General astronomy discussion

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:28:05 GMT

KrupS:

In my variant the protoplanetary disc was created as a result of collision in space two protostars - giant gas-dust balls. As a result of this impact their dense cores are stored as unity objects, and shells dissipate. The binary system the Sun – the Jupiter had created as a result of this collision . Gas-dust protoplanetary disk had created in addition. The other planets was formed due to Jovian gravitation force.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Обычная таблица"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus were created in the same scenario. This says the following comparative table:

The relative radii of the orbits of planets and satellites.

Planetary system	Saturnian system	Iovian system	system of Uranus
Jupiter R=1	Titan R=1	Ganymede R=1	Titania R=1
		Europe - 0,627	Umbriel - 0,61
	Rhea - 0,431		Ariel - 0,438
		Io - 0,394
Mars - 0,293	Dione - 0,309		Miranda - 0,297
	Tethys - 0,241
Earth-Moon - 0,191	Enceladus - 0,195		Puck - 0,196
	Mimas - 0,152
Venus - 0,139

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:46:40 GMT

chipdatajeffB:
If a protostellar nebula condensed with multiple stars, any merger would like take place very early -- long before the separate stars accumulated enough mass to be called prestellar, and almost certainly before they could light up and be called stars.

I agree with this.

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:20:23 GMT

As near as we can tell, collisions between stars are extremely rare.

If a protostellar nebula condensed with multiple stars, any merger would like take place very early -- long before the separate stars accumulated enough mass to be called prestellar, and almost certainly before they could light up and be called stars. Computer models used to depict different protostellar nebulae show that when multiple dense concentrations in the nebula grow larger than brown-dwarf size, ejection of one all but the most massive is quite likely, and that it happens very early.

Astronomers must revise these models to account for the creation of so-called "hot Jupiters" which have been discovered in exoplanetary systems (they are, according to most current models) too near their host stars to be accommodated by the models.

Perhaps there is room for such a collision, but it certainly complicates the existing situation rather than simplifying it.

As to the other planets forming due to Jovian gravitational force, we need not rely solely on models to understand why this would not work: Jupiter has been observed to alter the orbits of comets and asteroids; we have calculated its effect on the orbits of the Gas Giants and even Mars and the Earth; we have visual evidence (the Asteroid belts, the Kirkwood Gap, etc.) that it acts to clear out the Solar System, rather than to create it.

Jupiter certainly did play a major role in the formation of the Solar System; of that there can be no doubt.

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:05:42 GMT

In my variant the protoplanetary disc was created as a result of collision in space two protostars - giant gas-dust balls. As a result of this impact their dense cores are stored as unity objects, and shells dissipate. The binary system the Sun – the Jupiter had created as a result of this collision . Gas-dust protoplanetary disk had created in addition. The other planets was formed due to Jovian gravitation force.

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:24:58 GMT

KrupS:

chipdatajeffB:

You can speculate all you like, but don't expect to convince anyone without evidence.

It is not correct. I have a reliable logic chain of many reasons.

Logic alone is not enough. You need to support the logic with data. If it's purely theoretical (no observational data to back it up) then you need to support it with physics and mathematics that work (i.e., show the idea is possible).

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:21:55 GMT

KrupS:

chipdatajeffB:

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you mean the whole planetary nebula theory is incorrect, or only a portion of it?

I mean that only a portion is incorrect. Mainly the final stage.

Then I did misunderstand you. Explain how the final stage works in your model.

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:14:13 GMT

chipdatajeffB:
You can speculate all you like, but don't expect to convince anyone without evidence.

It is not correct. I have a reliable logic chain of many reasons.

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:01:25 GMT

chipdatajeffB:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you mean the whole planetary nebula theory is incorrect, or only a portion of it?

I mean that only a portion is incorrect. Mainly the final stage.

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:34:26 GMT

KrupS:
I have opened extremely simple and universal way of the formation of planetary systems.

You can speculate all you like, but don't expect to convince anyone without evidence.

It is this thesis is the root cause of failures of the modern version of nebulyarnoy hypothesis.

You say it has failed, but planetary scientists would not agree. What makes you think it has failed?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here. Do you mean the whole planetary nebula theory is incorrect, or only a portion of it?

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:22:19 GMT

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Обычная таблица"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Обычная таблица"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

I have opened extremely simple and universal way of the formation of planetary systems. According to this mechanism as soon all Solar system, as satellite systems of planets-giants are formed the namely as binary systems. The basic idea is stated below.

chipdatajeffB:
Actually, planetary orbits in binary systems would be less likely to be stable. Gravitational resonances in systems with two large bodies work to destabilize smaller objects, not to stabilize them.

It is this thesis is the root cause of failures of the modern version of nebulyarnoy hypothesis. But if you turn it upside down, everything becomes easy. Gravitational perturbations necessary for the formation of ordered systems of celestial bodies.

When rock collides with cobble-stones, stone destroys the rock to thousands-millions of small fragments. But the fragments remain in a gravitationally bound cluster. The cluster tooks a volume many times greater than the originally rock. The cluster absorbs small stones and motes more effective, than a solid body of the same weight.

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:51:12 GMT

Jupiter's ring system is completely different from Saturn's and may, indeed, be as old as the planet itself. While this ring system is as yet poorly understood compared to Saturn's, we know the following based on observations by various spacecraft (going all the way back to Pioneer flybys) and images from the HST:

The rings are composed almost entirely of dust.
There are several (4) distinctly separate rings, and may in fact be two completely different ring systems.
The inner Halo ring has the shape of a torus and may be as much as 10,000km at its thickest point (this is several thousand times as thick as Saturn's rings).
Dust particles remain in the rings for from 100 to 1,000 years, so the rings are being replenished continually.

Scientists think the origin of the rings is collisions between meteoroids and its innermost satellites. It also seems likely that one or more satellites have been destroyed in this manner.

Jupiter is considerably more massive than Saturn, so its gravity well is "steeper". This means that masses inside its Roche limit are more easily destroyed and are less stable (will be attracted to the planet more quickly).

The rings of Uranus are very different. It has at least 13 much smaller rings, and the particles are generally larger than those of Jupiter's rings, and comparable to those of Saturn's although the largest are yet smaller than Saturn's.

Uranus's rings are narrower (radially) and spaced quite far apart. Shepherding by several of its satellites is possible: the rings exist only in several orbits of very stable orbital resonance.

Some of the rings are distinctly different colors, the outermost of them thought to contain a much higher percentage of water ice particles.

The rings' orbital dynamics indicate they must be far younger than the planet itself, yet there is no consensus on an actual age for them.

Re: The Formation of Planets

Ming — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:39:55 GMT

Jupiter and Uranus have "smaller" rings. Can I say that they are older (pulling in already) and have less "shepherding effect" by the moons ?

Tks

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:19:20 GMT

Welcome to the Forum!

KrupS:

Traditional hypotheses on the formation of planets by a snowman is failed today.

Where do you get that idea? The method of planet formation described above is quite well supported by data and is the method supported by planetary geologists today.

All becomes clearer that the planetary systems are formed namely in binary systems. And the relative positioning of planets is defined by influence of the second component.

Actually, planetary orbits in binary systems would be less likely to be stable. Gravitational resonances in systems with two large bodies work to destabilize smaller objects, not to stabilize them.

Our solar system is no exception to this rule.

Apparently it is. Where is the evidence that the Sun was once part of a binary system?

The role of the second component in it make an underdeveloped star - the Jupiter, which is formed by special way.

The solar nebula hypothesis fully explains the formation of Jupiter. It is almost 100 times less massive than it would need to be to become a star, or to be considered a stellar companion to the Sun.

Then Jupiter promotoes formation of the other planets.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15901&start=0

The information at this link doesn't seem to reinforce your point ... ??

Re: The Formation of Planets

KrupS — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:30:13 GMT

Traditional hypotheses on the formation of planets by a snowman is failed today. All becomes clearer that the planetary systems are formed namely in binary systems. And the relative positioning of planets is defined by influence of the second component.

Our solar system is no exception to this rule. The role of the second component in it make an underdeveloped Star - the Jupiter, which is formed by special way. Then Jupiter promotes formation of other planets. http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15901&start=0

Re: The Formation of Planets

chipdatajeffB — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:20:46 GMT

Neptune's 8th Ring:

Do astronomers have a working theory as to: 1) why rings are mostly (exclusively?) the stuff of the outer planets?

Yes. It's largely because the outer planets are very much further apart, so there are fewer gravitational resonances to upset the orbits of ring particles, and because the larger planets each have a bevy of small satellites to contribute to the "shepherding" effect.

... and 2) Why don't moons have rings? Perhaps the gravity of the host planet is too strong to allow for this?

Yes, and again there is the problem of gravitational resonances disrupting stable orbits of ring particles. Another way to put that is that rings can't form in regions of strong perturbational resonances, in the first place, or stay there for long if they form via a collision.

chipdatajeffB:
Computer models show that without some outside energy applied, the rings should be lost within about 250,000 years.

In this case, does "lost" mean pulled into Saturn by Saturn's own gravity, or flung in to space by other forces?

It actually means Both: both sets of forces are at work.

And finally... would it be plausible for the rocks and ice that make up planetary rings to ever form into a planetoid or moon, like what happened in our pre-solar galaxy?

Well, it happened with Earth and the Moon, but there were not perturbational gravitational impediments to that nearby. Saturn's rings, for example, lie within the planet's Roche limit, where a body large enough to have a stable orbit at that distance will be torn apart by the differential gravitational forces across its (radial to the planet) diameter. That works against the formation of rings, which is one reason scientists believe that Saturn's rings resulted from a collision between a large satellite and an interloper of some sort.