0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You are talking about dust particles causing frame dragging. Do you realise how much mass you need for any detectable effect to be present?
Dust and gas is the only 'acceptable' theory in most circles .. Consensus .. but that doesn't make it the only way planets are formed.
These isolated planets are said to be as numerous as stars .. as I said in the post directly above this one, there is no reason why a few or several of these solitary roaming planets could not gravitate towards a star and form a solar system. Exciting stuff .. new frontiers.
Quote from: Alohascope on 26/01/2016 22:40:20These isolated planets are said to be as numerous as stars .. as I said in the post directly above this one, there is no reason why a few or several of these solitary roaming planets could not gravitate towards a star and form a solar system. Exciting stuff .. new frontiers.You are close to my view in a lot of ways. Certainly you could start with blobs of water to end up with any body we look at from stars to comets. That is as viable an avenue as any. and a number of different processes can achieve the same end results.When you say solitary planets can be captured to form a solar system, I have to disagree. Yes the occasional capture will happen here and there, but solar systems as a general rule are created in the same space at the same time as all their components.Also when you say that these free planets are as numerous as stars, I would say they are more numerous than stars. Just like moon sized objects are more numerous than planet sized objects and large asteroid/comet objects are more numerous than moon sized objects and small asteroid/comet more again and gravel even more, etc etc.Only a small percentage of the vortexes get to grow big enough to be stars.
Did read somewhere, but didn't keep the reference, that dust, gravel, etc tends to stick together due to surface molecule attractions (although a lot bounces off) and slowly build up into a sizeable lump, which then has enough mass to attract other lumps etc. I assume that would be enough to get your idea going.
Your partial agreement is encouraging, Flow, as far as the blobs of water goes, but I think you're still stuck on what you learned in school .. the 200 year old Nebular Hypothesis. I know it's difficult to get away from first impressions, but we must if we are to progress in science, progress from the point of primitive observation and rote into the realm of possibility.
--Birth of a Solar System--All compact material bodies form out of clouds of dust and gas.
Quote from: Alohascope on 27/01/2016 22:44:28Your partial agreement is encouraging, Flow, as far as the blobs of water goes, but I think you're still stuck on what you learned in school .. the 200 year old Nebular Hypothesis. I know it's difficult to get away from first impressions, but we must if we are to progress in science, progress from the point of primitive observation and rote into the realm of possibility.I'm not sure what exactly you are pointing to when you say I am stuck in a 200 year old nebular hypothesis.Which part of my proposal doesn't make sense to you?
I read into your response that you thought the new theory may not be possible .. maybe I was wrong in reading that in .. but generally, a person who is stuck on Consensus can't consider new ideas no matter what the idea or evidence is. I agree that the Nebular Hypothesis is possible, probable, and apparently factual .. no problem with that .. but it's not the ONLY way solar systems form.
Quote from: Space Flow on 20 January 2016, 23:25:05 --Birth of a Solar System--All compact material bodies form out of clouds of dust and gas.Just one question - where does the dust and gas originate from?
With the Cosmic Microwave Background found to be simply heat from dust, and with the period of Rapid Inflation being fudge to explain differering ages of stars and universe it is clear that Big Bang is defunct.
Growth of anti-gravity bubbles known as Voids drives the expansion of the universe.
Quote from: Alohascope on 28/01/2016 20:22:44With the Cosmic Microwave Background found to be simply heat from dust, and with the period of Rapid Inflation being fudge to explain differering ages of stars and universe it is clear that Big Bang is defunct.Possibly.... I know that inflation theory as it stands is really hanging on the detection of the predicted gravitational wave effects. They may still be found. Who knows.There are different theories, but observable data is what decides in the end. Maybe we don't need inflation, maybe there's another explanation for why the universe that we see when run backwards ends up in a hot dense state.Maybe what we see as the CMB is really the Big Bang itself. Maybe the Universe didn't start from a point but from a solid volume of 380,000 light year radius, containing all the matter and no space.With no space you can't define density therefore infinite is as good a definition as any but in a finite volume. Who knows?Quote from: Alohascope on 28/01/2016 20:22:44Growth of anti-gravity bubbles known as Voids drives the expansion of the universe.That is just another way to phrase the accepted truth. What you call the consensus.Not a valid vimeo URLHave a look at thisIt will put everything in perspective.
(anti-gravity bubbles)
voids and matter both originated in quantum fluctuations arising from nothing across the space of what became the universe, matter arising from nothing an idea proposed by one of the foremost originators and developers of quantum theory, Pascual Jordan, who because of his Nazi Party sympathies is almost erased from history.