lol He who would pun would pick a pocket, Doug. Nice one!

which suggests that the giant planet has taken another bullet for the solar system team.

And good analogy, Alan!

Nice one, Doug!

Would be interesting to get a close estimate of the size of that impact (although I know it would be a shot in the dark to back-calculate & infer the size of the object that caused the impact).

Maybe Jupiter came home unexpectdly and his wife shot him....

No Jupiter found his wife with someone and shot him.

I'm receiving a message. It says "All these worlds are yours, except Europa".

with these comments...drops of jupiter...sounds so fitting...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gic8NRC96Y

First contact mission from another civilization gone awry?

Just a late night party.

EARTH NEXT?

President Obama has a plan, and Americans should be listening.

STOP NEO, before the Near Earth Objects end plans for human landing on Moon and Mars!

SOLUTION: NASA.GOV

TFNJ: I'm receiving a message. It says "All these worlds are yours, except Europa".

"Attempt no landings there."

I always loved ACC's foursome. 2001 is probably the best, 2010 and 2063 are tied for second and 3001 is in third - it's feels a little bit like "Stranger in a Strange Land".

shows just how small and fragile our earth is

shows just how small and fragile our earth is ..

What happened was that Neptune came home early, and found Jupiter in bed with Uranius.

Jupiter.............Earth's secret service.

CoyoteHunter,Good one! I can tell what you have been reading! LOL

Thomas, I agree. Loved all the books. And I agree that 2010 and 2063 are equally brilliant.

It might have just been the finally of a fireworks show. Those Jovians know how to party.

Supposed to be finale, not finally. Don't know what I was thinking.

"Would be interesting to get a close estimate of the size of that impact (although I know it would be a shot in the dark to back-calculate & infer the size of the object that caused the impact)."

Buzz, given the experience with the experience with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994, an impact we knew was coming, and composed of objects whose masses we had a better sense of, you might well be able to calculate the mass of this object, by analyzing the energy it released...

@ Jupiter3: (sigh) Or, maybe it's just Jupiter sucking up another space rock...

It's not just mass, but the composition. Some materials will make a bright flash with less mass, some require more.

Unless they've found something new, from what I last read they did not see the "scar" in the clouds that Shoemaker-Levy left.

Were just starting to get equipment that can see smaller planets around other stars. The James Webb Space Telescope (if it ever gets launched) will be a big help with small planets.

Blah Blah,

I'm not an expert either but my understanding is that the 'doplar' shift method is primary means of locating extra-solar planets, that implies we will find the short orbit big planets before any others--not necessarily that there are more of that type. It takes a lot more time to find a planet with a 6 or 8 decade orbit (like our Jupiter) because one must observe at least a substantial fraction of one orbit, no? Similar situation with the 'transit' method. Big because the effect is more obvious and close to star because it has much higher frequency effects. And there are many effects that can make a planet migrate from it's original position to another orbit especially one far closer to star.

I find it hard to believe all of these so called "extrasolar" planets are all super hot Jupiters

I'm sure they are not. We just detect those soonest by the Doppler method. Heavy and close are the easiest to detect with today's equipment. Double the mass of a planet; you double the gravitational effect on its star. Halve the distance; you quadruple the effect.

If Aliens were watching our Solar system, using the same techniques that we're using, and looking for transits of planets around our Sun, then they could possibly detect a planet in a Mercury-like orbit pass in front of our sun 4 times per year. A planet in a Venus-like orbit could potentially transit 3 times every two years. Jupiter, only once every 12 years.

So, in order to have the time to see 3 or 4 transits, so that they have a mathematical chance to fix it's orbit... that only takes a year or two if it's a Jupiter size planet in a Mercury-like orbit, but it takes 30 or 40 years to detect a Jupiter size planet if it's in a Jupiter-like orbit.

It just simply takes longer for further out planets to orbit, so we simply have to stare at a star longer in order to catch a few transits and detect a planet. The first/easiest to detect are going to be large planets close in, but over the next years, we'll continue to find smaller and farther out planets.

The reason we've been finding a lot of hot super giants orbiting close to their suns is because they are the easiest to find. Planets orbiting further out take longer to orbit, meaning fewer transits, and therefore take longer to validate that they are in fact a planetary candidate. We are just now getting to the point of discovering planets further out, in or near the habitable zones. It will take longer yet to find planets further out. By no means is anyone saying that the only other planets out there are super-hot super giants.

I always wondered how they account for the movement of the earth and our sun when determining the wobble of a distant star.

@blahblah, Stars are formed from the lightest of gases and become massive. You're trying to equate the mass of a planet (or gas giant) to the mass of the molecules it's made up of, but not considering the amount of gases being compressed easier under it's own gravity and weight, yet still grow to the size that they do. The sun is a big ball of gas, yet it represents more than 99.9 percent of the mass of our solar system.

Also consider you're perspective. Planets like Jupiter or larger that you consider to be huge, aren't really massive on a cosmic scale. In fact compared to the suns they orbit, they're just tiny dust balls.

It is obviously a newly opened McDonalds'.

Blah, we find them where the light's good, not necessarily where most of them are located. We'll know a lot more in a few decades.

there are several methods on just getting an estimate of what an object is as it orbits some far away star. They check the orbit, the wobble of the planet AND that star, and like you said they also watch a planet as it slightly eclipses a star. When an object eclipses a star it gives off a halo of color around the itself like our moon does during an eclipse. This color tells us what materials might be on that planet. If the color represents a heavier element, scientists can make an estimate of that planet being heavier than say a gas planet of the same size. I'm sure those aren't the only methods either.

I'm not an expert either but my understanding is that the 'doplar' shift method is primary means of locating extra-solar planets,

I think the Doppler shift, or red-shift is the method used to find the location of distant galaxies. More here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

There are other ways to detect planets around nearby stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets

Not much chance of Jupiter "going thermonuclear." Jupiter has only about 0.1% of a solar mass, versus about 5% needed to make a star. Unless of course you've been reading or watching 2001: A Space Odyssey and the 2010 sequel.

Yeah the sun cant even go "super nova" it's not big enough. It can only go "wimpy sci fi B movie scale poot explosion".

Jupter lacks sufficient mass to initiate the kind of nuclear reactions going on inside the sun, so it fails at becoming a star, let alone reaching a star-like critical mass and exploding.

Not that it can't explode some other way, but I don't think planets just explode at random.

Yes, and men thought the world was square for how long?

The concept that humans thought the world was flat for a significant time after they started serious scientific astronomy is a myth. It's been thousands of years since any learned spirit accepted the notion of a flat earth.

It's been thousands of years since any learned spirit accepted the notion of a flat earth.

Absolutely. Check out the first bullet point under this article:

The myth of progress in the evolution of science

@ray smith

I wonder at what point does the critical mass of jupiter reach the tipping point and the ole boy goes thermal nuclear on us? in other words, what is the best educated guess in millions of years till the gravitational match is scratched one to many times.....does that happen before our sun goes nova like boom or is it a fifty fifty gamble that our sun whooshs away all that "fuel" before we get a second planetary heater?

First- our sun isn't "going nova", it would need to be much larger or have a companion star in order to do so. Second- you can stop wondering about Jupiter igniting. In order to obtain a mass significant enough to begin the fusion process it would need to be more than 10 times the size it is now. And of course that additional mass would need to be in the form of hydrogen. Many of the things it is absorbing now are rocky asteroids comprised of heavier elements which would not lend themselves to the fusion process at all. So there is no reason to believe that Jupiter will ever become a star.

The myth of progress in the evolution of science

Great article.... Fascinating.

One issue I have exception to though, I don't believe Radical Feminism is really a threat to science just because its' discoveries are or were at one time, made mostly by men. And even if it were it cannot reverse those discoveries on that foundation alone. Facts are genderless and ultimately, they would arrive at the same conclusions.

However, even though Jupiter will never "go thermonuclear" unless it gobbles up huge numbers of comets, it does give off more heat than it recieves from the sun. Jupiter could be considered a failed star, sort of a mini brown dwarf. I'm not sure what the source of the heat is, maybe radioactive decay like the earth or maybe gravity...not sure.

"unless it gobbles up huge numbers of comets,"

Comets? It would have to merge (not collide, that would be a whole other issue) with multiple masses similar to its own, before fusion could occur in its core, and there isn't that kind of stuff to be had in this solar system...

I find it to be scary because while Jupiter often gets credit for "cleaning up" the solar system what is less often mentioned is the fact that Jupiters gravitational influence on the asteriod belt is the thing that creates much of the "mess".

Most of the mess, is gone, actually. There used to be a lot more asteroids floating about in earth crossing orbits. That's what they mean when they say Jupiter acts as a vacuum cleaner. Had Jupiter not been there, there would be a lot more left over asteroids from the solar system's protoplanetary disk in earth crossing orbits. A lot more collisions would have occurred to the inner planets...and would still be occurring. Jupiter helped clear that space out. It can have a destabilizing effect on the asteroid belt yes, but not much. Nothing to worry about in the near term.

The quote didn't say it was confusing. The person stated it was "scary" meaning that if it wasn't for Jupiter, we'd probably be getting a lot of these hits on Earth, which would probably mean life would not be able to survive. Scary like if a bunch of people started shooting in your direction and a car driving past blocked the bullets... scary in that you'd probably be dead if not for that passing car. It's just another way of saying that we're lucky that Jupiter is there to protect us.

I'm not sure why this is "scary" or confusing in the least. Jupiter's mass (and presumably its gravitational pull) is 2.5 times that of all the other planets in the solar system combined. Seems to me it SHOULD be getting hit more often.

Thinkforyourself-2427469: It's scary because while we believe most of the accretion in the solar system is over with there are many, many rocks out there that could wreak havoc with our planet and the numerous impacts with Jupiter show they're still out there. What if instead of impacting Jupiter S-L9 had been redirected towards the inner planets and impacted Earth? It's that kind of scenario that makes it a bit uneasy. He's totally right in what he says: it's a very uneasy thing to think about. We've been hit often enough to know it happens so it's not a matter of if but when. Just hope we're not here when it happens next.

It's kind of a scary proposition to see how often Jupiter gets hit," said George Hall, an amateur astronomer from Dallas.

Whats really scary is that most of these hits were from rocks or comets that we didn't know existed. Comet Hale-Bopp appeared to astronomers only about 3 months before it appeared visible in the night sky. It is generally accepted that if it had hit the earth it would have been doomsday for mankind.

Sorry - it won't let me post a URL to the image.

hmm - the same paul cox who works for slooh, posting an ad trying to link to slooh?

isn't that against the msnbc rules regarding self-promotion, mate?

i'd also guess that paul is showing off an image of jupiter - just jupiter - without the impact. paul is trying to drive traffic to his business website.

besides, slooh sucks. image quality is somewhere between webcam and 110 instamatic.

flagged as advertising

"I'm afraid I can't do that Dave"

Will I dream?

SAL was clearly lied to.

ceelonerium.............We get up to pee, not peer.

Sure if we ALL pray the same way we'll be totally saved! (or maybe we could be prepared to anticipate and deflect a potential 'impactor'?--that might actually work.)

Come on Fuel, you know that God spun it all into motion so He knows where each piece is and when the "end-time" is. Oh, wait. You don't believe that. You beleive the energy and mass came from ---------- uh, came from ------------------ uh, came from??? Whatever it is, it can't be proven. Right?

Rational,

I don't know if 'can be proven' or not....neither do you. But that is absolutely NO reason to fabricate some silly supernatural explanation, god, infinite series of gods, or any other off the cuff nonsense. My point was something that can and has been demonstrated -- prayer DOES NOT WORK.

It 'misses' plenty. They just get deflected into different orbits around the Sun. Some of them will be into the inner solar system, and a few (not all) of those may be potentially threatening objects that cross Earth's orbit. Some may fall unnoticed into the Sun.

Others will be thrown out beyond Jupiter, in a manner similar to the 'slingshot' trajectories we've used to send Pioneer and Voyager probes toward the outer planets, in less time that going directly would allow.

Over billions of years, some objects will have their paths altered more than once.

But Though we've taken serious hits in the past (and also deflected a few objects at times...we even anticipate one [Apophis] in a few years), Earth is not that big a big target...

I was reading your comment and thinking "Here's someone who is actually thinking about this stuff!" Then I got to the "real conspiracy" comment. I do hope that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek otherwise, all you are saying is that the only conspiracies we should believe in are yours.

Exactly, just you're opinion.

On a scale of how novice one is at astronomy, I would be a 1. But even I can see you don't fully understand Jupiter's atmosphere. Its not a floating ball of friendly gas like a smoke ring. There are heavy gases that would incinerate the asteroid.

I'm pretty sure Jupiter has an iron core. Jupiter boasts some of the most amazing auroras in the solar system.

Jupiter is large enough, and the gases have enough mass, that they really do turn to liquid. All gasses under enough pressure will liquefy, and since the pressure at Jupiter is about 40 million times that of Earth, there's plenty of pressure. Would make for some very weird weather, I suppose...

And below that, you have a core of rocky materials and iron. (Although there is some speculation the core is dissolving into the liquids above it). So no worries there - the thing won't go clear through the planet.

Most meteors burn up in Earth's atmosphere. Conclusion: The Earth's atmosphere isn't really gas! Crap. What am I breathing?!?!?

You really don't want to know, do you? ;)

I've sometimes imagined a spacecraft (aircraft? boat?) that could float in Jupiter's... stuff, and take measurements and maybe a picture or two, if possible.

If we make the lightest craft we can, at what point would it stop sinking? Would it be far enough out to avoid being crushed by "stuff" pressure? Assuming it could float at some considerable distance from the core, would it even be possible for it to slow its orbital velocity to match local wind speeds ("ocean" currents?) without being burnt to a crisp from atmospheric friction? And how dangerous would Jovian radiation be to "stuffcraft"? Ack, I guess it's easier just to go with the Galileo approach.

Pyngwyn, I've had the same thoughts. What if we send a probe in that releases a "balloon" that would float around and take measurements?

Also, what would it take to get something further into the atmosphere? How deep could we go? Could we launch several balloons to float at different depths of the atmosphere?

& create an equator.

An equator is an imaginary line, more or less, so it is not really created.

Yes, however there are little things like equatorial winds, & a static line that is equidistant from the poles along which the path of the sun can generally be traced. This being proven by the fact that the red storm & the other storms mitigate around the same respective latitudes, ergo not so imaginary.

mit·i·gate transitive verb

Definition of MITIGATE

1 : to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify

2 a : to make less severe or painful : alleviate

b : extenuate

** I had no idea Jovian storms had personalities..

Yes mitigate, that the storm does not stay in one place pounding the surface of the planet none of you people believe exists.

I suppose your use of mitigate is within shouting distance of the definition, but I'm pretty sure everyone on this topic believes Jupiter exists..

but I'm pretty sure everyone on this topic believes Jupiter exists..

I do! I saw it this morning....

Yes mitigate, that the storm does not stay in one place pounding the surface of the planet none of you people believe exists.

It's not Jupiter, but equators. We believe Jupiter exists, and we believe in equators, but not in their creation.

e·qua·tor /iˈkwātər/

Noun:

1. An imaginary line drawn around the earth equally distant from both poles, dividing the earth into northern and southern hemispheres and...
2. A corresponding line on a planet or other body.

Yes a line equally distant from both poles. No solid mass = no poles = no equator. The point of the argument is that I say Jupiter has solid mass. While scientists decided it doesn't without any explanation.

You are wrong about the "No solid mass = no poles" assuming you mean solid as in gas-liquid-solid variety.

Just saying...

Mitchell

I'm saying that a gaseous ball does not have polarity. Jupiter appears that it might have polarity therefore a solid object.

Yes, a ball of gas can have polarity it doesn't need to be solid.

Mitchell

Nope, & for the storms to stay up in the atmosphere you need a solid mass under them. Otherwise they'd spin through the center. They're obviously orbiting something in an atmosphere. You can't have storms like that in a ball of gas, storms are basically air, gas & fine particulates that would otherwise just break up in the rest of a giant ball of gas. Jupiter is a planet with solid mass an atmosphere, polarity, gravity & storms.

Paul, please take a look at Alan Boyle's post 24.6..

No Paul, no solid mass is needed. At best, astronomers think that at the core is a pressure induced liquid, but nothing solid and I'm willing to bet they know far more than you.

Mitchell

A pressure induced liquid? really? That constitutes a mass, not a gas. I still say there is a solid mass under all that cloud. For whatever reason scientists have been known to lie, like "global warming", "Stonehenge was built to represent a giant vulva" & all the rest of the nonsense they've been spewing the last few years. They can't even understand why the sun is round. An asteroid could pass through a "pressure induced liquid" too. Pluto's a planet, Jupiter's a planet. Scientist's no longer practice scientific theory.

Galileo: "Eppur si muove" (And yet it moves)

Yes, thank, you a ball of gas wouldn't orbit anything would it.

If Jupiter has been eating rocks since it was a baby, somewhere deep in its heart there have to be solids. It doesn't have enough energy (i.e., fusion) for this not to be the case, unless I am fail logic.

@PaulG: "Yes, thank, you a ball of gas wouldn't orbit anything would it."

Nonsensical sentence (again) - please insert missing words and try again.

Paul, liquid is not a solid, in fact it behaves closer to a gas than solid, that's assuming what you were getting at when you said "That constitutes a mass, not a gas." otherwise I will chastise you for not knowing the gas does have mass. And, I specifically mention that it's only a possibility, it depends on exactly how hot Jupiter is.

The sun is the biggest dynamo in this system, nothing about the sun is solid.

Mitchell

"liquid is not a solid" No F-in Sh** Don't you ever talk down to me because I disagree. A mass is a dense object even under pressure a liquid can act like a solid in a vacuum like the one between your ears. Fool.

Paul - the replies to your comments are polite. It's a shame that you can not extend that same courtesy.

Paul, there is no need for me to talk down to you. Your incoherent train of thought throughout your comments speak for themselves.

A mass is a dense object even under pressure a liquid can act like a solid in a vacuum

Not even close. In fact, completely wrong. First, vacuum doesn't have anything to do with it, your inclusion of it shows you don't know what you are talking about. Secondly, a liquid is also free flowing form of atoms/molecules, a solid isn't. This is why air and liquid are can be treated very similar when under pressure. But there is always a clear cut line between liquid and solid. Third, a mass doesn't mean anything in particular, a nebula is a mass of gas, a neutron star is a mass of neutrons, a black hole is a mass of nothing in particular.

You are out of your league here Paul, at this point, you are the one acting like a fool.

Mitchell

Mitchell,

Once again you attempt to belittle me because you won't open your little mind. Objects & matter behave differently in a vacuum like the vacuum of space. A ball of gas with or without a liquid center would not have the attributes of a planetary body such as Jupiter, which is a planet! A vacuum has everything to do with it because that's what it is in! Get the air out of your head before you respond!

pauli is a troll. dftft

Talk about nonsensical. No free thinkers here, just mindless regurgitators.

Free thinking is fine Paul, except when it flies in the face of observation. It HAS to fit your observation, if it doesn't, it's wrong.

Vacuum has zero to do with anything how gas/liquid/vacuum behave. Pressure has a great deal of influence on how gas and liquid behave, but not solids. Pressure comes about 2 ways, first externally applied pressure like you see in a bicycle pump, or, it's created by gravity actively compressing the gas towards the center. Either way, vacuum has zero to do with how it behaves.

Sorry Paul, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Mitchell

You're wrong, you can't apply internal gravitational physics to externals in a vacuum. Jupiter behaves as a planet, poles / magnetic field, gravity & moons. It is not a ball of gas or partial liquid. I will say that it could quite likely have extreme volcanic activity. But that is still a planet.

Hehe, thanks Paul, with that last post, you removed all doubt on the education you've received regarding planetary astronomy, physics, and probably just science in general.

Good day sir, and good luck.

Mitchell

Mitchell, you're a fool & by your ambiguity you've proven my point Jupiter is an actual planet with physical mass, not a cloud of gas or liquid body but an actual planet. Kindly educate yourself without regurgitating foolish ideas.

If you can't even get the terminology right, how is anybody supposed to take you seriously?

with physical mass, not a cloud of gas or liquid body

Really? This is junior high science stuff you are getting wrong, completely and utterly wrong. You are doing nothing other than indicating you don't have any grasp on the fundamentals of physics to say nothing of something as complex as planetary formation and evolution.

Mitchell

Seems to me PaulG either won't or can't open his mind to new ideas. It means either Knight Who Says Ni is right and he is a troll, or he feels his pride would be hurt if he ever accepted an answer from someone else. Either way, I commend you all for attempting to correct his mistakes.

And to lighten things up, I will guess that at this point Mitchell is raising his hands in disbelief, while Michael is giggling at the simplicity of what Paul is missing here. Am I right? :)

Paul, explain the Sun?

I'm thinking that with enough acceleration, I should be able to fly through the sun with nothing more than a severe tan as a result. :)

And to lighten things up, I will guess that at this point Mitchell is raising his hands in disbelief, while Michael is giggling at the simplicity of what Paul is missing here. Am I right? :)

Not giggling - groaning; "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!" to quote Wolfgang Pauli.

I'm with Ni - PaulG is an anti-science troll, without the charm or wit or the intelligence to be an interesting conversation.

One look at comment #24.24 shows that he isn't worth the bother. His insults reveal that his character matches his mastery of planetary astronomy.

DNFTFT indeed.

Some so called scientist comes up with a theory & you all run to it like a bunch of love sick puppies. Then poke fun with your disbelieve at reality. It would be no wonder if you all believed some geneticist who told you all you were closely related to lemmings because you are.

Well, he wouldn't be called a "so called scientist", his degree would show he/she IS a scientist. Maybe you should start from step one in the process. Learn what a scientist does.

And I always:

"poke fun with your disbelieve at reality". It's what I do on weekends for amusement.

we could dwell on pauli's bogan skillz at spelling and grammar, which are fully the equal of his mastery of science. but nope, you blokes went all high road and sciency - that will larn ya.

pauli is a right troppo bogan. dnftf bogan

I still say I should be able to shoot right through the sun, according to PaulG's Laws of the Astronomically Astounding.

Paul, just so there is no misunderstanding at this point, I am specifically talking down to you now.

Some so called scientist comes up with a theory & you all run to it like a bunch of love sick puppies. Then poke fun with your disbelieve at reality. It would be no wonder if you all believed some geneticist who told you all you were closely related to lemmings because you are.

So in the end, you really are the anti-science troll everyone is saying you are. I look down at you and am sorry for wasting time with you.

Originally I figured I could point out the errors with you (your ideas were not unreasonable from a complete novice or child's understanding) and you could either engage the people here who are actually willing to teach and discuss things, or you could've gone out and researched on your own. But instead it looked like your arrogance definitely got the better of you and continued with faulty reasoning and disregard for observational data which we know about. At that point I decided I wouldn't let that go.

I let some of you post 24.24 go assuming it was just your anger getting the better of you (which was definitely plausible given the deteriorating condition of your posting) and decided to ignore it. But in the end, with that last post of yours, it is quite clear that you are not a person of science in any way shape or form and on top of that I highly doubt you even understand the basic processes involved with it.

Maybe you are use to bullying people around you who don't know much and get your way by trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. Very unfortunate of you that you landed yourself in the mists of people who have a strong background in science, not only that, but you picked a topic where we enjoy the company of an actual professional planetary astronomer with the accolades that more than proves he knows what he is talking about.

You should pick your targets better, trolling for the sake of trolling is one thing, but you seemingly troll to make yourself feel important and you picked the wrong group of people to try that on.

Again, I am looking down on you and I retract my earlier "Good day" remark.

Mitchell

Hear Hear Mitchell. Well said.

Mitchell,

By the way I've been officially been talking down to you from the get go. By the nature of the conversation, your lack of ability to keep an open mind, & reason on the facts. Which as I've stated time & again is that Jupiter has all of the attributes of a planet & not a ball of gas nor one with a liquid center. If you're truly so dense as to not be able to think for yourself there is no hope for you. But I imagine you'll do fine in your little lemming community.

And yet, nearly all observational data including pretty much all of the astronomical community around the world disagrees with you on the fact the Jupiter has a solid core. And the entire community 100% disagrees with you about needing a solid core for creating a dynamo which you claimed above. Even the fringe, crazy ass astronomers will disagree with you on that.

Such a misguided, arrogant, foolish post of yours. If you want to imply that also refers to you also, I won't correct you.

Of course, that's one of the problems with narcissistic people, everybody else is wrong even the specialists and professionals along with any data that's contrary.

Good job at making yourself completely irrelevant here.

Mitchell

Mitchell,

Back to my original post, #24 "Lets see if it doesn't come out the other side which could prove Jupiter's not made of gas." That got all of you debutantes up in arms. Jupiter is a planet with soil, volcanic activity, poles / magnetic field, gravity, etc. Moons won't often orbit balls of gas, except perhaps your followers on this thread.

oh lookie, pauli waited a whole week and decided that all he still has is more insults.

dftft

He's back to make himself look even worse, apparently. Haha

Back to my original post, #24 "Lets see if it doesn't come out the other side which could prove Jupiter's not made of gas." That got all of you debutantes up in arms. Jupiter is a planet with soil, volcanic activity, poles / magnetic field, gravity, etc. Moons won't often orbit balls of gas, except perhaps your followers on this thread.

Hmmm, you are right, moons won't often orbit balls of gas. Planets are the things that orbit balls of gas.

Let's see, stars: balls of gas, they have poles, magnetic fields, gravity, "volcanic" activity (in the form of flares), and........wait for it.........equators!

Yeah, moons don't orbit balls of gas.

Next he will say the Sun has continents. Here is comes.

Tony,

Good one, it is well known that the Sun has sufficient density to create a gravitational mass. However Jupiter would not have such density without solid mass.

It is also well known that Jupiter, which is more massive than all the other planets in our Solar System combined, "has sufficient density to create a gravitational mass".

"It is also well known that Jupiter, which is more massive than all the other planets in our Solar System combined, "has sufficient density to create a gravitational mass"." NOPE!

Nope?!?! Are you "noping" that Jupiter is more massive than all the other planets in the Solar System combined, or are you "noping" that Jupiter hassufficient density to create a gravitational mass?

that would be "nope" to logic and fact.

why are you all arguing with that insulting troppo nidget? really - why?

dftft!

I just wanted an answer to that, and if there wasn't a miniscule amount of logic, or at least wishful-whimsical thought, I was going to bow out of this thread.

Perhaps we can prove Jupiter has a solid surface by seeing if it weighs the same as a duck?