I mean, with the nebular hypothesis being false, and the fissioning process being unreasonable and the God theory being unfalsifiable... there's just an inescapable conclusion! What we view on a clear night sky simply have to be young, hot planets
Yes nebular hypothesis has been falsified.
But we see some evidence of fissioning of gas giants from stars. And just the abundance of moons around Saturn and Jupiter would suggest fissioning from them.
I will have to agree with Sparky here, Jeffrey. How do you take into account hot Jupiters, for example? How could 200+ moons between all of the known planets in our system migrate from outside of our system? Most of these structures were more than likely created here. Some probably did wander into our system from other stars but many were made here. If you remove the core accretion theory then fissioning is on the table.
The Sun is the object that is carrying the most momentum and gravitational pull. It's the Sun that is dragging the other objects. Problem solved. Our solar system is in actuality a spiral.
All the objects in our system were adopted as the Sun was moving about the galaxy.
Even Mr. Haramein gets to have his time in the spotlight!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Anymore brain busters?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote:
I mean, with the nebular hypothesis being false, and the fissioning process being unreasonable and the God theory being unfalsifiable... there's just an inescapable conclusion! What we view on a clear night sky simply have to be young, hot planets
Yes nebular hypothesis has been falsified.
But we see some evidence of fissioning of gas giants from stars. And just the abundance of moons around Saturn and Jupiter would suggest fissioning from them.
I will have to agree with Sparky here, Jeffrey. How do you take into account hot Jupiters, for example? How could 200+ moons between all of the known planets in our system migrate from outside of our system? Most of these structures were more than likely created here. Some probably did wander into our system from other stars but many were made here. If you remove the core accretion theory then fissioning is on the table.
The Sun is the object that is carrying the most momentum and gravitational pull. It's the Sun that is dragging the other objects. Problem solved. Our solar system is in actuality a spiral.
All the objects in our system were adopted as the Sun was moving about the galaxy.
Even Mr. Haramein gets to have his time in the spotlight!
Yes I'm aware of the spiraling nature of solar systems. But how does that solve the problem?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Yes I'm aware of the spiraling nature of solar systems. But how does that solve the problem?
Well, if there is to be "solar system" formation you absolutely must follow which direction the Sun is travelling. Wherever the Sun goes, the other objects go. If the Sun does a drive by of a large Jupiter sized object then better be damn sure its going to adopt it.
The Sun adopted all the objects in our system as it moved about the galaxy. This meaning they all came from somewhere else.
Think of a tank with a bunch of hooks on it driving through a junk yard. Its gonna start dragging some objects that get close enough to it. Same with the Sun. The Sun is dragging all the other objects with it through the solar system.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Yes I'm aware of the spiraling nature of solar systems. But how does that solve the problem?
Well, if there is to be "solar system" formation you absolutely must follow which direction the Sun is travelling. Wherever the Sun goes, the other objects go. If the Sun does a drive by of a large Jupiter sized object then better be damn sure its going to adopt it.
The Sun adopted all the objects in our system as it moved about the galaxy. This meaning they all came from somewhere else.
It did? Absolutely ALL solar system bodies are from elsewhere? None were created locally?
JeffreyW wrote: Think of a tank with a bunch of hooks on it driving through a junk yard. Its gonna start dragging some objects that get close enough to it. Same with the Sun. The Sun is dragging all the other objects with it through the solar system.
I think that is viable. It clearly does do this. But how much of our solar system is adopted this way?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Plus, if the fissioning hypo is to be viable, then it needs to explain how the objects lost their angular momentum from being born "from the Sun" to begin with. This is the EXACT same problem the nebular hypothesis has, where did the angular momentum go?
If the Sun birthed the other stars, then it should be spinning incredibly rapidly, but its not.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
It did? Absolutely ALL solar system bodies are from elsewhere? None were created locally?
Well, in this theory all solar system bodies were created elsewhere. The only objects which have definite age are the ones which are individual structures.
Earth is a few billion years old, the sun is many millions of years old.
They do orbit each other, but the orbit's age itself would determine on the younger body, because the older body could have been orbiting a different object in the past.
Think: Madonna dating men well below her own age... Earth is orbiting this hot young star, Earth is Madonna. She orbited other hotter stars in the past when she was younger, and at one time, she had other older stars orbiting her.
This is also why the fissioning idea is so strange to me as well. How would a younger body eject an older one? If anything it would be the older one ejecting the younger one, but then it gets really confusing because how would the Earth eject the Sun?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Making the choice of the most implausible mechanism for the assembly of the solar system is more an act of superstition, by way of ignorance. The sun did not drag planets or stars here by gravity attraction. The tremendous distances between stars makes it most unlikely that gravity could account for stars collecting in a system.
If there is a question of angular momentum not adding up, then why invent a whole new paradigm to explain it. Again, ignorance and fanciful imagination, coupled with an ego that needs feeding. With the electrical interactions between the sun and it's satellites, we only need to consider more than gravity and angular momentum.
What evidence is there? We see close associations of gas giants and stars. We see close associations of multiple satellites around gas giants. We measure the electrical activity of the gas giants and their satellites!
Assuming the age of a planet or star is absurd. Collecting soil samples from the planets should show that they have similarities. But, since they birthed at different times when the gas giants were highly stressed, we see that the most active planets are probably the youngest. If the EU perspective is generally dismissed, as do the standard theorists, and JW, they ignore knowledge and observations. Relying instead upon perverted rationalizing with myopic vision toward ignorance.
Saturn's history indicates that It was very active not too long ago..What do the theorists believe of history and myths? If only those were considered, one would come to the conclusion that something beyond our experience was seen. And the simplest explanation is that the planets were active and our solar system was different.
No, the sun did not collect and drag stars here to become planets! It is speculated that galaxies can collide and not produce collisions between stars and planets. The distances are so great!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: If the Sun birthed the other stars, then it should be spinning incredibly rapidly...
Why?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
It did? Absolutely ALL solar system bodies are from elsewhere? None were created locally?
Well, in this theory all solar system bodies were created elsewhere. The only objects which have definite age are the ones which are individual structures.
Earth is a few billion years old, the sun is many millions of years old.
They do orbit each other, but the orbit's age itself would determine on the younger body, because the older body could have been orbiting a different object in the past.
Think: Madonna dating men well below her own age... Earth is orbiting this hot young star, Earth is Madonna. She orbited other hotter stars in the past when she was younger, and at one time, she had other older stars orbiting her.
This is also why the fissioning idea is so strange to me as well. How would a younger body eject an older one? If anything it would be the older one ejecting the younger one, but then it gets really confusing because how would the Earth eject the Sun?
Oh yes I see that now. Good analogy. Your idea is incompatible with EU ultimately. This is why you are rebutted here in earnest for pages and pages. I can see the Sun being a giant vacuum cleaner picking up older Cougars or MILFs.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: If the Sun birthed the other stars, then it should be spinning incredibly rapidly...
Why?
To give the other stars enough momentum to escape the gravitational pull of the Sun.
What EU people don't realize is that the fissioning process IS the original nebular hypothesis. The nebular hypothesis was the idea that a mass of the Sun was ejected and then clumped together back into another object again (core accretion) which then started orbiting the Sun.
But core accretion is just as strange as the neb hypo itself.
The people think that matter just clumps together because of gravity, but there is no object to give the planet direction to "accrete" into. Core accretion like the nebular hypo is a hurricane with no air.
Core accretion theory states that objects can clump and heat together absent:
1. a gravitational field (the gravitational pull of pebbles to pebbles is near non-existent) 2. a heat source (outer space is a vacuum, where is this heat generated to melt iron together into the "core" if there is NO AIR? Is there an invisible blow torch that is heating these cores into giant planets?) 3. pressure (outer space is a vacuum), which is why there is no air to heat the material, or anything!
The basic problems of core accretion theory of the nebular hypo and fissioning idea can be solved by accretion INSIDE of the star, the star provides:
1. A gravitational field 2. A heat source 3. Pressure
Whereas in outer space:
1. no gravitational field 2. no heat source 3. no pressure
It's simple really, the star is the gravitationally collapsing nebula cloud that is accreting the "planet" in its center. In other words, the star forms a single solid rock in its center like a giant pearl. Only, once the pearl is formed, the outer shells dissipate slowly and start exposing the fully formed core of the star, given it starts cooling down enough it will start hosting life. Life itself is more than likely the end result of a single star's evolution.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: If the Sun birthed the other stars, then it should be spinning incredibly rapidly...
Why?
To give the other stars enough momentum to escape the gravitational pull of the Sun.
What EU people don't realize is that the fissioning process IS the original nebular hypothesis. The nebular hypothesis was the idea that a mass of the Sun was ejected and then clumped together back into another object again (core accretion) which then started orbiting the Sun.
But core accretion is just as strange as the neb hypo itself.
The people think that matter just clumps together because of gravity, but there is no object to give the planet direction to "accrete" into. Core accretion like the nebular hypo is a hurricane with no air.
Core accretion theory states that objects can clump and heat together absent:
1. a gravitational field (the gravitational pull of pebbles to pebbles is near non-existent) 2. a heat source (outer space is a vacuum, where is this heat generated to melt iron together into the "core" if there is NO AIR? Is there an invisible blow torch that is heating these cores into giant planets?) 3. pressure (outer space is a vacuum), which is why there is no air to heat the material, or anything!
The basic problems of core accretion theory of the nebular hypo and fissioning idea can be solved by accretion INSIDE of the star, the star provides:
1. A gravitational field 2. A heat source 3. Pressure
Whereas in outer space:
1. no gravitational field 2. no heat source 3. no pressure
It's simple really, the star is the gravitationally collapsing nebula cloud that is accreting the "planet" in its center. In other words, the star forms a single solid rock in its center like a giant pearl. Only, once the pearl is formed, the outer shells dissipate slowly and start exposing the fully formed core of the star, given it starts cooling down enough it will start hosting life. Life itself is more than likely the end result of a single star's evolution.
Ok but again, given all of that, how does the star rotate at all then? You mention it is birthed in a z-pinch, a la, EU theory. I see how the lack of angular momentum may disallow something to get flung off the fissioning star. But what if this isn't necessary?
Michael Anteski
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The theoretic questions raised about the accretion of planetary cores considered it from the usual theoretic overview of quantum theory.
It is worth noting that planetary cores contain not just iron but nickel and a consistent combination of the two is worth noting. It would seem to indicate that a magnetic type process is at work, with iron's ferromagnetism being combined with some (yet undefined) electromagnetic property of the nickel atom to enhance the accretion, in the very earliest formative stages of planets.
Cosmic physics should be viewed in a different light than earthbound quantum theory. I suggest space processes involve an aether and different mechanisms than we detect from our earthbound quantum setting.
Michael Anteski
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
(In the immediately preceding Post, I failed to correlate the planetary core accretion model with the Thread's focus on theories of stellar core accretion.)
I believe the core accretion of planets would involve similar cosmic mechanisms as stellar core accretion. -At least the two different bodies form in the same cosmic setting. There may be an enlightening connection between the two by noting certain features of one and examining the other in that light.
Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Yes I'm aware of the spiraling nature of solar systems. But how does that solve the problem?
Well, if there is to be "solar system" formation you absolutely must follow which direction the Sun is travelling. Wherever the Sun goes, the other objects go. If the Sun does a drive by of a large Jupiter sized object then better be damn sure its going to adopt it.
The Sun adopted all the objects in our system as it moved about the galaxy. This meaning they all came from somewhere else.
Think of a tank with a bunch of hooks on it driving through a junk yard. Its gonna start dragging some objects that get close enough to it. Same with the Sun. The Sun is dragging all the other objects with it through the solar system.
Wow. Then that's an amazing feat for the gas giants to capture 160+ suns/planets/moons between them while the sun at 700 times the mass has only collected 9. Also, any object passing through the system will be significantly attracted to the sun, but to get "caught" by one of the gas giants it would need to pass close by at the correct velocity for that particular stable orbit otherwise it would bounce off or impact. Like I said, amazing feats.
