traveler's planet formation idea

[traveler]

The sun spit out a significant amount of "molten lava" that formed a sphere (Earth) of an order of density due to gravity, it cooled on the exterior surface, and continuously gets further from the sun as it gets cooler. That's how all planets are formed. I thought everyone understood this by now?

[insane_alien]

traveler, WHAT THE HELL?

 

the sun is a plasma, not a liquid or even a gas. and why don't we see it spitting out more planets? this is not how planets formed.

[traveler]

traveler, WHAT THE HELL?

 

the sun is a plasma, not a liquid or even a gas. and why don't we see it spitting out more planets? this is not how planets formed.

 

Just like all matter, it is only a plasma because it is hotter. Let it get cooler and see what happens.

 

Why don't we see it spitting out more planets??? Stick around for a while (about a trillion years) and see what happens. There is a reason planets get further from the sun, because they came from the sun and continuously get further from the sun as they cool and become "ICE GIANTS."

[big314mp]

Just like all matter, it is only a plasma because it is hotter. Let it get cooler and see what happens.

 

Why don't we see it spitting out more planets??? Stick around for a while (about a trillion years) and see what happens. There is a reason planets get further from the sun, because they came from the sun and continuously get further from the sun as they cool and become "ICE GIANTS."

 

The sun doesn't even have the proper elemental composition to "spit out" planets.

[Klaynos]

Besides IA's point.

 

A trillion years, taht's several orders of magnitude older than the universe... And we know the sun is a second population star...

[traveler]

Besides IA's point.

 

A trillion years, taht's several orders of magnitude older than the universe... And we know the sun is a second population star...

 

 

I just said a trillion years, as that should should cover the formation of another planet, and then some.

 

Do I know how long it will take to create the newest planet in our solar system? NO. I'm hoping another one is formed in my lifetime so I can say "I told you so!"

[Klaynos]

I just said a trillion years, as that should should cover the formation of another planet, and then some.

 

Do I know how long it will take to create the newest planet in our solar system? NO. I'm hoping another one is formed in my lifetime so I can say "I told you so!"

 

Well your theory lacks all the precision of teh two current planet formation theories, so I'm afraid they win.

 

Ignoring the fact that yours disagrees with the observable evidence (composition of the planets and the lack of a planet around where the asteroid belt is).

[traveler]

Well your theory lacks all the precision of teh two current planet formation theories, so I'm afraid they win.

 

Ignoring the fact that yours disagrees with the observable evidence (composition of the planets and the lack of a planet around where the asteroid belt is).

 

What do they win, a popularity vote? Go for it.

 

Does that mean they are correct? NO!

 

Why is Mercury getting further away from the sun?

 

How does current theory propose the ice giants formed?

 

The asteroid belt is in the proper density area, so how could another planet be there?

[Klaynos]

What do they win, a popularity vote? Go for it.

 

Science doesn't care for winning it cares about being correct.

 

Does that mean they are correct? NO!

 

It means they're more correct than yours.

 

Why is Mercury getting further away from the sun?

 

Can you site a reference for this?

 

How does current theory propose the ice giants formed?

 

What ice giants?

[traveler]

Science doesn't care for winning it cares about being correct.

 

Then why are you concerned that the other two theories "win?"

 

It means they're more correct than yours.

 

More correct, or correct? How can two different theories be correct? Which one is correct, Klaynos? Is it a fact, or theory?

 

Can you site a reference for this?

 

No.

 

What ice giants?

 

I am referring to the outer planets, and how they were formed. They formed just like all of our planets, the most outer planet being formed first and the closest being the most recent to form.

[Klaynos]

Then why are you concerned that the other two theories "win?"

 

Because I am concerned that people learn what is accepted theory, and what is not. And what is required to become an accepted theory.

 

More correct, or correct? How can two different theories be correct? Which one is correct, Klaynos? Is it a fact, or theory?

 

They are both correct over certain ranges (similar to how both QM and classical mechanics are correct), there will probably in the next few years be a more complete theory that unifies the two.

 

I suggest you research them:

 

The core accretion model.

The disk instability model.

 

No.

 

Well it's not something I'm familiar with, so without a reference I can't comment on the validity of that statement.

 

I am referring to the outer planets, and how they were formed. They formed just like all of our planets, the most outer planet being formed first and the closest being the most recent to form.

 

They formed probably (as they are relatively small (compared to the gas giants)) more along the lies of the core accretion model.

 

To point out both of these models are mathematical and make predictions, they both agree with some observable evidence but not quite with it all (they overlap somewhat), this is a very active area of research and will hopefully be resolved in the next few years...

[traveler]

Because I am concerned that people learn what is accepted theory, and what is not. And what is required to become an accepted theory.

 

 

So again, you are concerned with people learning the accepted theory that wins the popular vote (popularity contest as far as I'm concerned). That leaves absolutely no room for the truth (fact, not theory).

 

 

 

They are both correct over certain ranges (similar to how both QM and classical mechanics are correct), there will probably in the next few years be a more complete theory that unifies the two.

 

I suggest you research them:

 

The core accretion model.

The disk instability model.

 

 

They are not both correct, they are both incorrect.

 

 

They formed probably (as they are relatively small (compared to the gas giants)) more along the lies of the core accretion model.

 

 

Probably? So you don't know, neither does either of the models, for sure, just speculation.

 

To point out both of these models are mathematical and make predictions, they both agree with some observable evidence but not quite with it all (they overlap somewhat), this is a very active area of research and will hopefully be resolved in the next few years...

 

So they are incorrect? That leaves plenty of room for my theory, which explains A LOT.

 

No, mathematics could never describe a new planet being formed according to my theory of the way it actually happens, like math could never describe accurately the motion of all the leaves on the big Maple tree in my back yard with a swirling, gusting wind of between 23.5345 MPH and 51.62913 MPH, over the course of a duration of 29.852 seconds at an average temperature of 59.34 degrees.

Edited September 28, 2008 by traveler

[Klaynos]

OK, you need to understand what science is concerned with. What I'll talk about here is modern physics.

 

Modern physics is the mathematical modelling of reality, and the testing of these models. These models have to full fill certain criteria, they have to be falsifiable, and make mathematical predictions (due to accuracy). These are theories, there are NO facts in science, merely measurements (which will contain error) and theories. So accepted theories are the ones that make the BEST predictions that match the BEST experiments, who decides what "best" is, well you calculate the errors on the measurements and the statistical difference between those measurements and the theories predictions, if the two do not fall within each others errors they are considered false for that regime.

 

With planet formation theories, there is limited data, so it's difficult to test the theories, the ones we've got atm work for some of the planets in our solar system and some of the planets we have managed to observe outside the solar system (but it is inherently difficult to detect certain types of planets (you're far more likely to see big ones close to the stars), but they don't both agree perfectly which indicates that neither theory is complete, so there has to be some kind of unification theory. In a similar way to electrostatics and magnetostatics not being complete theories, they work, but they break down quite quickly, which means you have to unify them into electromagnetism...

 

No, mathematics could never describe a new planet being formed according to my theory of the way it actually happens, like math could never describe accurately the motion of all the leaves on the big Maple tree in my back yard with a swirling, gusting wind of between 23.5345 MPH and 51.62913 MPH, over the course of a duration of 29.852 seconds at an average temperature of 59.34 degrees.

 

If it can't be described by maths it's not science.

 

We actually understand the dynamics of the sun quite well. Your idea doesn't work, infact I suspect it breaks the law of conservation of angular momentum... which is a BIG no no...

[traveler]

If it can't be described by maths it's not science.

 

Does that mean I am hallucinating when I watch the leaves on the tree, in a storm, blow every which way but loose (and some loose), and because I can't calculate the motion of every leave using mathematics it isn't science?

[big314mp]

I'll throw in a few more points, even though Klaynos has this quite well covered

 

Traveler, please explain how a large blob of matter will spontaneously get up and (against gravity) decide to leave the sun. On earth we don't see rocks mysteriously begin to levitate and fly into space of their own accord. Please explain why the equivalent would happen on the sun.

 

As to the ice giants bit, I think you are referring to the gas giants. If so, this is relatively simply explained by the fact that dense rocky material will "sink" through the protoplanetary disc towards to the sun, leaving gas for the outer planets and rock for the inner planets.

 

To suggest what you are suggesting, please explain why all of the planets aren't made of the exact same thing. If the sun spat them all up, please explain why it originally only spat up gas, and is now spitting up rocks.

Edited September 28, 2008 by big314mp
clarity

[traveler]

I'll throw in a few more points, even though Klaynos has this quite well covered

 

Traveler, please explain how a large blob of matter will spontaneously get up and (against gravity) decide to leave the sun. On earth we don't see rocks mysteriously begin to levitate and fly into space of their own accord. Please explain why the equivalent would happen on the sun.

 

What do you mean, "against gravity?" That IS gravity. Your understanding of gravity being only attractive is not exactly accurate, which leads to BIG problems of your understanding of the entire universe.

 

As to the ice giants bit, I think you are referring to the gas giants. If so, this is relatively simply explained by the fact that dense rocky material will "sink" through the protoplanetary disc towards to the sun, leaving gas for the outer planets and rock for the inner planets.

 

To suggest what you are suggesting, please explain why all of the planets aren't made of the exact same thing. If the sun spat them all up, please explain why it originally only spat up gas, and is now spitting up rocks.

 

Cooling and decay. All planets started out as hot sun matter, and cooled and decayed over time, as they slowly got further from the sun do to becoming less dense (which is the reason they got further from the sun). Obviously, since the most outer planet formed first it has been cooling and decaying for the longest amount of time, while Mercury was the most recently formed, so it is the hottest, and has had less time to cool and decay.

 

Our Earth will eventually look like Mars (desert) and be in what is now Mars' orbit, and Mercury will have an atmosphere and water as Earth does now and be in the orbit we are in now.

Edited September 28, 2008 by traveler

[big314mp]

What do you mean, "against gravity?" That IS gravity. Your understanding of gravity being only attractive is not exactly accurate, which leads to BIG problems of your understanding of the entire universe.

 

We'll discuss this when the theorists work out what gravity is a little better.

 

As for now, gravity is an attractive force only. Until you present some experimental evidence (the aforementioned levitating rock would be a good one) to substantiate your claim, you are just making up fairy tales.

 

Cooling and decay. All planets started out as hot sun matter, and cooled and decayed over time, as they slowly got further from the sun (which is the reason they got further from the sun). Obviously, since the most outer planet formed first it has been cooling and decaying for the longest amount of time, while Mercury was the most recently formed, so it is the hottest, and has had less time to cool and decay.

 

Explain how iron and silicon compounds will decay into hydrogen and helium.

 

Furthermore, explain how cooling a solid turns it into a gas.

 

Our Earth will eventually look like mars (desert) and be in what is now Mar's orbit, and Mercury will have an atmosphere and water as Earth does now and be in the orbit we are in now.

 

...and where exactly does all of that stuff come from? Where does the water on mercury come from?

[ydoaPs]

/me points to photos of planets forming in other solar systems.

 

 

My oh my, they look an awful lot like accretion discs. But, since science is obviously a popularity contest, so I'm going with traveler on this one.

Edited September 28, 2008 by ydoaPs

[traveler]

We'll discuss this when the theorists work out what gravity is a little better.

 

As for now, gravity is an attractive force only. Until you present some experimental evidence (the aforementioned levitating rock would be a good one) to substantiate your claim, you are just making up fairy tales.

 

So when they find out I am correct will you take back the "fairytale" bit? LOL

 

Gravity is caused by a structure in density order, my friend. Objects go to their proper density order. Earth (and all planets) are the most dense in the core and the least dense at the outer edges, in order! If you force an object to go to a less or greater density area, it will go back to it's proper density area. Rock towards the core, and helium away from the core (when released from sea level).

 

 

Explain how iron and silicon compounds will decay into hydrogen and helium.

 

Furthermore, explain how cooling a solid turns it into a gas.

 

All mass decays, some slower than others.

 

Mass is energy is heat. Allow the mass to cool and it becomes less dense and must expand and become less dense. Think water to ice.

[big314mp]

So when they find out I am correct will you take back the "fairytale" bit? LOL

 

Gravity is caused by a structure in density order, my friend. Objects go to their proper density order. Earth (and all planets) are the most dense in the core and the least dense at the outer edges, in order! If you force an object to go to a less or greater density area, it will go back to it's proper density area. Rock towards the core, and helium away from the core (when released from sea level).

 

All mass decays, some slower than others.

 

Mass is energy is heat. Allow the mass to cool and it becomes less dense and must expand and become less dense. Think water to ice.

 

You have no proof, so basically you are just making stuff up. Hence, fairy tales.

 

I'm not even going to try and make heads or tails of your "density order" bit. Suffice it to say that it appears to be handwaving.

 

Your ice example is flawed as ice is the exception to the rule. Furthermore, mass does not just spontaneously decay. We'd have observed it by now if it was that common (I'm excluding radioactive compounds for clarity here).

 

Signing off for the afternoon. Perhaps someone else will take over

[Klaynos]

Does that mean I am hallucinating when I watch the leaves on the tree, in a storm, blow every which way but loose (and some loose), and because I can't calculate the motion of every leave using mathematics it isn't science?

 

It means you're not doing science, yes.

 

Gravity is caused by a structure in density order, my friend. Objects go to their proper density order. Earth (and all planets) are the most dense in the core and the least dense at the outer edges, in order! If you force an object to go to a less or greater density area, it will go back to it's proper density area. Rock towards the core, and helium away from the core (when released from sea level).

 

Urmm no, there are no equations of gravity that require density unless you're within a body and you use the density and volume to find the mass...

 

All mass decays, some slower than others.

 

Please site evidence for this, and explain what you mean by mass decaying?

 

Mass is energy is heat.

 

Heat would be an energy transfer NOT an energy form in itself...

 

Saying mass is energy is imo a bit of a simplification as it's such a special case.

 

Allow the mass to cool and it becomes less dense and must expand and become less dense. Think water to ice.

 

Ice as has been noted is quite odd. Most materials the solid will not float, and we all know that cooling down a balloon makes it shrink up, most of us have done/seen it done with liquid nitrogen...

[Edtharan]

So when they find out I am correct will you take back the "fairytale" bit? LOL

Science works on the principle of: Disproving the Negative.

 

It is easy to disprove a negative as all you ahve to do is provide proof of the positive. If the phenomina in question is real, then there will be evidence that it exists (the positive).

 

However, if it doen't exist, then there will not likely be evidence that it doesn't exist (as evidence indicates existance, therefore evidence that it doesn't exist would be evidence of its existance... ).

 

You are claiming that the phenomina "repulsive gravity" exists.

 

If the phenomina does exist, then there will be evidecne for it (but it might be difficult to find). But if it doesn't exist then we will not find evidence for it.

 

SO if we assume that repulsive gravity exists, then we can just say that the reason that we haven't seen any evidecne for it is that it is difficult to find. But this is indistinguishable from the situation that it doesn't exist.

 

So taking this view, we can never be certain that we are not just making stuff up.

 

However, if you use SCIENCE, and take the assumption that repulsive gravity dosn't exist, then as soon as we find a single incidence of repulsive gravity we can be certain of it's existance and the reality of it.

 

One way (the fist) we can never be certain of reality, and the other (the second) we can be certain of a phenomina's reality.

 

Gravity is caused by a structure in density order, my friend. Objects go to their proper density order. Earth (and all planets) are the most dense in the core and the least dense at the outer edges, in order! If you force an object to go to a less or greater density area, it will go back to it's proper density area. Rock towards the core, and helium away from the core (when released from sea level).

You have it backwards. The reason that helium rises and rocks fall is density caused by gravity.

 

Experiments done in orbit demonstrate that you can have a gas (air) surounded by a liquid (water). They simply put a blob of water in free fall and then using a straw, blew air into it.

 

If you were correct, then the air would have imediately moved outwards and the water moved inwards (as the water and air in the experiment have mass and therefore gravity, although small, but they were not experincing any other gravity). However, this structuire remained stable, thus disproving your claim.

 

So gravity can not be caused by desnsity, and so some other theory is needed (it doesn't mean that current theory has to be correct, it just means that your claim can't be).

 

However, current theory does explain the result of that experiment (that gravity is caused by mass), so even if current theory is ultimatly shown to be incorrect, it is good enough to be used in these situations.

 

All planets started out as hot sun matter, and cooled and decayed over time, as they slowly got further from the sun do to becoming less dense (which is the reason they got further from the sun).

Yes, Saturn is less dense than Earth. However, Jupiter is far more dense than Earth. In addition, this does not explain moons. Some of the Moons of Saturn are more dense than it. Your theory does not account for the moons at all.

 

Current theory does.

 

Not only that, we have Photographs (made throgh a telescope) of planets forming this way around other stars. This is DIRECT proof that your theory is incorrect.

[Baby Astronaut]

Arguing back on this is like defending science by attending an intelligent design meeting.

 

Such fun I think I'll pipe in

 

OK traveler, if the sun truly spit out blobs of itself, then how did it manage to spew the larger planets further, and the smaller planets closer? Gravity-wise it doesn't make sense.

 

And what of the Oort Cloud? Does the sun once in a while sneeze, creating a mess load of tiny blobs? That could explain the asteroid belt.

 

In defense of traveler, gravity might not prevent the spitting of blobs, as gravity doesn't prevent solar flares reaching out far.

 

But I think Edtharan pretty much debunked traveler's hypothesis.

[traveler]

OK traveler, if the sun truly spit out blobs of itself, then how did it manage to spew the larger planets further, and the smaller planets closer? Gravity-wise it doesn't make sense.

 

And what of the Oort Cloud? Does the sun once in a while sneeze, creating a mess load of tiny blobs? That could explain the asteroid belt.

 

In defense of traveler, gravity might not prevent the spitting of blobs, as gravity doesn't prevent solar flares reaching out far.

 

But I think Edtharan pretty much debunked traveler's hypothesis.

 

No, Edtharan did not debunk my hypothesis.

 

1. Edtharan does not know the correct mass and densities of the planets, stars, or moons, as they are laughable figures arrived at using incorrect formulas using outdated and long since known to be false theories, and basically just figures that could NEVER be known, let alone close to accurate.

 

2. The planets were not "spit out" all at once. The first formed and continuously moved away in its orbit over a great amount of time. Then the second was formed, and it continuously moved away in its orbit, and then a third and so on. You end up with the 1st planet that was formed being the oldest, the furthest away, the coolest, and the least dense, the second a little closer and a little younger, the third closer, and so on. The planets were not always what they are composed of today. They were once ALL hot sun matter. They cooled, and suffered decay. They expanded when they cooled. The furthest away is the oldest, so it had the greatest amount of time to cool and expand, and so on to the last formed still being...hot and dense.

 

Like I said, Mars was once in our obit and looked similar to our Earth as it is now. Earth will eventually be in Mars obit and look like Mars, and Mercury and Venus will also eventually look like Earth and be in our current orbit. "The life cycle of a planet" type of deal. They all go through the cycle.

Edited September 30, 2008 by traveler

[Kyrisch]

Have you supplied any evidence? NO.

Have you supplied any maths? NO.

Have you falsified any aspect of the current models? NO.

 

Planet formation is not a religious matter. Start spewing science or stop spewing.