar system, Newtonian gravity is a good approximation.

So are you saying for a star orbiting a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy you can't use Newton's gravitational formula? ok we'll have to come to that at some stage. It is not easy to learn though.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So are you saying for a star orbiting a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy you can't use Newton's gravitational formula?

No, that is a highly relativistic scenario, you definitely can't use Newtonian formulas here. To treat that properly we will also need know if the BH has angular momentum and/or net electric charge.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So are you saying for a star orbiting a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy you can't use Newton's gravitational formula?

No, that is a highly relativistic scenario, you definitely can't use Newtonian formulas here. To treat that properly we will also need know if the BH has angular momentum and/or net electric charge.

Have you told the forum what your background is? I'm sitting here wondering what do you do to know all these things?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Have you told the forum what your background is? I'm sitting here wondering what do you do to know all these things?

I am just someone with a keen interest in physics, specifically geometrodynamics; my real-life background is not related to any discipline of science. I am an autodidact and self-study this stuff in my free time from university textbooks. Just think of me as a nerd...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Have you told the forum what your background is? I'm sitting here wondering what do you do to know all these things?

I am just someone with a keen interest in physics, specifically geometrodynamics; my real-life background is not related to any discipline of science. I am an autodidact and self-study this stuff in my free time from university textbooks. Just think of me as a nerd...

A couple of new words for me!

geometrodynamics: "In theoretical physics, geometrodynamics is an attempt to describe spacetime and associated phenomena completely in terms of geometry. Technically, its goal is to unify the fundamental forces and reformulate general relativity as aconfiguration space of three-metrics, modulo three-dimensional diffeomorphisms. It was enthusiastically promoted by John Wheeler in the 1960s, and work on it continues in the 21st century." from Wikipedia.

autodidact; : a self-taught person. (Bit like me always looking up Google for the answers.)

I had never heard of "geometrodynamics" before but it sure sounds interesting. Is that what your signature is about? That strange formula??

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Is that what your signature is about? That strange formula??

The formula in my signature is the equation of geodesic deviation; it describes the relative acceleration between test particles in the presence of curvature and/or torsion. This is basically the link between the geometry of space-time, and observed particle behaviors.

I had never heard of "geometrodynamics" before but it sure sounds interesting.

It is just the overarching term that refers to all theories dealing with the geometry of space-time and its evolution; GR is just one example of such a theory. The other area I would be very interested in is geometrogenesis, being the study of the origins of space-time itself.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Is that what your signature is about? That strange formula??

The formula in my signature is the equation of geodesic deviation; it describes the relative acceleration between test particles in the presence of curvature and/or torsion. This is basically the link between the geometry of space-time, and observed particle behaviors.

I had never heard of "geometrodynamics" before but it sure sounds interesting.

It is just the overarching term that refers to all theories dealing with the geometry of space-time and its evolution; GR is just one example of such a theory. The other area I would be very interested in is geometrogenesis, being the study of the origins of space-time itself.

sounds amazing stuff. I just hope i don't frustrate you too much.
On another forum WaiteDavid has to take me step by step through the algebra so I could follow it. I did teach myself VB Macros and did really good arithmetic with that.
(square a 117 digit number, discard the root, and then square root the product and find the exact number you started with. (No rounding allowed)