Little H2 and He on the Earth Compared to Other Planets

The answer to what?

If you subscribe to the big bang theory, one would assume that every physical object in the entire universe would be comprised of the same elements to a greater or lesser degree.

• Escape velocity is one answer.
• Another one is water.
• Another one is ammonia.
• Another one is methane.
• Another one is "inert gas".
• Etc., etc.

The real answer is that not all planets in our solar system are colder than the earth and not all planets iin our solar system are more dense than the earth.

Where do you get this stuff????

Does it really matter???

What'ja get me for Christmas?

"What'ja get me for Christmas?"

I didn't know where to send it so I drank it.

I'm not so sure that the LynDoor™ Spirits Division was such a good idea....

It might be if you'd quit drinking up all the profits.

_{Anonymous Hero, the link appears broken.}

_{No trees were harmed in the creation of this message, though a significant number of electrons may have been inconvenienced.}

Oh, no. It works for me, but for what reason i know not.

Never mind. Works now.

lyn, you get the uncompressed & unheated diamond morph.

Yes, Mercury and Venus excluded, I guess and maybe even Mars since it has so little atmosphere.

I'm still having trouble with the age question, too.

• And there's the "Goldilocks Zone"...

There is a challenge question regarding this. One of the responders hit the nail on the head.

Some of the reasons are; gravity and temperature (i.e., radiation from the Sun). Another reason is the proximity to the Sun during early planetary formation and the effects of the solar winds.

However, I don't agree with your logic that it follows that the Earth is of a different age than any other planet in our solar system and reason for that is that the conditions that caused the rate of H and He loss were not (and are still not) isotropic across the solar system.

Is one to assume, from the way the question is asked, any assumption that all the material that forms the planets came from the early solar system's planetary accretion disk is invalid? If so, what hypothesis forms the basis of this invalidity? Can one put an "age" on planets, even those that are "gas giants" with no solid core? If so, how? Why does the word "age" appear to have a firmer definition for solid materials than it does for fluids?

Do tell!

I would say the latter rather than the former since the former assumes latter development than the former time being relative It depends on your perspective being derived from non-lineal time line coordinates coexisting in different dimensional frame references at the same time...I hope that clears it up...

I always assumed it was because the intelligent species that lived on Earth before us used up all the Hydrogen and Helium in their fusion reactors. And then blew themselves to smithereens, erasing all traces of their existence.

Or that some space fairing race came by and harvested all of our fusile materials, either to fuel their own ships or to prevent us humans from having the necessary resources to one day gain access to interplanetary space travel, thereby limiting competition down the road. Sneaky aliens!

Actually, I never thought about either of these scenarios until I started reading this discussion. I find both to be highly improbable, but interesting.

Interesting, yes; informative NO! I'm still waiting for some reasonable answer. Note: Helium is the PRODUCT of fusion, not a fuel source. Aliens and Aztecs aside,what is a logical answer to these phenomena?

The answer appears to be that you simply have decided not to accept the answers given to you.

au contraire, they mostly tickle my funny bone. Witty, but full of mush or...

It's obvious to me that your level of intelligence is so far above ours that I'm surprised you are even wasting your time here.

I'm done wasting mine.

If you really have a question in your initial post, but have a challenge to the answers put forth - do it and be specific.

If you already have a position on the subject - make your claim or hypothesis and post your supporting evidence.

People are trying to help answer your question and all you have done is try to do is make this a game show for your own amusement.

You are totally off topic; most of the responses have had little scientific fact but do have value as entertainment, I suppose. I was trying to be kind, but you totally missed that.

I don't know what you are reading, but I am writing about you and your supposed question/hypotheses in your initial post. That is the topic.

Getting to the point, let's examine your first claim. I will call it a claim, but it isn't very clearly stated and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.

You wrote, "Since both elements are involved in fusion, it follows that the age of the earth may well be older than the other planets, therefore loss of these lighter elements with time."

First, He is a by-product of fusion (until the last stages of a star's life), not a causative agent.

Second, there is no logic to the premise that it follows that the age of the earth may be older because hydrogen is used in fusion. The claim is totally non sequitur. There is no association implied or stated that there is a connection with hydrogen fusion and the age of the Earth. Clearly, you have shown nothing in the way of data or evidence that there is an association.

Additionally, you have failed to establish any connection between Earth and any other planet.

Third, you charge that there must be a real answer, or that the idea of gravity is not the real factor, but show nothing to dispute that claim.

So, you throw out half-baked claims that appear to be nothing better than working examples of cognitive dissidence with nothing to back up your claim and expect to get serious replies.

As I said before, you simply haven't framed your question seriously and it is unclear what you really want. If you have a serious question or claim, bring it on.

Thank you for some sincere thought on this subject and surely gravity has been and is now a reason that other more massive planets may have better retained these lighter elements, assuming there were similar amounts on all planets at any given time (at the initial BANG?). The lack of thermal energy now could explain why the colder planets would have better retained these elements as well. However, if Mercury and Venus have been found to retain more of these 2 elements than Earth, both theories would be bogus, as one is smaller and both are hotter.

As far as the Earth being older, who knows? We think it is about 4.5 billion years old, but the other planets in our solar system may very well be about the same age. But I admit, it is a very weak argument that the earth could be older.

If you read through some of the posts it was noted that temperature and gravity are but two reasons.

I also posted that the solar wind may have had a key role early on in the game by pushing some of the lighter elements away from the Sun during the early planetary formation and afterwords.

Incidentally, our solar system appears to be about 5 billion years old. The Big Bang appears to be about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang really did nothing more than get the ball rolling. It was supernovas that gave us the heaver elements.

There has been no evidence to date to disprove that our solar system has not formed out of the same accretion disk. I believe that the solar system formation dynamics, the Sun, and the proximal distances and masses of each planet relative to our star are the fundamental mechanisms for the way things are as we observe.

I suppose the question really stems from the concern over helium becoming in short supply.

So I started searching to find out what functions helium serves in our life, besides filling balloons and providing comic relief when inhaled and then talking.

The first one I could find that might make a shortage a concern is it's use in welding.

A concise reference is here.

The reason for your question would be helpful.

Come on guys, break him in gently! It's near Christmas! Clarke, welcome to the site. Check out some of Jorries blogs and posts for some in depth stuff! Don't worry about these guys, they seem to have been on the Lyndoor Inc. Christmas jolly

As an addendum, here are some other practical uses for helium.

no, the solar system was form spinning and the lighter elements were thrown farther out from the sun.