Are the planets a timeline?

[jamiestem]

Could the planets be a timeline?

 

Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars all are comprised of similar elements and cores. Tiny, hot Mercury, little ball of iron, slowly turning to ash or dirt on Venus, spewing out its fire, condensing and expanding like Earth, until it burns out and dies like Mars

 

Then an asteroid belt. Remnants of an planet breaking apart, perhaps Mars will break apart as it dies, or blow up?

 

Then the asteroid belt begins rolling together and forming a gas giant as elements collide, and eventually rotate to look like Jupiter, as gases fade, rings remain like on Saturn, shrinking, freezing as they reach the cold confines of space.

Shrinking, freezing becoming denser Neptune, Uranus, Pluto......still and rotating out like a top until they fall off the plane as Pluto is doing?

 

Rotating like around a drain, on a plane, like a propellor moving through the wind, all connected somehow?

 

But what would cause all these changes with all these planets?

 

Lemurs idea:

 

2) If the sun ejected planet-sized balls of matter like this once in while, perhaps it would result in a gravity shift in the solar system that would allow the existing planets to re-orient their orbits at further distances. The process could go something like this: sun stretches causing its gravity field to warp and shift the orbits of the planets at which point the stretched out part breaks away from the rest of the sun and the two gravity wells re-spherize at a distance from each other with the new planetoid redistributing the solar gravitation it brought with it in splitting off.

[rktpro]

Have a look at this-Nebula Hypothesis

[lemur]

Lemurs idea:

 

2) If the sun ejected planet-sized balls of matter like this once in while, perhaps it would result in a gravity shift in the solar system that would allow the existing planets to re-orient their orbits at further distances. The process could go something like this: sun stretches causing its gravity field to warp and shift the orbits of the planets at which point the stretched out part breaks away from the rest of the sun and the two gravity wells re-spherize at a distance from each other with the new planetoid redistributing the solar gravitation it brought with it in splitting off.

 

I just threw that out for the sake of discussion on the other thread. I'm actually more interested in the idea that separate(d) gravity-wells, such as those in this solar system, form by coalescing from relatively uniform-density cloud-matter into spatially-divided regions of relatively high density. I don't know if there is astrophysical consensus on any theory/ies, so this is just my pet-hope, but I mention it to avoid people thinking that I'm intentionally spreading my pet-theory as fact or dominant opinion. Basically the reason I like to think along these lines is because I like to think of vacuum space as deepening fissures that form like canyons between plateaus as rivers cut increasingly deeper valleys. Maybe you find it a stretch to analogize decreasing density within a cloud to a deepening riverbed, carved by flowing water, but they are similar processes in that the gravitational differential increases as the altitude difference grows between the river and the land it cuts through. If you look at an extreme example like the Colorado river cutting through the Grand Canyon, it may be easier to imagine how vast the altitude gap can grow through time. Then, if you consider two planets as plateaus with infinite possibilities of "falling" in any direction forever while traversing the gap between them, this would be an even more extreme example, although it's somewhat flawed considering that gravity increases with altitude-loss above sea-level, while it decreases as you move farther away from nearby gravity-wells. Anyway, I'm going into too much depth here since the only relation to the OP is that you mentioned my idea from the other thread about how planets could emerge from the sun.

 

To respond to the OP, though, I don't see why you couldn't just as easily hypothesize that the planets are in a reverse timeline where mercury is the oldest and Neptune the youngest. In that case, maybe gas collects into large balls and, as a result begins to attract toward the sun. As it slowly spirals inward, it collects increasing deposits of other matter that fall into it, which causes it to form a (larger) rocky core. As the (increasingly dense) core creates a tighter gravitational gradient from the center, it could (I think) cause a rift between the gravity of the large gas atmosphere and that of the suspended core. This could, I think, create a relative vacuum between the core and upper atmosphere that could generate turbulence (maybe this would explain Jupiter's storm). As the storm(s) grows more turbulent, maybe this would cause more and more gas from the upper atmosphere to be flung to altitudes where it would drift away, eventually leaving the rocky core exposed to take its place with whatever other planets have yet to spiral into the sun.

 

This is just a counter-hypothesis to show that such theories can be formulated in numerous conflicting ways. What well-reasoned bases do you have for considering the timeline of planets to be from the inside outward?

[lemur]

double-post. please delete.

Edited April 1, 2011 by lemur

[jamiestem]

Well,

 

We are spinning away from the sun, not into it. When an orbit intersects close enough with the sun, it builds mass off of the sun until it pops off, that's where I'm at now.

 

Why?

 

Eventually something has to intersect with the sun, why not a white dwarf.

 

Do we understand the core of our planet? No.

 

Perhaps we are a white dwarf with a plasma coating. Maybe all planets have a white dwarf in the middle of them?

 

I really think the video pretty much explains it. That without the supernova.

[losfomot]

Well,

 

We are spinning away from the sun, not into it. When an orbit intersects close enough with the sun, it builds mass off of the sun until it pops off, that's where I'm at now.

 

Why?

 

Eventually something has to intersect with the sun, why not a white dwarf.

 

Do we understand the core of our planet? No.

 

Perhaps we are a white dwarf with a plasma coating. Maybe all planets have a white dwarf in the middle of them?

 

I really think the video pretty much explains it. That without the supernova.

 

The Earth is not a white dwarf star... and all planets do not have a white dwarf inside of them. Read up on white dwarfs.

[Ophiolite]

Could the planets be a timeline?

A substantial body of evidence and well rehearsed current theory point to the planets all having formed within a few million years of each other.

 

Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars all are comprised of similar elements and cores. Tiny, hot Mercury, little ball of iron, slowly turning to ash or dirt on Venus, spewing out its fire, condensing and expanding like Earth, until it burns out and dies like Mars

How do you account for the diverse sizes. If there is an evolutionary sequence, why is Venus the same size as the Earth? How come Mars is smaller? How do you explain the moon?

 

Then an asteroid belt. Remnants of an planet breaking apart, perhaps Mars will break apart as it dies, or blow up?

The total mass of asteroids in the asteroid belt is only sufficent to make a body considerably smaller than the moon, not by any stretch of the imagination a whole planet.

 

 

Then the asteroid belt begins rolling together and forming a gas giant as elements collide, and eventually rotate to look like Jupiter, as gases fade, rings remain like on Saturn, shrinking, freezing as they reach the cold confines of space.

as above.

 

 

Then you just get silly. Wouldn't it be worth investing the time to learn something about where the evidence for the origin of the solar system actually points?

[ewmon]

I think the radiant and gravitational energy of the sun working through the inverse-square law results in some of the characteristics that seem related to the plants' distance from the sun. Instead of a timeline, I think we're seeing the function of influence.

[jamiestem]

I'm saying the core of the earth is a white dwarf, covered with plasma from the sun. I'm not saying we are a white dwarf, I know what a white dwarf is. Do we know what the core of the earth really is?

 

No, we don't, it's more of a mystery than space.

 

Think outside the box people.

 

The sun can give birth to planets in any solar system at any time. TRUE

 

The sun could explode. TRUE

 

The earth could have a white dwarf at it's center. TRUE

 

The planets could all be in the same line because we are a fan spinning with the sun in the middle. TRUE

 

I could have a higher IQ than everyone on here and no one would ever know. TRUE

 

Just going about assuming that we completely understand the solar system is a large part of the scientific communities problem.

[Bignose]

I'm saying the core of the earth is a white dwarf, covered with plasma from the sun. I'm not saying we are a white dwarf, I know what a white dwarf is. Do we know what the core of the earth really is?

 

we have a pretty good idea: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html

 

Again, people have studied this question for quite some time. Before just throwing out an idea, and posting it to the forum, may I suggest you do a little research? In this case, the link above was the very first Google link. There are many more. Including references to scientific papers. Given what we know about the core of the Earth, it is very very very highly unlikely that it is a white dwarf.

[Spyman]

The earth could have a white dwarf at it's center. TRUE

A more massive body have stronger gravity than a less massive. TRUE

 

Gravity is weaker at greater and stronger at closer distance. TRUE

 

White Dwarfs are much much much much more massive than Earth. TRUE

 

The huge surface gravity of White Dwarfs would crush humans. TRUE

 

Humans can and occasionally do walk on the surface of Earth. TRUE

 

Logical Conclusion:

 

The possibility of Earth having a White Dwarf inside is FALSE.

[Edtharan]

I'm saying the core of the earth is a white dwarf, covered with plasma from the sun. I'm not saying we are a white dwarf, I know what a white dwarf is. Do we know what the core of the earth really is?

 

No, we don't, it's more of a mystery than space.

We have a pretty good idea what the internals of the Earth are, this is because of listening to Earthquakes.

 

Have you haver been for an Ultrasound medical check up? This uses sound waves that travel through your body and bounce off the various organs. The differences between your organs in your body (mass, density, water content, etc) effect the sound waves form the ultrasound and these changes are picked up and translated into the images you see on the screen.

 

It is much the same with the Earth and Earthquakes. Earthquakes set off vibrations that travel through the Earth. These are just the same as sound waves in an ultrasound, only at a much lower frequency. Seismometers pick up up the resulting vibrations and record them. From these we can see the way that the various materials inside the Earth change the waves, just like in the medical ultrasound.

 

From the changes we can look at the mass, density and other properties that caused the vibrations to change and tell what they are.

 

From this we know that the core of the Earth is mostly an Iron-Nickel solid, surrounded by a liquid iron-nickel outer core, which is then surrounded by the lower mantle made from silicate rocks and the upper mantle also made from silicate rocks (but the pressure is low enough to make them much more ductile) and then finally the crust.

 

Of course, seismic surveys are not the only source of that has been used to determine the structure of the Earth's interior and there is a lot of data that has been collated to determine this.

 

Now, a white dwarf or brown dwarf would consist mainly of hydrogen, not Iron, nickel or silica. The only way these are produced is in very violent and destructive stellar explosions (like supernova). We know this because of the physics. When you create heavier elements from lighter elements (called fusion), at first it releases energy, but the more massive the resulting element the less energy it produces, eventually getting to the point where it takes energy to fuse atoms together and you don't get any energy out of it but loose energy to the process.

 

Actually if you do the reverse to these heavier elements, called fission, this will release energy and this is the source of the energy in a nuclear bomb or nuclear power plant.

[Ophiolite]

jamiestem, you ignored my last set of questions. I hope you will take the time to reply to these?

I'm saying the core of the earth is a white dwarf, covered with plasma from the sun. I'm not saying we are a white dwarf, I know what a white dwarf is. Do we know what the core of the earth really is?

Spyman has adequately demonstrated why your notion of a white dwarf at the core of the planet is wrong. What, if anything, do you find flawed in his argument?

Do we know what the core of the Earth really is? We have a very good idea based upon two separate lines of evidence: seismology tells us what the properties of the materials must be, while laboratory experiments can reveal what materials will have those properties; awareness of the composition of the material from which the planets formed confirms what we suspected. What is it in these vast arrays of interlocking and supporting information do you find improbable?

 

Think outside the box people.

To think outside the box productively you must know the size and shape of the box and have a good understanding of its contents. You do not have these attributes at present. You have a vivid imagination, but unless you channel it withint the set of possibilities you will squander that resource.

 

Just going about assuming that we completely understand the solar system is a large part of the scientific communities problem.

jamies, really! This is purest nonsense. If the scientific community thought they fully understood the solar system why would thousands of scientists be engaged in researching it?