Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The nebular hypothesis is dead

  1. #1 The nebular hypothesis is dead 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    Now, a new data from mission Genesis NASA may have flunked the nebular hypothesis completely. NASA's 2004 Genesis mission was able to capture samples of solar wind containing debris from the outer layer of the sun. Researchers used the data to analyze oxygen concentrations between the sun, earth, moon, and meteorites, including meteorites from Mars.
    They concluded that "our results demonstrate that the Sun is highly enriched in O-16 relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. Of all oxygen's isotopes, O-16 is the most common. Lead author Kevin McKeegan from UCLA told Space Daily, "The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun—just how and why remains to be discovered."
    The bottom line is that the sun is "highly enriched" in oxygen, and astronomers have no idea why. And it's hard for an investigator to "discover" the past when he or she is unwilling to follow the forensic clues wherever they may lead, even if they lead to a purpose-minded designer.
    So, the nebular hypothesis is dead.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by KrupS View Post
    even if they lead to a purpose-minded designer.So, the nebular hypothesis is dead.
    Surely this belongs in the Comedy/Pseudo-science section?..


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by rustypup View Post
    Surely this belongs in the Comedy/Pseudo-science section?..
    And that is a generous assessment!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    According to the nebular hypothesis protoplanetary disk must be completely homogeneous. But the spontaneous separation of isotopes as ridiculous as the spontaneous overflow of heat from a colder body to a hot one.

    Therefore, the solar system could not emerge from Kant's gas-dust disk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    We have moved on considerably from Kant's day. There is no requirement that the protoplanetary disk be homogenous. Indeed the influences of temperature gradients, differing histories of infalling materials, condensation patterns and the activity of the proto sun would all tend to create compositional variations throughout the disk. The authors of the study say as much in their abstract. (I have highlighted the relevant portion.)

    McKeegan et al "The Oxygen Isotopic Composition of the Sun Inferred from Captured Solar Wind" Science 24 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6037 pp. 1528-1532
    All planetary materials sampled thus far vary in their relative abundance of the major isotope of oxygen, 16O, such that it has not been possible to define a primordial solar system composition. We measured the oxygen isotopic composition of solar wind captured and returned to Earth by NASA’s Genesis mission. Our results demonstrate that the Sun is highly enriched in 16O relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. Because the solar photosphere preserves the average isotopic composition of the solar system for elements heavier than lithium, we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in 17O and 18O, relative to 16O, by ~7%, probably via non–mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals.

    The article you have quoted from, in typical journalistic style, overemphasises the significance of the finding. A difference in isotope ratios between the sun and debris will likely be readily accounted for by interesting, but not fundamentally different, detailed mechanisms influencing the accretion disc. This finding is a step to a more detailed understanding of how the nebular hypothesis works, not a nail in its coffin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10
    Consider formation of a proto-planetary disk around a moving (gaseous) body, like sun. It will not work and so does nebular hypothesis a non-working assumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by matterdoc View Post
    Consider formation of a proto-planetary disk around a moving (gaseous) body, like sun. It will not work and so does nebular hypothesis a non-working assumption.
    El wrongo. The sun formed from the same proto stellar disk. What doesn't get absorbed by the sun is what remains as the proto-planetary disk.

    I assume you've never done any actual research on the subject, as none shows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by matterdoc View Post
    Consider formation of a proto-planetary disk around a moving (gaseous) body, like sun. It will not work and so does nebular hypothesis a non-working assumption.
    Please explain, in all necessay detail, why you think it will not work. what do you think is significant about the fact that the disk and the proto-star are both moving? What do you think is significant about the gaseous composition of the star, versus the gaseous, solid and liquid composition of the disk? Where is the assumption in the nebular hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Aliens... around or dead?
    By Lightingbird in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: December 28th, 2008, 03:46 AM
  2. Do they know he's dead?
    By Wolf in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 31st, 2008, 10:06 PM
  3. NEBULAR-RIPPLE HYPOTHESIS
    By Suhail Jalbout in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 4th, 2008, 04:16 AM
  4. When is one dead?
    By DaBOB in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 04:51 PM
  5. Been dead long?
    By petkusj in forum Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 29th, 2006, 12:37 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •