[OokieWonderslug (OP)]

We notice other stars have qas giants close in to their stars. What if we had two of them close in our solar system? Mercury would be the core of the now evaporated gas giant. And Venus would have been one of it's moons. Our moon too was gas giant very early in the solar system with Earth being one of it's moons.

I'm sure there are holes in this idea big enough to drive a truck through. What are they?

[Kryptid]

Please keep new theories in the "New Theories" section.

What process could have eroded a gas giant down to the size of the Moon without also eroding away its satellites (the Earth, in this case)?

[evan_au]

Our moon too was gas giant very early in the solar system with Earth being one of it's moons.

The conventional theory of Solar System growth posits that the inner planets are rocky, because the heat of the Sun drove out all or most of the volatiles from the protoplanetary disk (especially hydrogen and helium)
- The gas giants formed further out (hydrogen and helium make up most of the atmosphere of the gas giants).
- I don't see a reason to revise that view of our Solar System based on findings with exoplanets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Formation_of_the_planets

What surprised early exoplanet hunters were the presence of many gas giants ("Hot Jupiters") close to the star
- Among astronomers, opinions are mixed about whether hot Jupiters formed there, or migrated inwards (or a combination).
- Migration inwards is possible by ejecting other planets out of the planetary system (thus conserving angular momentum)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter#Formation_and_evolution

Astronomers think that our planets may have shuffled around a bit in the past. But the presence of the asteroid belt means that there is no single, large planet that can be ejected from the Solar System, which would enable Jupiter to move further inwards to eject Mars & Earth too.

Note that Hot Jupiters are very easy to spot with:
- The Doppler Wobble method: A large planet, close in, produces a large Doppler shift with a short period
- The Transit method: The orbital period is short, so you can see 3 transits with just a few weeks of observing

Planetary systems like the Solar System are much harder to spot:
- The low mass of Earth means a small Doppler shift, and a small percentage of starlight blocked
- The year-long orbit of Earth means that you need 3-4 years observing the same star continually to spot 3 transits; and at least 2 years to reliably detect periodicity in the Doppler shift
- The great distance of our "cold" Jupiter, and its 12-year orbit means you need to be watching for 24-48 years to spot it.

[puppypower]

I have different theory for the formation of the solar system. This involves a different mechanism for the dynamics of the sun's core. On earth, evidence supports the theory that the earth's core is composed of mostly iron that came to the earth from asteroids. The iron hit the earth and sunk to the core because of its weight and density.

In the case of the sun, the heaviest atoms, like iron, will not sink all the way to the sun's core. The reason is the heat of the solar core will ionize atoms, with the smallest atoms easier to fully ionize compared to the heavier. The inner electrons of the heaver atoms, that are not ionized, would make this material less dense than the fully ionized materials.

Density is defined mass/volume with the volume of the heaver atoms being defined by some inner orbital electrons. A fully ionized smaller atom like oxygen, has a volume based on the size of the nucleus, without elections. This makes it denser. The light weight atoms will sink under extreme heat and pressure. This assures the lightest and more energetic materials burn first.

The analogy for this density inversion affect; earth to sun, is a steel hull ship. A piece of steel or iron will sink in water since it is so much denser. However, if we fabricate the steel into a bowl shape, the iron bowl can now float on the water. The hull adds volume to the heavier mass, relative to the water, which now makes the hull iron lighter than water.

The core of the sun should be surrounded by a shell of heavy atoms that float above a fully ionize light atom core.  These heaver atoms can sink only so far, but too fluffy to sink all the way in the world of full ionization.  If the core was to run out of fuel and cool, the cooling will add elections to the atoms in the shell and makes the shell even fluffier, so fuel can diffuse inward, easier. If the core gets too hot, this ionizes the shell more and makes it denser, to help cut off excessive fuel diffusion. This is how stars regulate runaway fusion.

The shell not only helps to regulate the rate of fusion, it also allows the sun to make heavier atoms than expected. If the fusion core was to heat up quickly, due to a fuel surge, and the shells starts to get denser, from the heat, we get high energy core materials pounding off the inside of the shell allowing higher level fusion. This is what I like to call fusion hammer. Again, the priority of density in the shell, with  lighter and moderate, closer to the core, allows for efficient fusion sequence.

As time goes on and the shell gets thicker and thicker due to the accumulating heaver materials, the hydrogen fuel beyond the shell,, gets more and more diffusion rate limiting to the core. This causes the core to cool, while the thicker shell still limiting the rate of diffusion. At a certain lowered shell density, due to cooling and adding excessive elections, here is a sudden fuel surge that will clean the pipes.

This cleaning of the pipes results in solar system materials being expelled. The heavier materials stay closer to the sun. The earth was once was part of an old thick fusion shell, as well as other entrained materials. The sun then reformed for a second life.



 

[Bored chemist]

The inner electrons of the heaver atoms, that are not ionized, would make this material less dense than the fully ionized materials.

That makes no sense.

the volume of the heaver atoms being defined by some inner orbital electrons. A fully ionized smaller atom like oxygen, has a volume based on the size of the nucleus, without elections. This makes it denser. The light weight atoms will sink under extreme heat and pressure. This assures the lightest and more energetic materials burn first.

Nor does that.

Your whole idea is wrong, the sun is mixed up by convection currents.
The spectrum of light from it proves the presence of both iron and hydrogen at the surface.

I have different theory for the formation of the solar system.

You don't even seem to know what the word "theory" means.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[OokieWonderslug (OP)]

My idea came from reading that there were stars that had been actively stripping off "hot jupiter" type planets of their atmosphere. And then seeing Mercury with no atmosphere and too much iron. I got to thinking that might have happened here. Seeing Our gas giants having large rocky moons with lots of water.  And knowing that few if any Earth sized planets have yet to be found. It made me think there could be a correlation. Unfortunately the state of our stellar system that far back is completely unknowable.  We know the sequence of events but no details.

[puppypower]

The inner electrons of the heaver atoms, that are not ionized, would make this material less dense than the fully ionized materials.

That makes no sense.

the volume of the heaver atoms being defined by some inner orbital electrons. A fully ionized smaller atom like oxygen, has a volume based on the size of the nucleus, without elections. This makes it denser. The light weight atoms will sink under extreme heat and pressure. This assures the lightest and more energetic materials burn first.

Nor does that.

Your whole idea is wrong, the sun is mixed up by convection currents.
The spectrum of light from it proves the presence of both iron and hydrogen at the surface.

I have different theory for the formation of the solar system.

You don't even seem to know what the word "theory" means.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This is not about science PC, but about applying principles of science.

Density is mass/volume. On the surface of the earth all the atoms will have outer elections making the volume based on the electron cloud size. This is about 10^-10 meters. The heavier the nucleus is, the denser it will be based on that average volume.

When we talk about the sun, atoms become ionized and there are no molecules. Even on th surface we have plasma. Volume for the smallest atoms closer to the core become associated with the nucleus size, since there are no permeant atomic electrons to fluff space. Higher atoms like iron will also ionize inside the sun, but not all the way to no elections. Iron will retain a few inner elections and become fluffier than say fully ionize oxygen. Density is mass/volume. Do the math!

There is iron on the surface as well as near the core of the sun. The fusion core shell can limit hydrogen diffusion causing the core to cool. This cooling adds electrons to the shell making it fluffier. Now the hydrogen fuel enter easier, and there is a fusion energy surge. This usually causes a solar flare. Iron is entrained by the solar flair, but most works it way back to the shell, At the surface the iron becomes denser on a relative scale, as most atoms gain some elections. 

[Kryptid]

I have different theory for the formation of the solar system.

Then start your own thread about it. Please don't hijack other member's threads.

In regards to Mercury having previously been a gas giant, there is an article about this from Astronomy.com: https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2010/07/with-many-new-planet-discoveries-being-hot-jupiters-is-it-possible-that-mercury-is-the-leftover-core-of-a-gas-giant

Unfortunately, the majority of the article is behind a paywall.