What makes this exoplanet so hot - 2,040 Celsius

[rlb2]

I have my own idea of why this extra solar planet is so hot (3,700 degrees Fahrenheit (2,040 degrees Celsius) that I will soon post here.<br /><br /><font color="orange">The hottest planet ever discovered is charcoal black and makes even some stars seem cool. Scientists think the exoplanet absorbs nearly all the starlight that reaches its surface and then reradiates it back out into space as heat.<br /><br />Called HD 149026b, the feverish world emits so much infrared heat that it glows slightly. "It would look like an ember in space, absorbing all incoming light but glowing a dull red," said study leader Joseph Harrington of the University of Central Florida.<br /><br />Located 279 light-years away in the constellation Hercules, HD 149026b is a so-called hot Jupiter, a giant gas planet that orbits very close to its star. It is a scorching 3,700 degrees Fahrenheit (2,040 degrees Celsius), three times hotter than Mercury and hotter than the coolest stars.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070509_hottest_planet.html<br /><br /><font color="white">My thought is that this exoplanet is trapped in a geostationary-like orbit around its host star and is heated by its corona. There is much more here I would like to add to this later on.<br /><br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[heyscottie]

Why would being geostationary matter to planetary heating?

 

[MeteorWayne]

And besides, geostaionary means it revolves around the EARTH at the same speed as the ground underneath it.<br /><br />Maybe he means it is at a fixed location above the equatorial surface of the star? Considering the dynamics of our star's response to it's differential rotation and magnetic field, I doubt it would make a difference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Why would being geostationary matter to planetary heating? <font color="white"><br /><br />It would stop its orbital decay by traveling relative to its local star preventing most of its interaction with the stars atmosphere from slowing its orbital speed down.<br /><br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[why06]

Well a geosynchronous orbit is directly above the equator of the sun. This means the planet is getting hit spot on so that there are no seasons. This is the warmest place to be. Its like living in the equator on earth...<br /><br />BTW: I think there may be a nuclear reacion going on inside the exoplanet. Just a guess... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

No. a geosynchronous orbit is one over the earth, not a star.<br /><br />"Geo" means earth!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[why06]

and that... plus the star should be wider at the equator if it spins. MW can geosychronous refer to other objects besides earth? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

nevermine <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">No. a geosynchronous orbit is one over the earth, not a star.<font color="white"><br /><br />Thanks fixed it. <br /><br />It would be geosynchronous-like. This as you guessed was what I meant.<font color="yellow"> fixed location above the equatorial surface of the star<font color="white"> while traveling the same speed in its orbit as the stars atmosphere. This also can apply to larger planets with moons - gas giants.....</font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'd probably use someting like stellarsynchronous, as clunky as that is. At least it's accurate. Of course, with a star it's even more complicated, since with gaseous bodies, different latitudes rotate with different speeds, so it's equatorialstellarsynchronous.... sigh.<br /><br />Maybe "stays at the same point over the equator of a star" is clearer <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />However, that raises the question, relative to your point, is how closely linked is the atmosphere's motion compared to the motion of the "surface" (also a tricky definition with a star or other gaseous body).<br />Remember in addition to a rotation, you have a stellar wind blowing straight out, then getting twisted by the magnetic fields....etc,etc.<br /><br />I would suspect unless there is a direct interaction between the magnetic fields of the star and planet (which is possible, BTW) that channels energy, no particular orbit is much better. However, if such channeling does occur, it raises intriguing possibilities.<br /><br />For reference, the planet is .042 AU from the star, about 6 million km. <br />The orbital period is less than 2.9 geo days <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">However, that raises the question, relative to your point, is how closely linked is the atmosphere's motion compared to the motion of the "surface" (also a tricky definition with a star or other gaseous body). <br />Remember in addition to a rotation, you have a stellar wind blowing straight out, then getting twisted by the magnetic fields....etc,etc.<font color="white"><br /><br />If this hypothesis as I stated is right, if the stars atmosphere, corona is like our suns then it is much hotter than the surface of its local star - but much less dense, is heating it up then there would have to be some slow progressive decay of its orbit that may be observed over a set time period??? <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

"slow progressive decay of its orbit " <br />Which "it" are you referring to here, the planet or the atmosphere? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

The planets slow orbital decay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[defolts]

I dont think this planet really matters, it is junk, number one it is way too hot and if there was some way to move this planet out to where it could cool down the gravity would most certainly crush anything that tried to land on it.

 

[deapfreeze]

I disagree. I don't think any planets we find are junk. The more we find the more we learn. Just because a planet is to close to its star or to far is only bad news when you are looking for a habital planet for us. So myself I also would like to know as much about this as possible as well and I don't care if its to hot or to cold. It is just amazing to me every time we find a new planet. I just wish we had a way of getting more info about them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[defolts]

I think they have always known they would find large uninhabitable planets, the real excitement is when they find the ones that are habitable, I cant wait until they find planets where they can see continents and maybe image objects on them and if they find something that looks like it was made by a sentient being then all hell is going to break loose because the of the questions of "god" and that sort of thing.<br /><br />

 

[deapfreeze]

I don't think many people will be thinking about GOD if we find a planet with buildings or other life. We would be more worried about trying to communicate with them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">I dont think this planet really matters<font color="white"><br /><br />I disagree it does matter. Over 4 billion years from now the Earth may be within the atmosphere of our local star that has exhausted most of its fissionable hydrogen in its core to become a red giant. What we learn from this exoplanet may add to our understanding of what may eventually happen to earth...<br /><br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

I agree 100%. Like I said more we find the more we learn. Our beautiful planet might not be around forever and the more we learn about these exoworlds the better for our future survival. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[defolts]

No but it would cast serious doubt on religion, especially if could communicate and they had no concept of religion.

 

[defolts]

I think we will be long gone by then and will have left the planet long ago.

 

[deapfreeze]

Maybe after we talk for a while with them but even still they would probably have belief system of their own. So whats one more religion? The fact that we found life would be way more important than any talk of religion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[defolts]

I think talk of religion is why it is taking forever to get anywhere in space or launch better telescopes that can image earthlike planets. I think the powers that be are afraid that their belief systems would be upset.

 

[deapfreeze]

We see everyday things on earth that shake up the religous community.Like the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdeline or some other biblical figure. I dont think the fear of life some where else would make it much worse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

Imagine if we contacted some other planet, and they believed in Jesus or Allah. Now that would be earth-shattering.