Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Alohascope on 26/01/2016 22:45:07
-
The 'solitary wanderer' planets are said to equal in number the stars .. who is to say a few of or several of those planets cannot gravitate towards a star, forming a new solar system?
http://news.discovery.com/space/lonely-planets-jupiter-solar-systems-110518.htm
-
So how do you think the existing solar system feels about these invaders.
I'm sure that if it can happen then it probably does. However I can see planetary wars ensuing from such interlopers entering a previously balanced system.
I hope there's no life in any of these solar systems you want to throw planets at. Mass extinction very likely as everything would have to reshuffle to accommodate any newcomer. Turbulent times for a while.
In our solar system everything we have been able to analyse seems to have come from one cloud mixture.
No outsiders found "yet".
-
So how do you think the existing solar system feels about these invaders.
I'm sure that if it can happen then it probably does. However I can see planetary wars ensuing from such interlopers entering a previously balanced system.
I hope there's no life in any of these solar systems you want to throw planets at. Mass extinction very likely as everything would have to reshuffle to accommodate any newcomer. Turbulent times for a while.
In our solar system everything we have been able to analyse seems to have come from one cloud mixture.
No outsiders found "yet".
A vast amount of new information (including the latest on Pluto with its saltwater oceans beneath a nitrogen shell) says most or all our solar system was created by the waterballs becoming planets and gravitating towards the sun .. Venus, Earth and Mars were all certainly covered by water at one time in their existence .. probably Mercury also .. there is ample evidence for this on Google. The invaders, yes, one such Mars sized invader is said to have smashed into the earth the resulting collision creating the moon. I won't include a url as you are certainly aware of that theory. The asteroid belt is almost certainly the result of a collision .. asteroids have been found to have magnetic fields and large amounts of water which require them having been part of a large body at one time. While it seems true so far that the geologic composition of many of the planets is similar the waterball theory would provide that same similarity .. but then there is Titan which is vastly different from the other bodies, and what IS Neptune made of? Of course, any such idea is strictly forbidden at most science discussion forums, like APOD's Asterisk and The Science Form where moderators quickly banish anyone guilty of such heresy to their religion of Consensus .. this Naked Scientist forum is an absolute requirement for free discussion. Thank you whoever established this forum .. I am sure science is progressing faster because of it.
-
Alohascope, where I can certainly see that this waterballs hypothesis of formation may have a place in the overall picture of things, I can not agree that it is the only way large dense bodies grow. Yes water is one of the most common elements in the Universe, but space is pretty cold. Water is most common as ice out there.
Also there is too much observational evidence from actually looking at the molecular clouds that are obviously producing solar systems, that other processes are also at work.
Maybe if you open your understanding a little to see that the tapestry of reality is always aimed at complexity.
I like your water balls, they may be a part of the puzzle.
There is more to the whole picture.
-
Alohascope, where I can certainly see that this waterballs hypothesis of formation may have a place in the overall picture of things, I can not agree that it is the only way large dense bodies grow. Yes water is one of the most common elements in the Universe, but space is pretty cold. Water is most common as ice out there.
Also there is too much observational evidence from actually looking at the molecular clouds that are obviously producing solar systems, that other processes are also at work.
Maybe if you open your understanding a little to see that the tapestry of reality is always aimed at complexity.
I like your water balls, they may be a part of the puzzle.
There is more to the whole picture.
My waterball theory is supplemental to Nebular Hypothesis .. not a replacement .. I tried to make that clear in my posts, perhaps I failed, but getting around the Consensus mental establishment is very, very difficult. Supplemental suggestions are seen as replacement theory by most Consensists no matter how clear they are said to be supplemental.
-
My waterball theory is supplemental to Nebular Hypothesis .. not a replacement .. I tried to make that clear in my posts, perhaps I failed, but getting around the Consensus mental establishment is very, very difficult. Supplemental suggestions are seen as replacement theory by most Consensists no matter how clear they are said to be supplemental.
That is all very well but, I got the impression that you included me in that consensus view, for some reason I can't figure out.
-
My waterball theory is supplemental to Nebular Hypothesis .. not a replacement .. I tried to make that clear in my posts, perhaps I failed, but getting around the Consensus mental establishment is very, very difficult. Supplemental suggestions are seen as replacement theory by most Consensists no matter how clear they are said to be supplemental.
That is all very well but, I got the impression that you included me in that consensus view, for some reason I can't figure out.
Just from this sentence, Flow: "Alohascope, where I can certainly see that this waterballs hypothesis of formation may have a place in the overall picture of things, I can not agree that it is the only way large dense bodies grow." Consensists will not see my word 'supplemental,' and as it seems you never saw it either I just assumed you were among the blinded .. but I'm glad you're not. Consensus is a fatal disease.