traveler's planet formation idea

[Phi for All]

Moved to Pseudoscience & Speculations. I see nothing that improves on accepted theory.

[big314mp]

Why hasn't the rest of the sun also converted to planet then? If part of the sun has been spat up and converted to planet, why hasn't the rest?

 

What you are suggesting is that the matter from the sun (gas/plasma) cools down and forms rock. Then it cools down further, and poof! we're back to a gas? Seems like a violation of thermodynamics to me.

[traveler]

Why hasn't the rest of the sun also converted to planet then? If part of the sun has been spat up and converted to planet, why hasn't the rest?

 

What you are suggesting is that the matter from the sun (gas/plasma) cools down and forms rock. Then it cools down further, and poof! we're back to a gas? Seems like a violation of thermodynamics to me.

 

Sounds like the cycle of energy conservation to me. The never ending evolution of energy that had no beginning and will have no end.

 

Have you supplied any maths? NO.

 

Neither have you supplied the maths for the motion of the leaves on the tree in my back yard during a hurricane, but that doesn't mean the leaves don't have motion (and lots of it), it's just way to chaotic for man to deal with.

 

Why hasn't the rest of the sun also converted to planet then? If part of the sun has been spat up and converted to planet, why hasn't the rest?

 

What you are suggesting is that the matter from the sun (gas/plasma) cools down and forms rock. Then it cools down further, and poof! we're back to a gas? Seems like a violation of thermodynamics to me.

 

That's like asking why volcanoes don't empty all the Earth's magma, since they erupt once in a while.

 

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.

 

I see you are in search of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Edited September 30, 2008 by traveler
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

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and densities of the planets, stars, or moons, as they are laughable figures arrived at using incorrect formulas using outdated and long since known to be false theories, and basically just figures that could NEVER be known, let alone close to accurate.

 

So, what's your problem with classical mechanics then?

 

If you're going to suggest this you NEED to come up with something better, which means you need maths, you've not and probably wont so you're not doing science, this is a science forum so we'd much much much rather you did.

 

Sounds like the cycle of energy conservation to me. The never ending evolution of energy that had no beginning and will have no end.

 

You can't just say that you need to explain it!

 

Neither have you supplied the maths for the motion of the leaves on the tree in my back yard during a hurricane, but that doesn't mean the leaves don't have motion (and lots of it), it's just way to chaotic for man to deal with.

 

This is a logical fallacy and against the forum rules.

 

Actually we do have equations that could deal with the leaves falling problem, but you'd need to know alot of data that depends on the tree and situation, fortunately when dealing with the solar system we know alot of the current data as we've measured it already.

 

We do have excellent equations for the dynamics of the sun. You don't so your theory falls against our current ones.

 

That's like asking why volcanoes don't empty all the Earth's magma, since they erupt once in a while.

 

Not really, the volcano's matter never breaks off of the surface of the earth.

 

I see you are in search of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

In science 'truth' requires, maths, predictions, experiments and falsifiability, currently you've none of these.

[Sayonara]

Traveler: you don't have a scientific theory unless your idea makes quantified, specific, falsifiable predictions. If you are not going to provide them, then just stop typing.

[Edtharan]

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.

We can actually directly measure the amount of gravity each of the planets produces. We can look at how they deflect the paths of object like comets and even spaceships. So we can quite accurately and directly measure the gravity of planets.

 

From that we can deduce the mass of the planets, and then by measuring the size of them (also quite simple) we can therefore can determine the density of them.

 

The formula for density is not that difficult: Density = Mass / Volume

 

We can even measure the variations in density that occurs when a mountain range or other slightly more dense structure exists on a planet. We do this for Earth all the time, but we have also done it for regions on Mars.

 

So not only can we determine the overall density of a planet, we can even determine variation in that density.

 

Although I might not know the precise mass of planets to an arbitrary decimal point, it is actually quite simple to determine the mass of a planet.

 

The amount an object is deflected due to gravity is not dependant on the mass of the object being deflected, but instead is only dependent on the mass of the object that is causing the deflection and the distance from it.

 

We can measure the position of a planet and the object relative to the Earth quite accurately (about the wavelength of the radar beam used to detect them). So if we use a wavelength of 1 cm then we know their position to around 1 cm.

 

Better yet we can compile several measurement and adjust for error. We can determine the error because we can also determine the speed that they are travelling at and this measurement is not dependent on the wavelength but instead on how much the wavelength is shifted (called chirping) because the object is moving relative to us. The accuracy is then limited only by the accuracy of our equipment here on Earth (and it is just like the system police use to measure your speed).

 

By knowing the speed, we we use that in a slightly more complex calculation to determine the error sizes caused by the size of the wavelength of the radar.

 

We can then use this to track the motions of both the planet and the object and know the distance between them and the speed and the changed in speed and direction caused by gravity. A simple equation can then tell us the mass of the planet.

 

The same radar can be used to give us a measure of the size of the planet (and again the same systems are used here on earth to measure the size of various objects).

 

So we have a measurement of the mass of a planet and we have the size of the planet. We can then simply divide the Mass by the size and we have the density.

 

All the systems and the mathematics have been tested here on Earth and they have been shown to be correct. Why then would they fail for planets (oh and by the way, we have used them to measure the size, mass and density of both the Earth and the Moon and these have been confirmed because we have actually had people there to confirm it so we knoe it doesn't fail for planets).

 

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.

However, the planets have most of the angular momentum of the solar system (the sun has most of the mass). If the sun were to spit out the Planets, like you say, then conservation of angular momentum will dictate that the Sun will need to slow down. You can see this directly with ice skaters. If they start spinning and pull their arms in towards their body, they will speed up, but if they move their arms out away from their body, they will slow down.

 

This means that the outer planets will ahve had more angular momentum than the inner planets, which if you measure their orbital speed, you find that this is not the case (they are remarkably similar, which is what you would expect if they formed from an accretion disk).

 

Also, if the Sun had spit out the planets then they would have been sent off in a tangential direction from the sun which would have resulted in them having highly elliptical orbits (which again, they don't have being nearly circular for the most part). It takes very complicated orbital adjustments through rocket for a satellite to change from an elliptical orbit to a nearly circular one. It takes accurate timing of the thrusts and accurate control over the power of the thrusts. Such delicacy could be achieved naturally, but it is extremely unlikely and also we would be able to see such structures still existing in the solar system (especially as you say this process is on going so a stable structure that can achieve this orbital readjustment would still need to exist). As no such structure is known to exist in the solar system, then we can exclude this as a possibility.

 

Lastly: It takes energy to move an object from a close orbit to an orbit further away. This means that the outer planets must some how have gained energy to move them away from the sun.

 

The Earth's mass is around 5.9736 × 10^24 kg. It would take a phenomenal amount of energy to move that from near the Sun (1.98892 * 10^30kg) out to its current position (around 150,000,000km). Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are far more massive than the Earth and also far further away form the Sun. The amounts of energy needed to move them there would have been just as massive.

 

So not only would it require massive energy to move these planets (and you have to explain where this energy comes from), you have to have a mechanism that can control these forces in an extremely delicate way.

 

I am not saying that it is impossible, just that it is extremely unlikely and that you haven't actually covered these necessities in your theory.

 

However, if we apply Occam's Razor, then if two competing theories provide the same result, then we should use the one that is simplest. Acreation theory explains the positions, orbits and angular momentum of the planets. Your theory does not explain the orbits or angular momentum (but does attempt to explain their positions).

 

For your theory to explain the orbits of the planets, then it requires a massive amount of energy to come from nowhere (unless you can explain where it comes from) and for this energy to be delicately controlled to allow the planets to achieve nearly circular orbits despite starting off on a tangential orbit from the Sun and to achieve enough change to their orbit before they had completed a single orbit (or they would have just hit the Sun again as they came back around ).

 

Which is simpler. A process that we know will occur in dust clouds (as we can model it on computer using just gravity and friction) and that we can ACTUALLY see occuring around other newly forming stars, or a theory that does not explain even why the orbits of the planets are nearly circular, and can not account for the angular velocities of the planets.

[traveler]

Traveler: you don't have a scientific theory unless your idea makes quantified, specific, falsifiable predictions. If you are not going to provide them, then just stop typing.

 

I never said I had a theory, or was doing science, I was sharing an idea with people. It's evident that nobody cares to hear new ideas around here that could possibly explain a lot of current unknowns.

 

Thanks for the tip, Sayonara, I'll go someplace different to share my ideas. Maybe someone will help me refine it and talk about the predictions that it does make rather than the one sided "throw it in the trashcan" attitude right off the bat that seems to be the norm around here.

Edited September 30, 2008 by traveler

[elas]

The formation of the planets out of a dust cloud is a poor example of the universal wave structure. The distance between bodies decreases in the order of 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc, a theoretical example can be found in Berlini and Linn’s ‘ideal galaxy’; an almost perfect observed example can be found in the distance between the rings around comet Hale-Bopp. The violent activity in the formation of galaxies and planetary systems leads to the temporary destruction of the wave structure, but nature probably moves to restore the wave structure over the lifetime of the universe.

I have shown (but it has not been accepted) that the vortexes between the particle pair in composite fermions occur in the same fractional sequence.

There is however, one important difference between astronomical waves and particle and atomic waves caused by the creative time difference; astronomical fractions are fractions of the remaining distance (to the central body) while particle and atomic fractions are fractions of the whole radius.

[DrP]

What happened to Jissplat? I thought he might of pitched into this conversation. Would have been interesting..

[Sayonara]

I never said I had a theory, or was doing science, I was sharing an idea with people. It's evident that nobody cares to hear new ideas around here that could possibly explain a lot of current unknowns.

You've called it both a theory and a hypothesis during this thread. I presume then that you simply thought these terms were synonymous with "idea". They aren't, which might be why you are encountering a lot of resistance!

 

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

No, Edtharan did not debunk my hypothesis.

 

 

Thanks for the tip, Sayonara, I'll go someplace different to share my ideas. Maybe someone will help me refine it and talk about the predictions that it does make rather than the one sided "throw it in the trashcan" attitude right off the bat that seems to be the norm around here.

There's nothing wrong with bouncing ideas about, and do you really want people to just agree with you, or do you actually want people who will highlight holes in the idea which you haven't spotted yourself?

The problems this idea has right now are:

(1) it tries to account for some of the attributes of the current models, but ignores others,

(2) it fails to explain planet formation because observable facts contradict it.

[big314mp]

Sounds like the cycle of energy conservation to me. The never ending evolution of energy that had no beginning and will have no end.

 

That's like asking why volcanoes don't empty all the Earth's magma, since they erupt once in a while.

 

You missed my point.

 

A planet sized ball of gas breaks off of the sun, and then turns into rocks, water, etc. If that ball of gas "decayed" to form this new planet, why hasn't the rest of the gas in the sun "decayed" (the rest of the gas being the same age as the planet blob, so therefore subject to the same decay posited by your theory) to also form rocks, water, etc.

[Baby Astronaut]

It takes energy to move an object from a close orbit to an orbit further away. This means that the outer planets must some how have gained energy to move them away from the sun.

What about the moon? It's moving away slowly.

 

A planet sized ball of gas breaks off of the sun, and then turns into rocks, water, etc. If that ball of gas "decayed" to form this new planet, why hasn't the rest of the gas in the sun "decayed" (the rest of the gas being the same age as the planet blob, so therefore subject to the same decay posited by your theory) to also form rocks, water, etc.

The sun couldn't turn to rock because fusion prevents it due to its mass.

 

Neither have you supplied the maths for the motion of the leaves on the tree in my back yard during a hurricane, but that doesn't mean the leaves don't have motion (and lots of it), it's just way to chaotic for man to deal with.

Actually, the math already exists. There is gravity' pull, the approximate force exerted by the wind, the leaf's weight and the strength of its connection to the tree.

 

The math tells you the leaf stands a minor chance to be ripped from the tree, and if that happens, the leaf will almost definitely be tossed around violently.

 

But asking for math to determine the leaf's path of motion would be like someone asking you for math that determines precisely when the sun will spit out its next blob/planet. So hopefully you see it's not the same thing. We only ask to show us the mechanisms that allows what you claim. If you are unable, then it's a good idea to inform us that what you claim is just that -- an idea -- not a dismissal of current scientific measurements, tests, and consensus. You can state a belief that your hypothesis will eventually break new ground and prove other things wrong, but let others know it's a hunch rather than a claim of real science.

 

And I don't mean "real science" in a patronizing way. Science is about real calculations of observable mechanics, and includes projections based on what the math suggests. Even when projections are based on observation alone, scientists run it through existing math and calculations to see how it fits with known models, and even if it does fit, they publish it so that other scientists can attempt to find holes in it, and even if they draw enough credibility, they still test it in labs, and even if the tests look good, they publish the entire testing procedure and publish their findings so that other scientists can reproduce the experiments and double-check the tests.

 

In my view, that's what real science is. To claim things like in a Star Trek movie or throw predictions/observations around is not science, it's merely speculation -- which in itself isn't bad, it's just a different thing altogether.

[traveler]

If you could "instantly" enclose the sun in a larger enclosed sphere, would pressure build?

[DrP]

If you could "instantly" enclose the sun in a larger enclosed sphere, would pressure build?

 

Yea, I reckon so (as a guess) - why?

[Edtharan]

What about the moon? It's moving away slowly.

The angular velocity of the Earth is slowing down. This is where the energy is coming form.

[traveler]

Yea, I reckon so (as a guess) - why?

 

So all the atoms in the enclosed sphere are increasing in volume, or are they remaining relatively the same volume and more of them are being added, or possibly constantly dividing and growing, like life?

 

Pressure is created by resistance. The only way pressure can change in a fixed volume sphere is if you change the energy in the sphere, no?

Edited October 10, 2008 by traveler

[insane_alien]

the atoms in the sphere are not increasing in volume. and unless the sphere is a perfect thermal insulator then the pressure will actually drop.

 

pressure is not created by resistance, pressure is created by collisions wit hthe walls of the container/object/whatever.

 

you need to change either the temperature or the number of moles if the volume is fixed

 

in the example given, both would change. even without energy transfer in or out of the sphere.

[traveler]

the atoms in the sphere are not increasing in volume. and unless the sphere is a perfect thermal insulator then the pressure will actually drop.

 

Perfect thermal insulator.

 

 

pressure is not created by resistance, pressure is created by collisions wit hthe walls of the container/object/whatever.

 

The walls are the resistance.

 

you need to change either the temperature or the number of moles if the volume is fixed

 

Change temperature? You mean add or subtract energy from the sphere? The sphere is 100% efficient.

 

in the example given, both would change. even without energy transfer in or out of the sphere.

 

What would change, the number of atoms, or the volume of atoms, or both?

Edited October 10, 2008 by traveler

[DrP]

So all the atoms in the enclosed sphere are increasing in volume, or are they remaining relatively the same volume and more of them are being added, or possibly constantly dividing and growing, like life?

 

Pressure is created by resistance. The only way pressure can change in a fixed volume sphere is if you change the energy in the sphere, no?

 

 

What about the MASSIVE nuclear reations going on which are spewing out matter and energy at a massive rate - you're going to bottle that up and not have a pressure build?

 

What about shaking up some coke and then screwing the top on quickly - the pressure will build for sure. The atoms arn't increasing in volume - your getting phase changes - in the case of the coke - the dissolved gasses come out of solution and gass pressure builds. In the case of the sun - well - all those atoms are emmiting shed loads of radiation particals and energy which would build pressure, no?

[traveler]

What about the MASSIVE nuclear reations going on which are spewing out matter and energy at a massive rate - you're going to bottle that up and not have a pressure build?

 

What about shaking up some coke and then screwing the top on quickly - the pressure will build for sure. The atoms arn't increasing in volume - your getting phase changes - in the case of the coke - the dissolved gasses come out of solution and gass pressure builds. In the case of the sun - well - all those atoms are emmiting shed loads of radiation particals and energy which would build pressure, no?

 

How do you suggest I shake up a coke without adding energy to the system?

[insane_alien]

Perfect thermal insulator.

 

okay then, the pressure will rise untill nuclear reactions cease then it will be steady state.

 

The walls are the resistance.

 

this makes no sense, the walls are a surface. not a resistance.

 

Change temperature? You mean add or subtract energy from the sphere? The sphere is 100% efficient.

 

nope. the energy is already there, it just needs to be changed from potential energy in the nucleus to kinetic energy in molecules and light energy and this will raise the temperature without any additional input of energy or extraction of energy.

 

What would change, the number of atoms, or the volume of atoms, or both?

 

nuclear reactions. particularly fusion. in the sun, you have 4 hydrogen atoms merging into the one helium-4 nucleus. (or 3 into a helium-3 nucleus) this changes the number. there are also other fusion reactions taking place.

[DrP]

How do you suggest I shake up a coke without adding energy to the system?

 

 

It was an analogy - in the case of the sun - it has already been 'shaken up'.

[traveler]

okay then, the pressure will rise untill nuclear reactions cease then it will be steady state.

 

If the pressure rises, something is trying to expand. Does the total overall volume of all the atoms in the sphere remain constant?

 

 

this makes no sense, the walls are a surface. not a resistance.

 

 

Can you hurt your hand punching air?

 

nope. the energy is already there, it just needs to be changed from potential energy in the nucleus to kinetic energy in molecules and light energy and this will raise the temperature without any additional input of energy or extraction of energy.

 

You mean the mass (matter) is there, right?

 

nuclear reactions. particularly fusion. in the sun, you have 4 hydrogen atoms merging into the one helium-4 nucleus. (or 3 into a helium-3 nucleus) this changes the number. there are also other fusion reactions taking place.

 

But is the total volume of all the atoms at any moment in time equal to the total volume of all the atoms a duration later?

[DrP]

 

But is the total volume of all the atoms at any moment in time equal to the total volume of all the atoms a duration later?

 

 

Not if reactions have taken place - not nescessarily.

 

Drop a minto into a coke bottle. The number of molecules atoms etc are the same at T=0 as they are 30 seconds later - but, there is a massive increase in pressure - and thats just a physical reaction, let alone a chemical or a nuclear one.

[big314mp]

But is the total volume of all the atoms at any moment in time equal to the total volume of all the atoms a duration later?

 

Technically no, as the sun is converting mass into energy, the mass in the sphere would slowly drop.

 

The atoms don't get bigger as you are implying though. They just move faster, and therefore hit the walls harder, which creates greater force on the walls, which is known as increased pressure.