From: g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com   
      
   wallacethinmintr@eircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:   
      
   > On 13 Dec 2003 11:37:07 -0500, hrubin@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)   
   > wrote:   
   >> In article <3fd908bc.82642585@news.eircom.net>,   
   >> Russell Wallace  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Solid planets three times Earth's diameter? i.e. with more than 27   
   >>> times the mass? (Presumably considerably more than 27 times, since the   
   >>> core would be pretty compressed at that stage.) Is that really   
   >>> possible?   
   >>   
   >> If the density is the same, gravity, which is proportional   
   >> to radius times density, would be three times as great.   
   >   
   > *nods* 3G would be survivable to life forms adapted for it, of course   
   > - but the problem I'm thinking of isn't the surface gravity, it's the   
   > availability of 27 Earth masses of solid material?   
      
   According to the "core accretion model," such a large "silicate" object   
   forms the "core" that tiggers "runaway" accretion of "ices" and "gases"   
   to become a gas giant. If such a core were to form inside the "ice line,"   
   there would be no "ices" and not enough "gases" to form a gas giant,   
   so intead you get a "superterrestrial planet."   
      
      
   -- Gordon D. Pusch   
      
   perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)