What parts of the protoplanetary hypothesis remain vague and unexplained?

[djdelarosa25]

We have kind of a class debate tomorrow. There are two teams, one tasked to provide evidence supporting the protoplanetary hypothesis while our team was given the job of countering the said evidence.

 

As far as I know, the protoplanetary hypothesis is, at present, the most widely accepted theory on the creation of our solar system. That, combined with the lack of substantial information about the topic online, makes our job incredible difficult.

 

What parts of it lack concrete evidence to support the concept? If there is an explanation, what it is a highly debatable one?

 

Thank you!

Edited June 28, 2017 by djdelarosa25

[beecee]

We have kind of a class debate tomorrow. There are two teams, one tasked to provide evidence supporting the protoplanetary hypothesis while our team was given the job of countering the said evidence.

 

As far as I know, the protoplanetary hypothesis is, at present, the most widely accepted theory on the creation of our solar system. That, combined with the lack of substantial information about the topic online, makes our job incredible difficult.

 

What parts of it lack concrete evidence to support the concept? If there is an explanation, what it is a highly debatable one?

 

Thank you!

The most convincing evidence of the protoplanetary/collapsing disk of gas hypothesis, is tha we have observed the same mechanism, in various stages of formation, in action in other distant systems.

The most convincing evidence of the protoplanetary/collapsing disk of gas hypothesis, is tha we have observed the same mechanism, in various stages of formation, in action in other distant systems.

If any genuine real uncertainty existed in the current model of solar system formation, imo it is the formation of the Moon.

see the following......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis

extract:

"The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.^[4] Supporting evidence includes:

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.^[5]
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.^[6]

There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant-impact hypothesis, however.^[7] The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global "ocean" of magma, and evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle has been documented.^[8]However, as of 2015 there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant-impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include when the Moon lost its share of volatile elements and why Venus—which experienced giant impacts during its formation—does not host a similar moon".

[djdelarosa25]

Thanks for the feedback!