Helium Planets

<b>[Solar Patroller] "... it requires Le Sage gravity which has problems."</b>

Sure, but name any theory that does not have some problems. Theories (models) are tools we use to help us think about and talk about the world around us. None of them are able to explain everything.

Historically Le Sageian gravity has had two problems.
<ul>
<li>If all interacting gravitons are reflected, no net force is produced</li>
<li>If all interacting gravitons are absorbed, so much energy is deposited in any mass that it would vaporize almost instantly
</li></ul>
(Keep in mind that most - 99.999% or more - gravitons do not interact with the matter they pass through.)

In 2002 Slabinsky found that if some of the interacting gravitons are absorbed and the rest of the interacting gravitons are reflected, a net attractive force is created and the heat deposited is very small.

FYI, most of the planets we have observed closely do in fact radiate more heat than they absorb from the sun. Some of this excess can be explained by things like radioactive decay in the core and gravitational tidal effects. But not all of it.

Of course, even though a pushing gravity model can explain this mystery, the real answer might be something else. Some day we will have the technology to detect things as small as Le Sageian gravitons are thought to be. Perhaps then our models will be sophisticated enough to tell us what is actually happening.

But some of the problems might invalidate the theory. It seems to be incompatible with particle physics. What do you think of the possible solutions proposed by Dribov? [url] redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO2PDF/V18N2DIB.pdf [/url]

<b>[Solar Patroller]"It (DRP) seems to be incompatible with particle physics."</b>

As I said, no theory/model answers all questions or accounts for all observed data. Mainstream particle models are sometimes in conflict with each other. And I wonder why Dribov spends so much time on unstable electrons. They do fit neatly into his model, but we don't observe them decaying in the wild. That doesn't mean they don't. Maybe it is just not very common.

There is a lot of overlap between his model and ours. And of course many differences. He has some interesting ideas that we will be studying. Perhaps one day he will turn his focus away from short range gravitational force and look at the long range. Perhaps he will then discover the range limited nature of gravitational force. It will be interesting to see if he comes up with the same range we do.

Thanks for the link.

There is also LaViolette's SQK and genic energy which would provide sufficient energy even for the most powerful supernovas. This could be the power source for planetary and lunar explosions.

Also, the masses for the helium planets are the same, 2 and 3 earth masses for each pair, in the last calculation by TVF, so it seems plausible that CMEs might be a trigger in the explosions since the closer to the Sun the ring is the less mass it has.

<b>[Solar Patroller]"... so it seems plausible that CMEs might be a trigger in the explosions ..."</b>

Since we do not have any observational knowledge of what causes planetary explosions, your proposal cannot be ruled out.

I should add that LaViolette does not specify any relation between genic energy and exploding planets possibly because he believes supernova explosions occur because supernovas are very luminous and energetically unstable and that there's no core collapse and he considers planets as not being energetically unstable, but he does say that excess heat coming from the Earth's core is caused by genic energy, which is his name for the energy produced by blueshifting photons.