Robittybob1

There seems to be a phase where for the previous million years particles in the nebula are screaming into the protosun and then a period later when the dust in the inner regions clear. Is that clearing from the inner to the outer or the other way around? I have always struggled with the physics of that. From memory it was from the aberration of light. I'll have to look it up again but it was a very important finding years ago. Have you ever studied that effect? That stage where the Sun clears the inner regions with this Poynting-Robertson effect needs to have a name, and we need to know in what period it is included. Since it is mediated by photons it would become stronger as more light is produced but that is where my physics breaks down for at some stage radiation pressure seems to dominate and that AFAIK drives particles outward not inward. What I am trying to get at is that "tidal reversal phase" where the movement of the dust disk stops being inward to predominantly outward. I know there is a name for this wave that goes along a river when the tide changes, but has that effect ever been attributed to the tide change in star (Sun) formation? It is called "river bore" or more simply tidal wave in tidal rivers. They seem to say that dust disks are found on all newly formed stars. I would like to know (in basic terms) all the stages involved in the formation of the Sun and the effects these stages have on the dust disks. I think you are right but then I think you are wrong for at some stage the Sun's internal pressure stabilises the contraction. Whether there is some expansion I'll have to find out. This is about my level of physics: The heat coming from the fusion should make the gas of the Sun expand depending on the pressure. As you say due to the ideal gas law. It does not keep on getting smaller, for there is a period of long term stability (that is during the main sequence stage) but when does the contraction stop, when is it at the minimum size? It might be like that pressure wave along the river, so then you would have to think in terms of the inside expanding due to fusion but the outer parts still contracting under gravity. I had read that before but it is quite technical specifically for detecting neutrinos in the lab. What I was wondering was if this new phase of neutrino production had any effect on the developing dust disk. When you consider it the elements needed to interact with neutrinos in the lab were also in the dust disk. The whole topic is daunting, so I'm trying to keep it fairly simple if possible basically describing stages of Sun development. I'll have to see what effect these neutrinos have on the momentum of the matter they interact with. I've always thought of neutrinos as something that just flies off into space, so they are not something I can discuss confidently. So would that be a transfer of momentum to the molecule that "detects" it?

Spot on, T Tauri not Alpha Tauri , sorry. So the T Tauri stage is quite a substantial period of time compared to the Sun formation and the planet formation stages they speak of. So when they say "Sun formed" in a million years is that up to the T Tauri stage, for the main sequence stage is another 50 million years later? And there was a long time (170,000 years) between when the fusion begins in the core and the radiation appears on the surface. Is that time included in the formation time or the T Tauri period or is that an additional phase? For when you apply physics to that situation the Sun is expanding due to this heat radiation, so it sounds like a separate stage, the Sun being non radiant (no light radiation at the surface but no longer collapsing either). Is that a recognised phase? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core#Energy_transfer You might expect the surface (solar radiative zone) would be getting progressively hotter during this phase? Or would it be a sudden change in temperature? What do you know about that? Something I haven't considered before - neutrinos. But neutrinos can be detected so they must interact with something. Have you heard of a name for this phase? While it is producing neutrinos 170,000 years before it is producing white light.

Is here a good reference that gives me the periods involved in the formation of the Sun? I'm finding the various sites talk of when the Sun "formed" but I'm not sure what stage they are describing. We start off with a nebula, how long to the stage where the Sun goes Alpha Tauri (if it did)? Then how long before it becomes a main sequence star? I once tried to calculate how long matter would take to free fall into the Sun from an estimate of the size of the nebula and from memory it was about 150,000 years and that was if each particle did not collide with any other particle or have any angular motion, so it was a direct "straight line". So I suppose that is an estimate of the first stage of Sun development usually estimated at 100,000 years. You would think as the Sun become more dense and hotter that freefall becomes more problematic. Nebula Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis Earlier they used a period of a million years??? So the "initial collapse" must be only part of the process. That second figure seems to be more correct considering the problems of angular motion and pressure as the protosun heats up. Has the Sun become Main sequence after that 1 million year period? What do they mean by "form" in that sentence?

Have you gone? It takes a bit of time to settle into the etiquette of science forums.

I've pass the question on to the moderators and they can decide.

Have you thought of doing a documentary on the subject. There were some classic clips of having a woman walking down a street and observing people's reactions, particularly of men, to that. I would hate to live in a place where I'm accused of being a wanker, even though in NZ some do this in friendly way. But if you had it on film society could have a chance to self analyse itself. Hopefully for the better.

My objective: Is it possible to prove that the Asteroid Belt is a failed planet build and that the timing of the initial failure coincides with the violent thermonuclear effects resulting from the Sun commencing the fusion process? This question remains the crucial idea necessary to build a hypothesis that allows the 4 terrestrial planets of the Solar System to form prior to this same event, the one which disrupted the formation of Ceres (assuming Ceres was going to be the largest and final planet of the Asteroid Belt region). I will then look at the possible consequences of planet formation in the late protosun phase of the nebula contraction.

That is still a conscious decision, which may reflect on your personality?

Are you saying "apart from the fact that chemistry (and therefore the functioning of the brain) depends on quantum effects there seems no reason to ascribe the mind to quantum effects"? I want to know what was the phrase "mysterious quantum mysticism", that you used, actually referring to in a scientific sense?

They are similar to the above previously discussed but there are some interesting bolded sections: "you need to back up your position and will be expected to do so." I intend to. "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" I've covered that. "Present an abstract — a distillation of your idea first. Get into the details afterwards. It has to be posted here, though. Simply linking to an outside site for text or video is not sufficient, and against the rules." That is a good idea. "It's a good idea to explain what new ground you're covering if it's a new hypothesis, what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve? If it's a critique, clearly explain the alleged shortcoming(s) of the existing theory." I must do that too. "You can't ignore criticism of your idea." - No I won't ignore criticism. I see there is no insistence (no bolded portion) for a model or for math in those guidelines.

How is the "sub-micron level" defined? Is just the distance/diameter? as in the Websters Dictionary definition of submicron: 1 : being less than a micron in a (specified) measurement and especially in diameter <a submicron particle> So that would include visual pigments would it? Small crystals of magnetite would they be included.

Well I read the section on the policy on speculations and I'll do my best, but I realise it is an extremely difficult task for the set of ideas I'm proposing seem to be continually the opposite to the generally accepted ones. "1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure." As I have tried to explain I will be relying on NASA images or other images that show protoplanetary dust disks interpreted in light of the speculation. New work that appears from time to time will also be used, e.g. new ideas to explain water worlds close into parent stars. I will attempt rudimentary math to assist. Especially mass coming and going. All ideas must be scientific and accepted physics must apply. "2. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either." I will be civil but I know the idea will be treated as wrong and could generate insults directed toward myself. "3. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory." True and remember that Rob!

Thanks for the lead. I have not heard of the density wave theory before now. OK if you see any papers that might lend support to any of the above how about letting me know. I would think theories explaining how water worlds formed close to their star would be a good start.

Well there is another problem for if I say I predict that inner planets are formed before the star goes thermonuclear, there may never be enough light to produce this image. The other prediction was that the intense wind from a star going thermonuclear was the primary reason a planet in the asteroid belt stage of its development is unlikely to complete the planet building process, it will fail, so it will end up like the Asteroid Belt. Another prediction, which has now been discovered, was that there will be water world planets close in to their stars. That this volatile mass will later be transported further out in the protoplanetary disc to areas where planets are yet to form. (That loss of volatiles is gaining credence as they study Mars currently). Planets may still be forming further out in the star system (in our Solar System for example). There was talk recently of another large planet being predicted. The water world sized terrestrial planet can allow for moon captures. (We tried to argue this the other day). As the mass of volatiles can far exceed the terrestrial mass the rocky part is compressed and rebounds as the volatile mass is transported. (Is a version of this being argued by Arc in his thread?) As you can see it would be an enormous task to handle all those speculations and some more without a doubt. I will do it but it will need to wait for there are some important issues to deal with first of all. You might wonder why I have tackled so many strange speculations but one becomes a priory of the other for I think most will appreciate a water world won't form near a star during its main sequence phase. It maybe now more accepted that inner planets form prior to the thermonuclear stages, I'm not totally up to date on that for it has been a few years since it was first proposed. So we then get inner planets that are more suited to the formation of living organisms etc but that also means planets further out are less suitable as they are relatively cold. So I do tend to the philosophy of panspermia at least within the Solar System. Does the compressed Earth still allow for plate tectonics? Does it allow for the Moon formation or capture? Does the transfer of mass from the inner planets account for the size of the Gas and Ice Giant planets? How do these giant planets capture the mass as it is being transferred? I tell you honestly there are some difficult questions to answer if these speculations are going to hold.

I have had a clear answer by PM (thanks). Swansont was just asking a question AFAIK. I'll still have to fully understand what I'm letting myself in for I take it really seriously and it takes a lot of emotional energy to argue a new idea. I appreciate your interaction but I'm going to need to be careful, twice I've read one particular word incorrectly, maybe it is your style ("would've" ??) but it is more likely a fault of my own. I have not got over the other day yet. "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" That is the essential part from the forum rules on discussing in Speculations. We will always have the chance of seeing the same thing happen in a Hubble photo or some other image. If we can see the same thing happening in the Universe is that a sufficient test that it is true, even if the actual image is not known? If it has the potential to be found sometime in the future? Einstein's prediction was like this in that proof that mass bent light had to wait for the next two solar eclipses to happen before photos of the event were taken and the prediction confirmed. I feel I'm in the same situation in that I have a speculation that has some evidence but not the definitive proof. How could I ever get a photo of an asteroid belt being formed? How will I ever be able to recognize it? Thinking about it that means it always has the potential to be verified, but I don't want it to be argued if that was the case any astronomical event can be speculated for who knows what could be seen somewhere in the Universe sometime in the future. [i haven't needed to refer to possible multiverses either as yet and I won't do that.]

Have you been discussing with me at other sites as well as here? I have been relatively quiet while I'm here so that might explain it. It will need the moderator OK for I hate those warning points, as I'm reminded of them every time I come here.

Yes I think I do have a model. Evidence is not always that easy to find but I always try. There were predictions. OK they are my own ideas and I would probably struggle to match those of the Nice Model for complexity but they are original and explain things in a way that fits fairly well. Ophiolite has not always agreed for we have argued the point on other forums, but these discussions improve the model if anything. Nothing is set in concrete for it is continuing to develop. The Nice model has been modified to the Nice II model, and that is to be expected, so please don't expect a diamond from me. The math of the situation is very difficult for a person on his own like myself. If you keep asking for maths that becomes impossible.

OK, you have made that clear. I will not comment till I hear from the Mods as to whether I'm allowed to discuss my ideas freely.

Thanks - Chemistry is definitely not my best subject. If it formed C2H6??? Wikipedia says "While the methyl group is usually part of a larger molecule, it can be found on its own in either of three forms: anion, cation or radical." That is about all I can cope with on CH3. But I have never heard that the Earth's methane was converted to methyl groups .... I'll put that on the back burner for a while.

... and I never said you did. I was asking about the meaning? that is what I'm asking. This is what you said earlier "Asteroid families are thought to be results of past collisions and that's why they share almost the same orbital elements. There is no surprise that those would be very close in isotopic composition since at some stage most of them would've been a part of the same object." That to me means you seem accept that they were once a protoplanet smashed by a collision back into asteroid components. That is just my impression of what you said.

That is frustrating. That's the second time I read "would've" as would not have. So you agree that these gasses (water methane and ammonia) would be held in the primordial atmosphere. So how much of these gases was there? CH3 what is that? Did you just know it or did you look it up? CH3 is the methyl group; so are you saying the methane retained by forming more complex molecules?

I'll quote it again "Asteroids are chunks of rock from "failed" planets, which never managed to coalesce into full-sized planets. Asteroid belts can be thought of as construction sites that accompany the building of rocky planets." What is one to take from that? "construction sites that accompany the building of rocky planets" could be taken several ways I suppose, but it is rather different to "destruction sites that accompany the demolition of rocky protoplanets" which seems to be the meaning you seem to favor. "Failed" to me does not only imply destruction but also not fully formed as in "failed to fully form". www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1651.html

Thanks. I did feel a little confused but I felt it was a "which comes first the chicken or the egg" situation. If NASA says they (the asteroid belts) are areas where planets form but other references say they are regions where protoplanets have broken up, which happens first? So that seems to be two opposing concepts and I considered that the protoplanet has to form first before it can be broken up.

I don't think that is right. Methane and ammonia are heavy gases compared to hydrogen and helium, so they will be held by gravity IMO ( Please: we should look into this and see what others have found. I have heard that methane in the atmosphere is susceptible to being broken down by UV light so once the Sun fires up the methane will disappear. Do you know what it broke down to? Is it just "methane breaks down to carbon dioxide and water." That would need a supply of oxygen.)

@Pavelcherepan: Please accept my apology for I had read your words incorrectly I read "would've" as "wouldn't have". Sorry. So what does that reference say? "The first atmosphere would have consisted of gases in the solar nebula, primarily hydrogen. In addition, there would probably have been simple hydrides such as those now found in the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn), notably water vapor, methane and ammonia. As the solar nebula dissipated, these gases would have escaped, partly driven off by the solar wind." Have you ever attempted to calculate how much matter there was in the Earth region of the solar nebula? If the Earth existed in some form prior to the solar wind how much gas would be in the atmosphere then? For even the reference you quote alludes to this: "these gases would have escaped, partly driven off by the solar wind". PS: I suppose it is not fully clear from where they are saying this gas is escaping from, was it the early atmosphere or just to another part of the solar nebula. Or are they meaning out of our solar system altogether? Has that ever been proven to happen, that the solar wind drives gases out into deep space? I thought Ophiolite said in one of the threads that the collision with Theia did not add much extra mass to the Earth. @Pavelcherepan: So you still don't answer how much atmosphere there would've been. [i'm not sure how to cross reference part way through a post so I'll edit this once I find it] It is referenced in a post by Ptolemy http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/27298-a-habitable-planet/page-3#entry903520