Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Enoch2021

The Nebular Hypothesis

16 posts in this topic

Although we have discovered innumerable Mysteries of many many fairytales here, I don't ever recall this one popping up (and I'm praying that there's a good reason for that).

 

"How The Universe Works"...... on a couple years ago (Discovery Channel narrated by Mike Row (Dirty Jobs guy), Had this laugher laced through it complete with High Speed Computer Graphics.

 

Still graces College Textbooks!

 

 

The Nebular Hypothesis:

 

"Some 4 Billion Years ago, the sun had ejected a tail, or a filament, of material that cooled and collected and thus formed the planets...."
General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.  Immanuel Kant, 1755

 

The Originator of this Mess met with Edmund Halley (Halley's Comet) @ Cambridge....

 

Emanuel Swedenborg (Originator) proffered this nonsense 21 years before Kant and Laplace.  Guess where he got the idea?....by talking with spirits from Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and the Moon  :huh:

 

Kant picked up the Idea and Laplace stamped it without doing the math (Appears they were Buddies).  If he had done the Math....we would have never heard of such nonsense.

 

Nebular Hypothesis aficionados, have you ever heard of.... the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:  Angular momentum = mass x velocity x distance from the center of mass, and always stays constant in an isolated system (Like The Universe we Live In).  Like a skater spinning faster when their arms are pulled in close to the body.  In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the center to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. But our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99.86% of the mass of the solar system, it has less than 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis.

 

The Outer Planets are larger than the Inner Ones; again, directly opposite of the prediction.....

 

“Pssst … astronomers who model the formation of the solar system have kept a dirty little secret: Uranus and Neptune don’t exist. Or at least computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas giants could form so far from the sun. Bodies orbited so slowly in the outer parts of the solar system that the slow process of gravitational accretion would need more time than the age of the solar system to form bodies with 14.5 and 17.1 times the mass of Earth.”
Naeye, R., Birth of Uranus and Neptune, Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000

 

The nebular hypothesis predicts that as the nebula spiraled inwards, all the resulting planets and comets would rotate and orbit in the same direction (prograde). But Venus and Uranus rotate in the opposite direction, called retrograde. 

Lucy has more splaining to do!

 

Retrograde Orbits Satellites/Moons: Triton (Neptune), Ananke, Carme, Pasiphae and Sinope (Jupiter), Phoebe(Saturn)

 

There is NO plausible Solar Origin of the Planets.

 

 

Moving on (Hopefully); something interesting: There are 3 pairs of Planets with the same Spin-Rates (within 3% of each other)...

 

Earth and Mars
Jupiter and Saturn
Neptune and Uranus

 

Unbridled Speculation here.....Were they "Brought In" from somewhere else?

 

 

More on Mars this week....you're gonna Love this.  LOL

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755.   Can you please cite sources for this post - Googling "Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000" gets one nothing relevant.  Something more timely and detailed would be helpful.  I'd love to read some science papers on your post.  Wasn't Kant a philosopher?  Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy?  I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

 

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755.   Can you please cite sources for this post - Googling "Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000" gets one nothing relevant.  Something more timely and detailed would be helpful.  I'd love to read some science papers on your post.  Wasn't Kant a philosopher?  Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy?  I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

Well there sir...it's not a Strawman.  Since Kant is the Perpetrator/Quasi Originator of the Nebular Hypothesis in 1755

 

Would you like me to post an erroneous Originator and make up a date for the Inception of the Hypothesis?  Now his buddy and (sign off'er) was: Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, who was a mathematician and astronomer.

 

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

 

 

Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy?

 

I surely don't.  But the Discovery Channel and some Astronomy Textbooks seem to like it.

 

 

I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

 

What in the World are you talking about?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

 

====================================================================

 

Well IMHO, you're starting from an untenable assumption to begin with..... the SUN coalescing and Wickering together from Gas in the first place.  You'd really have to establish that first.  No sense really in going much further...it's like trying to describe the details of the Space Shuttle with all the parts spread out over Kansas.

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

 

====================================================================

 

Well IMHO, you're starting from an untenable assumption to begin with..... the SUN coalescing and Wickering together from Gas in the first place.  You'd really have to establish that first.  No sense really in going much further...it's like trying to describe the details of the Space Shuttle with all the parts spread out over Kansas.

 

Except we have actually witnessed stars through various stages of being "born".

 

 

 

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

 

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit.  Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out.  Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.  The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

 

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit.  Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out.  Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.  The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. 

 

 

 

====================================================================

 

 

You don't have the Sun "Yet" in our scenario.... there's some work to be done.  First things First.

 

 

Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.

 

Are you saying EM is not in the Universe? Gravity is still a weak force in comparison.

 

The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems.

 

OK.  Show PICS...... and preferably Video.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

 

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit.  Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out.  Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.  The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. 

 

 

 

====================================================================

 

 

You don't have the Sun "Yet" in our scenario.... there's some work to be done.  First things First.

 

 

Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.

 

Are you saying EM is not in the Universe? Gravity is still a weak force in comparison.

 

The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems.

 

OK.  Show PICS...... and preferably Video.

 

Please google "pitures of stars being formed" or "picures of solar systems being formed".  There is a wealth of information, more than can be copied a pasted here. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Please google "pitures of stars being formed" or "picures of solar systems being formed".  There is a wealth of information, more than can be copied a pasted here. 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

There is nothing.....I checked.

 

Moreover just conceptually.....Please explain, in a 2LOT context, the formation of a Star in a framework of Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass?

 

This is what your up against.....

 

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111

 

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”

Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is nothing.....I checked.

 

Wow, you must have a different interweb than me...

 

 

 

 

Moreover just conceptually.....Please explain, in a 2LOT context, the formation of a Star in a framework of Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass?

 

Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law.  If it did, we would not have stars or planets.  You can explain to us how if violates Bolye and Jeans.  You assert this often, but I have not seen you adequately explain it - how 'bout you dumb it down for me with some cited work - thanks.

 

 

 

This is what your up against.....

 

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111

 

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”

Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998

 

Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites.  That screams of quote-mining.  I'll try to dig deeper and see if I can find them in context.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0