Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A New Theory for How Solar Systems Evolve

  1. #1 A New Theory for How Solar Systems Evolve 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2
    PART 1 of 4

    1.0 In this article we will present an alternative to the standard theory that is presently used to explain how our solar system came to be.

    1.1 The standard theory can be best described perhaps as the Enhanced Nebular Hypothesis (ENH) – enhanced because it has been substantially refined since its original formulations in the eighteenth century. To summarize it briefly – the ENH speculates that the primary event in the formation of our solar system was the collapse of a vast molecular cloud into a concentrated mass that then transformed into our sun. Additionally a protoplanetary disk composed of the unutilized remains of the original molecular cloud formed around this and provided the basis for our planets to come into existence through a process of accretion.

    1.2 The theory we will advance as an alternative to this we will call the Organic Hypothesis (OH) – organic not because it has any biological foundation but because we regard the process of its evolution as much more elegant and free of ad hoc premises. It is our opinion that the OH does for stellar formation what the theory of natural selection did for biological diversity – that is – provide a single mechanism to explain the entire order of things within a particular scientific domain.

    1.3 It is not our contention though that the OH has been proven even though we hold it to be true. Strict proof here will depend on further mathematical and empirical corroboration. We have offered our theory in its present form however because it is so basic, so easy to appreciate, and so comprehensive, that we cannot seriously imagine that such an elegant idea could be false. When Einstein was asked by a journalist what his reaction would have been if a test of Relativity had proven him incorrect he replied "I would be sorry for the Lord because the theory is correct" – meaning that his theory was so perfectly coherent that there was nothing he could imagine which would contradict it. We too share this sense of clarity and it is our hope that by publishing our theory as it is we can inspire others with the same sense of promising insight.

    1.5 Wanting to make it accessible to the widest possible readership – we have chosen to present our theory in a manner intelligible even to people without any special knowledge of astronomy. The minimal technical details here are irrelevant anyways since if the idea has any appeal it will naturally excite other people to investigate it.

    Organic Hypothesis.JPG

    2.0 Imagine a star completely free of any close orbiting bodies. Across its turbulent surface, coronal mass ejections are constantly discharging solar plasma into various directions of space. Some of this matter is caught by the star's own gravity and reabsorbed while other matter instead has the trajectory of their flight constrained into an orbital path. And given the pressure of the solar winds and or simply the initial force of velocity isn't it possible that the transit of this primordial satellite will consist of a gradual escape? A slow spiraling outward? Could a planet then not start off as a small protoplanetary seed gradually drifting across the solar plane?

    2.1 Assuming this hypothesis for the sake of argument – what will be the continual fate of this body? Given its own gravity will it not also be subject to the process of accretion? If so this satellite would generally grow larger as it travelled farther from its stellar source and anyone studying such a body would then be able to establish some correlation between the mass of the body and its distance from its star.

    2.2 In proportion to its increasing distance we would also expect a decreasing temperature. And consistent with this would also be atmospheric and geological changes, so that after this solar satellite had become a genuine planet it would still be undergoing fundamental changes. In the course of the planet's evolution then we would expect a constant process of development analogous to the transformation of an embryo into a fully formed animal.

    2.3 Consistent with the outwardly spiraling accretion of a planet as it travelled away from its star would be the same process transpiring for the planet itself. As such every planet would gradually form its own satellites and the older the planet was the more satellites it would acquire. And noticeably among these satellites – these moons – we might generally expect to find the larger moons tending to have the outermost orbits since they are the oldest, and the smaller moons tending to have the innermost orbits since they are the youngest. The larger planets then would mirror their own solar system, their lesser spirals a sort of fractal repetition of the greater spiral since only one mechanism is at work, one pattern.

    2.4 But considering the weakening gravitational force of any body on other bodies as the distance between them increases, we would be inattentive to assume that the process of accretion would continue indefinitely. In fact we would expect that at some point a threshold would be reached where accretion ended – where a planet became so remote from the discharge of its star that it no longer had a steady source of new mass. Additionally we could imagine that past this threshold every planet would begin to lose mass. And with this loss of mass it would also be reasonable to expect that a planet must shed its moons.

    2.5 Along with the progressive weakening of gravity we would also expect to see the orbits of planets at some point decay into complete eccentricity and escape the gravitational hold of their star. In fact this eccentricity would be equally anticipated within the innermost region of the solar system since orbits having an extreme nearness to the sun – still in the process of being formed from their random trajectories – should display a proportional impress of chaos. With this though we would expect a certain amount of stability across a wide region of space where the planets would spiral outward in a fairly regular order. There would be a harmony in the spheres traceable in their transit.

    2.6 It would not be justified though to infer that those planets which were in the more median stage of their life cycle would have the least eccentric orbits since the initial conditions during the formation of their orbits would be vulnerable to chaos. Again, like embryos they would be most susceptible to external forces at the beginning of their life cycles and so could fluctuate with some degree of randomness in their later orbital paths. Still we would expect a certain statistical orderliness in their spacing relative to one another, in the intervals that separated them from each other. A solar system as such would branch almost like a tree, with certain regular points of junction – the many planetary limbs – that could become deformed due to random conditions and events but that would still express a sort of misshapen testament to their essential nature.

    2.7 Besides moons though a planet would also presumably collect smaller satellites over the course of its life. As such these finer bodies would accumulate into orbiting disks that would grow over time. But like planetary moons and the planets themselves, when the mass had diminished of the body whose gravity formed them, their accretion disks would logically disappear in a gradual evaporation. So only the most massive planets would have these planetary disks, the size of which would be related to the mass – or recent peak mass – of said planets.

    2.8 Another aspect of planetary formation according to the OH would be that planetary density would be greatest at each extreme since the interior ones would not have had a chance to accumulate any atmospheric layering while those at the exterior would have had their atmospheric layering persistently torn off over time once they passed the median threshold. The division here though wouldn't be an absolutely symmetrical one – atmospheric layering once formed would linger due to the slower nature of the erosion process. As a planet reached the zenith of its mass it would accumulate atmosphere exponentially due to increasing surface area, but when it had finally passed this point it would still retain enough mass to carry this atmosphere forward – like how a body accelerated by a force can continue to arc upwards for a while even once the force has ceased to act on it.

    2.9 The rotation and tilting of planets and their natural satellites would also be largely governed by the rotation of their star and by their original spiral trajectory. We would anticipate the greatest amount of consistency here to be in the direction of the orbits of the planets and less of conformity at the smaller scale of the moons and accretion disks. Utilizing the analogy of a tree once again – the smaller branches of the solar system would be the most malleable to the compulsions of external forces.

    2.10 To summarize – in a solar system governed by the process theorized in the OH, we would expect to see every system of natural satellites conforming by in large to a statistical approximation of a Bell Curve in regards to their distributions of mass, and that said planets and their satellites would also be spaced at regular intervals. Granting an allowance for a vulnerability in their initial conditions to distortion though, we would not anticipate that a solar system governed by the OH would be completely orderly. In fact we would infer that a certain amount of disorder would have to prevail as is the case with any organic system.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    We? Our? Do you have multiple personalities or is it a whole team of cranks?

    You simply cannot imagine it being false? Argument from incredulity. I can. You've not just tried to re-write solar system formation- but gravity as well.

    Do us all a favor- don't bother with parts 2-4. Four wall of texts of word salad is more than anyone should bother with. One wall of text of word salad was bad enough.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Word salad nonsense.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta Vigilem View Post
    we regard the process of its evolution as much more elegant and free of ad hoc premises.
    Your idea is completely ad hoc. (And who is "we"?)

    It is our opinion that the OH does for stellar formation what the theory of natural selection did for biological diversity – that is – provide a single mechanism to explain the entire order of things within a particular scientific domain.
    And yet it says absolutely nothing about star formation.

    Strict proof here will depend on further mathematical and empirical corroboration.
    Which, I assume you are incapable of. Presumably you hope someone else will do the hard work for you.

    When Einstein was asked by a journalist what his reaction would have been if a test of Relativity had proven him incorrect he replied "I would be sorry for the Lord because the theory is correct" – meaning that his theory was so perfectly coherent that there was nothing he could imagine which would contradict it.
    Einstein had a complete mathematical theory consistent with observation. What do you have? Nothing but idle speculation with no support at all.

    We too share this sense of clarity and it is our hope that by publishing our theory as it is we can inspire others with the same sense of promising insight.
    Not until you have some evidence and/or theoretical support.

    1.5 Wanting to make it accessible to the widest possible readership – we have chosen to present our theory in a manner intelligible even to people without any special knowledge of astronomy.
    Translation: "We don't know any mathematics or physics"

    The minimal technical details here are irrelevant anyways since if the idea has any appeal it will naturally excite other people to investigate it.
    Translation: "So we would like someone else who has made the effort to learn the relevant science to do the work we are too lazy to do"

    Across its turbulent surface, coronal mass ejections are constantly discharging solar plasma into various directions of space.
    Nice to see you have quantified the mass of the CMEs.

    Some of this matter is caught by the star's own gravity and reabsorbed while other matter instead has the trajectory of their flight constrained into an orbital path.
    Nice to see that you have quantified the proportion which will go into an orbital path.

    And given the pressure of the solar winds and or simply the initial force of velocity isn't it possible that the transit of this primordial satellite will consist of a gradual escape?
    Is it? It is up to you to provide some evidence of that assertion.

    A slow spiraling outward? Could a planet then not start off as a small protoplanetary seed gradually drifting across the solar plane?
    Could it? It is up to you to provide some evidence of that assertion.

    2.1 Assuming this hypothesis for the sake of argument
    No, let's not. Let's look at the evidence instead.

    You seem to want to slip from "isn't it possible" and "couldn't it be" to "and therefore it is". This is a logical fallacy and completely unscientific. This alone makes me conclude you idea is probably without merit.

    – what will be the continual fate of this body? Given its own gravity will it not also be subject to the process of accretion?
    You tell us: where is the math?

    If so this satellite would generally grow larger as it travelled farther from its stellar source and anyone studying such a body would then be able to establish some correlation between the mass of the body and its distance from its star.
    Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this is the case?

    2.2 In proportion to its increasing distance we would also expect a decreasing temperature. And consistent with this would also be atmospheric and geological changes, so that after this solar satellite had become a genuine planet it would still be undergoing fundamental changes.
    Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this is the case?


    <remaining random, unsupported speculation deleted.


    So it seems you have nothing but some wacky ideas based on zero knowledge*of physics. Please feel free to show me wrong.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2
    Sorry Strange but I have no intention of arguing about the ideas in the essay. Not because of any weakened resolve mind you. I've posted this because I felt I had a moral duty to share a new idea. I honestly don't care if anyone believes it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta Vigilem View Post
    Sorry Strange but I have no intention of arguing about the ideas in the essay. Not because of any weakened resolve mind you. I've posted this because I felt I had a moral duty to share a new idea. I honestly don't care if anyone believes it.
    Then what is the point. No one is going to believe it without some sort of support.

    You might just as plausibly argue that the planets were assembled by invisible flying unicorns (from their own faeces). That has just as much scientific basis as your proposal.

    Moral duty? Just showing off, I would say; "look at me and my clever idea". Time to grow up and learn a bit of science, maybe?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    He's been spamming it over various science sites.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta Vigilem View Post
    Across its turbulent surface, coronal mass ejections are constantly discharging solar plasma into various directions of space. Some of this matter is caught by the star's own gravity and reabsorbed while other matter instead has the trajectory of their flight constrained into an orbital path.
    To show how ludicrous this idea is, consider the fact that the average CME has a mass of about 1.6x1012kg while Jupiter has a mass of about 1.9x1027kg This means that it would require roughly 1015 CMEs to create a Jupiter like planet. In other words, about 685 CMEs per day. Which doesn't happen. And that ignores the mass that escapes. And all the other planets. And the Kuiper belt. and the Oort cloud. and the comets. And ....

    As the young kids say: FAIL.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Why did consciousness evolve?
    By Synergy in forum Biology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: August 5th, 2014, 10:47 AM
  2. Do proteins evolve?
    By SHF in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 14th, 2012, 07:27 AM
  3. Solar systems, Galaxies, Universe and ?
    By kggf in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 21st, 2011, 01:25 AM
  4. Books on Chaos theory, complex systems, cybernetics
    By Clyde in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 20th, 2011, 12:14 PM
  5. Question about gaalaxies and solar systems.
    By silentghost12 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 30th, 2008, 08:24 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
  •