Asteroids of the Asteroid Belt

[Mordred]

I can't recall if that aspect is covered under Nebular theory. I'd have to check on that. Nebulae theory being the most popular planetetary formation theories. I'll dig up some papers on density waves later on

 

It's been a while since I last studied planetary formation theories.

One other aspect currently on the table is differential Linblad torques.

 

Protoplanetary Disk Resonances and Type I Migration.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4069

 

I've seen several papers on this aspect. Usually with migration theory.

 

(Key note I am providing key word searches when I name a theory) a good researcher can dig from those.

( Now here is a home experiment to help) take a large bowl of water. The add semi buoyant particles of varying mass. Add an impellar, slowly turn. Note the distribution of those particles (including mass.)

 

The mathematics describing this distribution is density wave theory.

 

I should add it's also a key aspect in spiral galaxy formation. (There are several aspects and adaptation models )

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1996.tb02037.x/pdf

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103583711711

Now another key theory is disk-planet interaction theory. Here

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjtksblgujKAhUM_mMKHelODeAQFggeMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1203.1184&usg=AFQjCNHrgn8KXCOGo8BusKjddMj5jTk0mw

 

 

for the mathematical side, the key math to focus on is hydrodynamic fluids and naturally gravity.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

I have had a clear answer by PM (thanks). Swansont was just asking a question AFAIK.

To be clear, I was citing policy.

[Mordred]

Forgot to stress the hydrodynamic aspect.

 

For example Google " nebula hydrodynamics". You will find a good collection of articles and related formulas.

 

Those should take you from an isothermal sphere to protoplanetary disk, to density wave.

 

In those articles look for key terminology. Write them down then study each separately (including formulas).

 

That's how you develop your research and tools to model build.

 

Just like programming break complex operations down into manageable portions.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

To add to swansont's comment, Robittybob1, what I told you via PM was that you are welcome to outline your ideas in your own thread if and only if you were to do so in accordance with the rules of the Speculations forum. Please review these if you are unsure of them.

[Robittybob1]

To be clear, I was citing policy.

Well I read the section on the policy on speculations and I'll do my best, but I realise it is an extremely difficult task for the set of ideas I'm proposing seem to be continually the opposite to the generally accepted ones.

 

"1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure."

 

As I have tried to explain I will be relying on NASA images or other images that show protoplanetary dust disks interpreted in light of the speculation.

New work that appears from time to time will also be used, e.g. new ideas to explain water worlds close into parent stars.

I will attempt rudimentary math to assist. Especially mass coming and going. All ideas must be scientific and accepted physics must apply.

 

"2. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either."

 

I will be civil but I know the idea will be treated as wrong and could generate insults directed toward myself.

 

"3. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory."

 

True and remember that Rob!

Edited February 8, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

Also http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

[Robittybob1]

Also http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

They are similar to the above previously discussed but there are some interesting bolded sections:

"you need to back up your position and will be expected to do so." I intend to.

"How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" I've covered that.

"Present an abstract — a distillation of your idea first. Get into the details afterwards. It has to be posted here, though. Simply linking to an outside site for text or video is not sufficient, and against the rules."

 

That is a good idea.

 

"It's a good idea to explain what new ground you're covering if it's a new hypothesis, what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve? If it's a critique, clearly explain the alleged shortcoming(s) of the existing theory."

 

I must do that too.

 

"You can't ignore criticism of your idea." -

 

No I won't ignore criticism.

 

I see there is no insistence (no bolded portion) for a model or for math in those guidelines.

[swansont]

OK, then. Stop telling us what you're going to do, and do it.

[Robittybob1]

My objective:

Is it possible to prove that the Asteroid Belt is a failed planet build and that the timing of the initial failure coincides with the violent thermonuclear effects resulting from the Sun commencing the fusion process?

This question remains the crucial idea necessary to build a hypothesis that allows the 4 terrestrial planets of the Solar System to form prior to this same event, the one which disrupted the formation of Ceres (assuming Ceres was going to be the largest and final planet of the Asteroid Belt region).

I will then look at the possible consequences of planet formation in the late protosun phase of the nebula contraction.

[Ophiolite]

Bob, this entire discussion about your idea seems to me to be off topic. Why don't you just open the thread in Speculations and start to present your case. If you are not yet ready for that please remain silent about it until you are.

 

There is no need to reply to this suggestion. Just start the ******** thread.

[Robittybob1]

Bob, this entire discussion about your idea seems to me to be off topic. Why don't you just open the thread in Speculations and start to present your case. If you are not yet ready for that please remain silent about it until you are.

 

There is no need to reply to this suggestion. Just start the ******** thread.

I've pass the question on to the moderators and they can decide.

[Ophiolite]

Which part of the sentence "There is no need to reply to this suggestion." did you not understand?

 

Do you have any idea how frustrating your ongoing refusal or inability to read what people say is?

 

Please do not respond to these questions in this thread. They were rhetorical. However, if you feel compelled to dig the hole even deeper you can pm me.

[swansont]

Bob, this entire discussion about your idea seems to me to be off topic. Why don't you just open the thread in Speculations and start to present your case. If you are not yet ready for that please remain silent about it until you are.

 

There is no need to reply to this suggestion. Just start the ******** thread.

 

!

Moderator Note

This thread is already in speculations, and it was started by Rb1, so this suggestion would seem to be moot.