Robittybob1

Can anything fall into the Sun? Or does it burn up and just get loss in the solar wind emanating from the Sun? Maybe a planet wouldn't burn up on entry, but what is the minimum size require for an object to penetrate the Sun's surface?

That could be right, but only a very minute amount of the mass of the Solar System is in the form of comets so my guess might still be right, that the Sun is always losing mass not gaining it. The next major mass loss from the Sun was in the form of matter ejected in those Coronal Mass Ejections (CME). They might even account for a higher mass loss than from radiation. So the point of this is that the gravitational force from the Sun is slightly dropping rather than increasing. If your idea of planets forming as accretion disks was right then their rotation rates could be such that the outer gaseous material exceeds orbital speed. If that was the case it would not take as much energy to knock a molecule off a planet.

OK but those shepherd moons are still orbiting slower than the stuff closer in. Each radius has a specific orbital speed. I tend to think of the material in the protoplanetary disc as having enough angular momentum to remain in the disk so the proto-sun is not increasing in mass. Once the Sun starts shining there is a net loss of mass all the time after that isn't there? Even if masses of comets etc fell into the Sun it is not going to increase in mass, for there comes a time when the loss of mass due to radiation (heat loss and light) is much greater. But once the gases start moving would that not be like faced with a real wind? Those pictures in the OP show masses of dust being shifted. That to me is the clue. For it suggests compression. You've got the Solar winds blowing outward in one direction and gravity and inertia acting in the other, so in the interior of these "storms" the material will be under enormous pressures.

Those are good points. Can you think of a time when there is no solar wind?

Shall we do the maths then? I feel very confident that the ideas I have been working on for 15 years are as valid as other models. I'll take your advice and stick to the other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88686-was-the-earth-formed-as-an-accretion-disc/ I did see some interesting figures (last couple of days) for the power of the T. Tauri winds and it was quite incredible. I must see if I can locate them again.

The thing I object to is the statement in the article: There is no reason a planet would orbit any faster that the gas dust rings themselves so why would they clear tacks? Unless I am misunderstanding what they mean by "tracks etched out by planets". Your question: My answer is that they can't so that is why close-in planet building has to occur prior to the T.Tauri stage, and prior to main sequence stages unless the matter is at extreme distances. Like I would say for our Solar System Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars were pre- T.Tauri but the Asteroid belt was in the planet forming process at the time of the strong solar wind (T. Tauri stage). Jupiter and planets further out were formed later from the material blown further out by the wind. [These views are based on my own analysis and differ from what has been said before, but there is plenty of acknowledgement that the planet build process needed to be reassessed.]

They have been done on other sites but math has not been needed here as yet as far as this discussion has gone. I have previously looked at the total amount of material that could have used in making the two planets (sorry one planet, for it is only recently that I am more determined to show Theia as a co-orbital planet), and the effects of this mass on the core. In this thread I am wanting a more general discussion at this stage regarding the process of the accretion disk. Can the accretion disk process be detailed mathematically, and are you sure you can say more with maths than you can with words?

I have put the idea up for debate, because the physics and the gut feeling seem to suggest it is correct. I'm not basing it on gut feeling alone. In that study a reasonable number of students got the concept of acceleration right. I have been looking for 15 years for some idea that really shows a fundamental error to my planet forming process and it hasn't happened.

In what direction are you going to jump? Please for me jump straight up and down.

If you have an idea, it is essential that you can imagine it happening? If it went against your gut feelings it would silly to promote the idea. Even in MigL's original quote, which that and other posts were the initiators of the thread, there was a lot of feelings. MigL felt it was unlikely that the Earth's rotation on formation was caused by random impacts but he liked the idea of an accretion disk. If you think I'm going "astray" is that not just another feeling and in contrast, not a feeling of feeling right as in the case of MigL and myself, but one of negativity. I admit the idea is original but it works physically. The physics is right, the rotations are right, and it uses the material as it is seen in the photographic images. 15 years ago I did an experiment to see how the dust could accumulate into planets, so I got a large circular basin and partly filled it with water laced with dust (flour) sprinkled into it, I stirred it, rotated it, and left it overnight to see what would happen. To my surprise next morning the flour had formed annular concentric circular rings in the basin, with patterns of density next to areas of no flour. The idea was born that the protoplanetary dust disk could form into rings and then those rings would form into planets.

2

When you make the torus from playdough for the Earth Moon set up you might have a smaller blob and a larger blob of dough, roll it out with tapered ends. Now lay the two rolls out into a circle with the centers of the pieces on opposite sides of the middle (I think there is no option but this will be the case). Now within the cross section of each dough strip there will be self-gravity pulling radially inward and along the lengths, so they will shorten and become thinner (and hence more dense allowing condensation and crystallization), or there could even be nodes forming along their lengths (representing planetesimals) but all the nodes are linked gravitationally to the ones next to it (mainly via the enormous gaseous content). The whole thing is orbiting the proto-sun so the arms which contract toward the proto-Earth node will either be slowed in orbit or sped up in orbit. This means the accretion disk is fed from the outside on one side and the inside on the other and this will keep the accretion disk spinning but it can only spin at a certain rate or else it will spread out further (depends on orbital speed for that distance), but as the mass of the core keeps on increasing the orbiting material will always be below orbital speed and hence falling toward the core (Proto-Earth or Proto-Theia). The same thing will be happening on the opposite side of the Sun forming Theia. That explanation feels correct physically, can you fault it?

Death of the Universe is an expression you hear of quite often. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.html

As the Universe dies God dies too! That could be a problem.

If I was to hand draw a picture I can scan it to this computer, then what do I do? Think of a torus as a rolled out dough strip but then curved into a ring but don't join the ends fully. Now imagine that dough having some sort of memory and contracting into a lump again by it pulling both ends back into the main body. I think of it like a very long worm that is able to contract its length into slug shaped mass. I'll have to look at your references later. "Does Venus Have Moons? "http://www.universetoday.com/14250/does-venus-have-moons/ It is all theoretical but needed in someway to explain Venus' retrograde spin. Double Impact May Explain Why Venus Has No Moon http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/double-impact-may-explain/ There is always a chance! I have just left it as a possibility.

Sorry to butt in but that was interesting that you think the satellites around the giant planets formed from the same accretion disc as did the planet. Certainly suggests an accretion disc of quite an enormous size if that was the case. Venus may have had a moon in the past. I don't think that is true. Can you see how it forms in my scenario, together. The gas is trapped in the torus and the whole torus forms the accretion disc and the planet (plus moons if you like). Except in the Earth's case I proposed the Moon forms from an L3 Lagrangian body. That can be achieved in another way too, if the inner planets form in the late protosun period before the gas and volatiles are blown away.

I am noticing some differences between the current models and my proposal. Within each torus the average velocity of the matter is at orbital velocity so the chucks as they form are not slowed by the gas surrounding them but because of their shape have an inner gravitation. So any particle is gravitated to the center of the torus cross section. This way water is able to be in a liquid form within the torus which allows the grains to be sticky. The ratio of gas to grains is also much higher than what I hear in the models being discussed. In my model the ratio would be up to 40 parts gas to 1 part rocky grain rather than the 100 parts of grains to 1 part gas as I heard being discussed in a lecture by Leonardo Testi. Source of information:

I mean if you went to one of their services would they say that to your face?

Do you mean the protoplanetary disk? I see an article about the "gap formation in protoplanetary disks" thanks. The maths is too difficult for me to understand. http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/astro497_8.pdf lays out the information in an easier to understand method. One thing I'm wondering is what the idea of "disk self gravitation means" exactly, for I had always thought that gravity within the tori would be sufficient to drive accretion (so it is likely the diameter of the rings could still be contracting as gravitational accretion is occurring. (This becomes a necessity when you think of the size of the above mentioned star system, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29932609 asPavelcherapan says "The diameter of the entire disk is about 2000 AU = 300*109 km...."

It is an enormous star system. I am of the opinion the dark areas are thinned out areas of the protoplanetary disc but not because of a planet moving along these tracks, but because there is some reason of pressure waves radiating out from the proto-star. I liken this to the formation of sand dunes or patterns in the sands on the beach. There would be regions of radiation pressure pushing material back from the star but behind that gravity will be bringing matter forward. But behind the first band the effect is repeated for a series of times (maybe 9 times as for the Solar System). https://youtu.be/CfopeatOXgM?t=96

That might be in their written teachings but do the modern theologians teach that?

BBC News - Planet formation captured in photo Planets in formation - does this picture confirm Robittybob's Hypothesis? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29932609 If they reckon there are planets already formed there why didn't they point them out? It fits with what I understand happens too, but in my hypothesis there would be the formation of planetesimals within each band and then the whole band would with the action of gravity within the ring pull itself around to form a planet, but the planets would form within the inner ring first.

If you go outside and see a falling star burning up in the atmosphere, the material is just burning up in a non-dense gas, yet the dust particles will finally hit the ground. Now imagine what happens when a meteorite slams into something like the rings around Saturn, is it going to get through? Now if we were to combine the two, a gaseous atmosphere and chunks held out in orbit due to their rotation, that is the density that it would present. It would not stay like that for long, as the initial planet building phase is relatively short period. Last year there was a photo taken of a planetary system forming and the rings (tori) were visible. The dimensions of the new planetary system were rather large compared to our Solar System (Sol) but what I have always proposed is that the inner planets have to form prior to the star going main sequence so the amount of volatile matter is maximized during the planetary build. So seeing this is difficult, for the proto-star is not producing a lot of light at this stage, but it maybe visible in the infrared spectrum. (I'll get a link to this star system soon.) Tidal acceleration of the Moon is a difficult nut to crack. At the current rate of drift, multiply that by the age of the Moon, and the Moon would have needed to start off on the other side of the Earth! So if the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past and the rotation was faster and the gravitational effects stronger why was the rate of migration slower. Only reason I can put it down to is that the oceans were deeper so the tidal bulge kept up with the Moon's rotation and hence there was no effective torque. How do you explain the historical slow rate of migration? Does the explanation tie in with the Earth formation?

I'll reply to each part of your rebuttal but not all tonight. By the time the solar System had the accretion disc there was a massive core in the center, so the whole thing isn't flat. The proto-Earth would be surrounded by the accretion disc, but I am imagining that MigL thought the accretion disc is the point of impact for the incoming matter not so much the proto-Earth taking the impact as is so often depicted in the media on Earth formation. I'm surprised for I've not seen any of this proof. Two things in my theory help the Earth capture the Moon were the co-orbital origin and the vastness of the Early Earth's volatile atmosphere and oceans.

That is a prediction and only time will tell whether you are right or not.