Solar System and Planet Formation

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Solar systems formations

Unread postby rangerover777 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:32 am

Good day,

I have a few questions about the formation process of stars and their planetary systems,
maybe someone can answer them :

1. When a star is forming (maybe there is more then one way for that), is it
possible that from the vast amount of matter, scattered millions of miles
across that field, other planets will be formed at the same time around
this star ?
2. Is it possible that several formations happen simultaneity and when
one of them (maybe the largest) “ignite” as a sun, the rest keep forming
and start to orbit the young star ?
3. Does a star can be formed only by itself without “balancing weights” (planets)
around it ? Is it possible that a star can exists without them ?
Are planets around a star is a condition for the existence of a star ?
4. The fusion within a young star start before all the matter around it
Is “gathered in” ? Or at certain point of mass & heat, it “ignite” and then
gather more matter ?
5. Same with moon and planets. Can a planet be formed without a moon ?
Is it possible ? Is it a condition for the planet existence.

I always asking myself what’s hidden behind that veil of the visible light
of stars. Maybe someone can answer that.

* I hope these question are scientifically enough and does not have
to be in the “Zoo Section”.

Thank you.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:43 am

Why not start here for a primer on the Electric Universe perspective, which may address some of your questions? I'm assuming you are aware of who Wal Thornhill and David Talbott are and their role in EU Theory and The Thunderbolts Project. Apologies if you're already aware of this material.

Synopsis of The Electric Universe

best,
bryan
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby rangerover777 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:23 pm

Thanks for the link Bryan,

I read EU approach to my questions :

“Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the
positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That explains the dichotomy between
the dense rocky planets and moons and the gaseous giant planets“.

Forgive my curiosity, but I have to ask you that :

1. If EU theme is to works backward in time using observations rather than forward
from some idealised theoretical beginning. Where did you observe such a phenomena
of a solar system formation ?
2. And if you have such an observed case, how did you interprets it as “electrical expulsion
of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gaseous giant planets” and not a
different phenomena ?
3. How “electrical expulsion” look like ? are those streams of particles shooting out of the
dwarf star or gaseous giant planets ? How these “particles” become matter ?
Did you simulate how positively charged "particles" become matter in a laboratory ?
4. Why part of the “electrical expulsion” become giant gaseous planets while others become
rocky planets ?
5. Why stars emits light and giant gaseous planets does not ?

These are not cynic questions, it’s a sincere way to understand where you drew your
conclusions from (I’m sure if you will encounter a new theory, you will ask what’s
behind the words). If it’s not too hard, I’d rather to hear the answers from a person (not
a link or 50 pages website with links to other websites…).

Thank you.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:51 pm

I'm afraid your questions are way too involved for any degree of technical expertise I may have to answer, so I will have to defer to someone more competent with the theory than I to answer should they desire. Assuming your questions are not "loaded" or 'leading" in the sense of just trying to set someone up so you can give them your already set ideas on how it all works, you are going to have to devote some time to study referenced material from a link or two or three dozen. Or books. Just like the rest of us. There's just no way around that. It may be difficult to find someone who's well versed in the theory to discuss a slew of detailed questions like these due simply to constraints on their available time. Then again, maybe it won't.

But I'm getting the impression, this is the way it sounds to me, that you may not be too willing to devote the hours of study to EU material like most of the ones who are competent with it have done. Like you want someone to personally explain it all to you. It's just my opinion that if you are truly approaching the subject with an honest and open sense of wonder and inquiry, which I am going to assume you are since you state your questions are not "cynical", then the burden of finding the answers will be up to your own ferreting out and study of the existing material. Then asking a reasonable question or two at at time, as they come up in your studies.

best,
bryan
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby rangerover777 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:42 pm

Thanks Bryan for your response,

I did not mean to take anyone time to personally explain me and I did not
expected that the answers will be hard to answer. If you can recommend
a source that is open to the public, that I get to the bottom of EU, I’ll be glad
to go there.

Since I post in this forum I would like to study the basics of EU, before I make
up my mind or make any comments. It’s too early for me to commit before I know
Whether I agree or partially or not.

Thank you
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:27 am

http://thunderbolts.info/resources.htm (in addition to the books listed, towards the bottom of the page you'll see a handful of links to useful reference sites)
http://www.plasmaresources.com/
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
There are some great audio/video resources in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=131

And, of course, the EU and Planetary Science discussion forums here should you wish to ask or discuss more focused issues and questions related to EU material.

best wishes,
bryan
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:11 pm

I suppose I might "Be Bold" and try to point to a few resources to help get acclimated to some of the suggestions offered by the Electric Universe / Electric Star model(s). Keeping in mind I'm still relatively new in the grand scheme of things. Though I've perused various bits and pieces of the site and a few bits of related material over the last year or two. So, hopefully I can point you to a few places that might get you off on the right foot. Plenty more reading to do after that, I'm afraid... ;)

rangerover777 wrote:I read EU approach to my questions :

Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and moons and the gaseous giant planets.


I assume this came from the synopsis over on the Holoscience site:

(Page 7 of 12 from the synopsis)
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7

rangerover777 wrote:Forgive my curiosity


Nothing to forgive. Curiosity is a good thing! :D

rangerover777 wrote:I have to ask you that :

1. If EU theme is to works backward in time using observations rather than forward from some idealized theoretical beginning. Where did you observe such a phenomena of a solar system formation?


You've perhaps oversimplified a bit here? From my understanding, Thornhill, Scott et al have hypothesized or made suggestions based upon established electrical engineering principles and plasma physics research. Insofar as recognizing that there are various states of plasma / electrical discharge (dark mode, glow mode, abnormal glow mode, and arc mode are primary examples). Likewise, specific structures, behaviors and instabilities occur in plasma that do not happen in neutral gases, as a rule. Other things appear to be known from the lab, such as that objects under extreme electrical stress may explode or fission in order to increase the overall surface area over which they may discharge imbalanced charges.

From these and other lab experiments already on record in various journals or in text books on the subject, it should be possible to extrapolate what would happen under similar circumstances in scenarios that Thorhill, Scott et al have taken up for discussion, such as the possibility of electrical effects influencing stars, fissioning, expulsion, etc. So, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they only work forward or only work backward. In fact, Thornhill has made a number of predictions looking forward to what might be expected if his theories are correct. Several have thus far been accurate (such as the experimentum crucis at Saturn; IE, BOTH poles would show up as "hot" rather than the one hot pole and one cold pole predicted by the standard model's insistence on "seasonal variation" as the source of the temperatures).

Of course, I wouldn't deign to speak for Thornhill, Scott et all. So, these are simply my initial impressions.

Nobody has, so far as I know, "observed" solar system formation in action. All theories, EU and mainstream are currently "best guesses" based upon the current state of things and a theory on prior states of things. Though, I might note that the standard model's "accretion" theories have met with many problems that remain unresolved.

As an example:

(Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... giant.html

rangerover777 wrote:2. And if you have such an observed case, how did you interprets it as “electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gaseous giant planets” and not a different phenomena?


Since I didn't do the interpretation, I'm not the one to ask. Again, there do not appear to be any observations on either side of the fence that actually SHOW a planetary system in the process of formation. So, all guesses are "best guesses" based upon the assumptions as applied to current data.

rangerover777 wrote:3. How “electrical expulsion” look like? Are those streams of particles shooting out of the dwarf star or gaseous giant planets? How these “particles” become matter? Did you simulate how positively charged "particles" become matter in a laboratory?


The latter portion of the question, unfortunately, doesn't quite make sense to me. Particles are composed of matter. I don't think there has been any attempt to assert that somehow material stars or planets came from "immaterial stuff" and somehow converted into "material stuff." IE, there is not a difference between "particles" and "matter," so there is no "becoming" from one to the other. Macro objects such as rocks are simply (according to most theories) large organized collections of smaller things that behave in a specific way when in a specific configuration. IE, many many many atoms of phosphorus all lump together into a large chunk / rock of phosphorus (Careful with it! I vaguely recall it's quite reactive.)...

In fact, I think that Thornhill has on several occasions pointed out that the mainstream regularly mixes up "mass" (a property of matter affecting how it accelerates) with matter (the actual "stuff"). Currently there is no definitive theory of what either "matter" or "mass" actually are. However Thornhill has cautioned against mixing up material stuffs with immaterial stuffs or "properties" of material stuffs.

As to what the expulsion itself looks like, that is a good question. Some expulsions seem to take on the aspect of "polar jets" as in those found from black holes, brown dwarfs and even from the cores of galaxies. Though I think these aren't synonymous with planet formation. In some cases, quasars specifically, it has been suggested that the ejections are electrical in nature. Arp hasn't gone quite that far, insofar as he has simply noted an association between quasars and what are probably their parent galaxies. But hasn't necessarily decided on a mechanism for ejection. I think Thornhill has speculated on the matter, though I don't recall the specifics. I think, though, that he had mentioned the ejections as a way to bleed off excess charge (not unlike the expulsions of rocky planets from gas giants' cores, theorized elsewhere), and that the redshift was a function of the fact that the materials ejected were plasma of a like charge, and they tend to evolve into more "normal" bodies as additional material of the opposing charge was subsequently acquired, moving the emissions from their redshifted state back toward a more neutral or bluer state?

Others may be a literal wholesale expulsion of material from some solid or molten "core" of a gas giant planet or dwarf star. I'm not quite as familiar with that part of things, so I won't speculate too much. Aside from to say that the "standard model" postulates that stars may concentrate heavier elements in their cores. I don't know whether these cores are actually in a highly energetic state or whether they eventually cool into something more liquid or solid. I suspect that it's some kind of heavy core at the center of a star or large gaseous planet that is ejected or fissions in the model? You might want to e-mail Wal through holoscience.com and ask him? He could probably explain it better than I could...

rangerover777 wrote:4. Why part of the “electrical expulsion” become giant gaseous planets while others become rocky planets?


Again, I think that in the model, the core of the small star or large planet is denser materials that have sunk and/or hardened, whereas lighter gaseous elements may be floating at the "top of the atmosphere" so to speak. And I think it's all or part of that heavy core that is said to be ejected as a large glob or chunk? Again, you might want to run that by Wal at holoscience.com, as I'm not as familiar with some of this part of things. Would hate to misrepresent anything...

rangerover777 wrote:5. Why stars emits light and giant gaseous planets does not ?


For this one, I'd actually give a pointer over to Don Scott's site:

(Stellar Evolution)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

The section on the HR diagram and/or red/brown dwarfs addresses some of this, as do other sections. IE, luminosity and color may be due in part to the level of electrical stress on a body.

Don Scott wrote:The Hertzsprung-RussellDiagram

In the HR diagram, as it is usually presented, the vertical axis is labeled with two scales: Absolute Magnitude (linear scale from about 18th magnitude at the bottom running up to perhaps -8 or so at the top), and Luminosity x Sun (log scale with 0.00001 at the bottom running up to 100,000 at the top). The horizontal axis also is labeled with several scales: Spectral Class - left to right: O and B [blue], A [white], F [yellow], G [yellow-orange], K [orange], M [red]).

Another horizontal axis scale - Absolute Temperature, also runs from left to right (from around 20,000 K down to 3000 K) corresponding to the (decreasing!) black-body temperature of those spectral classes. [As an engineer, I object to plotting increasing temperature from right to left! But such is the convention of astronomers. We will live with it.] A single given star defines a single point on this plot. A web search for the topic "Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram" will yield many different renderings of the HR plot.

Our Sun, being a fairly typical star, falls almost at the center of the diagram (at Luminosity = 1 and Absolute magnitude. = 5, Spectral Class G, and (photospheric) Temp. = 6,000K). The points on the plot seem to group nicely, generally forming a long, slightly diffuse line, that snakes from the upper left down toward the lower right. The line falls very steeply at the lower right end. There are two other less populated clouds of points: one group at the upper right and another one strung out across the bottom of the plot from a concentration in the lower left of the diagram.

HR Diagram (Image)

Add A New Horizontal Axis Scale

In the ES model the important variable is: current density (Amps/sq m) at the star's photospheric surface. If a star's current density increases, the arc discharges on its surface (photospheric granules) get hotter, change color (away from red, toward blue-white), and get brighter. The absolute luminosity of a star, therefore, depends on two main variables: current density at its effective surface, and its size (the star's diameter).

Therefore, let us add a new scale to the horizontal axis of the HR diagram: 'Current Density at the Surface of each Star'. Consider moving from the lower right of the HR diagram toward the left. In so doing we are moving in the direction of increasing current density at the star's surface.

Red and Brown Dwarfs

The first region on the lower right of the diagram is where the current density has such a low value that double layers (DLs) (photospheric granules) are not needed by the plasma surrounding the (anode) star. This is the region of the brown and red "dwarfs" and giant gas planets. Recent discoveries of extremely cool L - Type and T - Type dwarfs has required the original diagram to be extended to the lower right (See below). These 'stars' have extremely low absolute luminosity and temperature.

Image

Notice that the surface temperature of the T - Type dwarfs is in the range of 1000 K or less! For comparison purposes recall that some points on the surface of Venus are in the range of 900 K. T - Type spectra have features due mostly to Methane - they resemble Jupiter's spectrum. The plasma that constitutes a star of this type is in its 'normal glow' range - or perhaps, even the 'dark current' range. If all stars are indeed powered by a nuclear fusion reaction as is claimed, with the T dwarfs we must be in the 'cold fusion' range! Indeed, for fusion reactions to occur, standard theory requires that the temperature in a star's core must reach at least three million K. And because, in the accepted model, core temperature rises with gravitational pressure, the star must have a minimum mass of about 75 times the mass of the planet Jupiter, or about 7 percent of the mass of our sun. Many of the dwarfs do not meet these requirements. One mainstream astrophysicist, realizing this, has said that these dwarfs must be powered by 'gravitational collapse'.

The orbiting X-ray telescope, Chandra, recently discovered an X-ray flare being emitted by a brown dwarf (spectral class M9). This poses an additional problem for the advocates of the stellar fusion model. A star this cool should not be capable of X-ray flare production.

However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with. In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark current mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impinging on that star will move it into the normal glow mode. This transition will be accompanied by a rapid change in the voltage rise across the plasma of the star's atmosphere. Maxwell's equations tell us that such a change in voltage can produce a strong dynamic E-field and a strong dynamic magnetic field. If they are strong enough, dynamic EM fields can produce X-rays. Another similar phenomenon can occur if a star makes the transition from normal glow to arc mode.

As we progress leftward in the HR diagram, at first the plotted points move steeply upward; we enter the spectral M range where some arc tufting becomes necessary to sustain the star's electrical discharge.

As current density increases, tufts (plasma in the arc discharge mode) cover more and more of the surface of each star, and its luminosity increases sharply – plasma arcs are extremely bright compared to plasma in its normal glow mode. You can look directly at neon signs but not at electric arc welders. This accounts for the steepness of the HR curve in the M region – a slight increase in current density produces a large increase in luminosity. As we move upward and toward the left in the diagram, stars have more and more complete coats of photospheric arcs (tufting).

A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot". A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing." The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless. They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces. NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars. In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".

Image

Main Sequence Stars

Continuing toward the left, beyond the "knee of the curve", all these stars (K through B) are completely covered with tufts (have complete photospheres), their luminosity no longer grows as rapidly as before. But, the farther to the left we go (the higher the current density), the brighter the tufts become, and so the stars' luminosities do continue to increase. The situation is analogous to turning up the current in an electric arc welding machine. The increased brightness of the arcs accounts for the upward slope of the line toward the left. Mathematically we have the situation where the variable plotted on the horizontal axis (current density) is also one of the factors in the quantity plotted on the vertical axis (luminosity). The more significant this relationship is, the more closely the plot will approach a 45 degree straight line.

[Reminder: Our progression from right toward the left is not a description of one star evolving in time - we are just moving across the diagram from one static point (star) to another.]

That the stars do not all fall precisely on a line, but have some dispersion above and below the line, is due to their variation in size. The relatively straight portion of the HR diagram is called the 'main sequence'. This nomenclature gives a false impression, that stars move around 'sequentially' in the HR plot. The HR diagram is a static scatter plot, not a sequence.

White and Blue Stars

When we get to the upper left end of the main sequence, what kind of stars are these? This is the region of O type, blue-white, high temperature (35,000+ K) stars. As we approach the far upper-left of the HR diagram (region of highest current density), the stars are under extreme electrical stress - too many Amps per sq. meter. Their absolute luminosities approach 100,000 times the Sun's. Even farther out to the upper left is the region of Wolf-Rayet stars. Extreme electrical stress can lead to a such a star's splitting into parts, perhaps explosively. Such explosions are called novae. The splitting process is called fissioning. A characteristic of Wolf-Rayet stars is that they are losing mass rapidly.


So, it seems like the simple answer is that brown dwarfs and large gaseous planets are not glowing (emitting light), according to the electric star model anyway, because they are not the focus of [as] strong electric currents. Whereas red dwarfs are on the low end of the scale (likely "glow mode") and main sequence or higher stars are the focus of increasingly intense electric currents (entering abnormal glow mode or arc mode over a larger portion of their surface area[s]), thus emit brighter and yellower, or bluer/whiter light as current increases. Past some critical point, the electrical stresses may cause the star to fission into two or more parts to distribute the load over a larger surface area. Much the same way, in a bad off-the-cuff analogy, that finely divided sugar will tend to melt into solution faster than a large solid block of the same weight due to the much larger surface area.

rangerover777 wrote:These are not cynic[al] questions, it’s a sincere way to understand where you drew your conclusions from (I’m sure if you will encounter a new theory, you will ask what’s behind the words). If it’s not too hard, I’d rather to hear the answers from a person (not a link or 50 pages website with links to other websites).

Thank you.


Hope the above made some semblance of sense... :)

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby lizzie » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:29 am

What do people think of the theories of Thomas Quinn & Alan Boss?

Planets Formed In Hundreds – Not Millions – Of Years
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200211 ... _sys.shtml

New Study Supports Controversial Theory of Rapid Planet Formation
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 21129.html

Solar System Makeover: Wild New Theory for Building Planets
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 709-1.html
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby rangerover777 » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:52 pm

If I understood correctly the three theories, it seems that no one touched the
gravity issue and how it formed and works per star and per planet. Evidently
Gravity is the major player (among others of course).

I think that figuring out formation of solar systems should be based on
magnetic fields formation and gravity (together with other players), as step #1.
Or at least not take them for granted as the standard model suggests…

Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby lizzie » Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:50 am

Rangerover777 said:

Evidently gravity does seem to be a major player
.

Gravity does seem to be a "major player" How can this "weak force" play such a prominent role? I thinking "breathing" is a good analogy: breathe in (inspiration - implosion - gravity) breathe out (expiration - explosion - EM). There is a dynamic there; I think the difference in "force" between EM and gravity could be explained in terms of the difference between charge vs. mass.

The hot topic now is gravity waves and what they are

http://web.syr.edu/~dmalling/wave.html

Rangerover777 said:

I think that figuring out formation of solar systems should be based on magnetic fields formation and gravity (together with other players), as step #1


I don't understand why they seem so content to compartmentalize; how can you know what you are really doing if the left hand doesn't speak to the right?
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby rangerover777 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:08 am

Lizzie,

The two magnetic systems that every star or planet poses are :
1. The magnetic poles / lines around (that stretched very far as well). 2. Gravity.

If it was clear how these forces are forming a star, planet or a system (the process from
start to end) and if it was clear that the particles that make the atom and the mass are the same
particles that gravity is made of (otherwise how can it attract matter) maybe it was easier
to build a model of solar system formation.

Gravity reflected out of a center (and hold the sphere together) by a very very dense matter
that breaks apart due to heat and pressure and when the atoms break and scatter, their only
way out - is up and away from the center. Now the question is what particles are we dealing
with ? And how come these particles can make gravity that pulls the atoms ?
It’s hard for me to understand how Gravity and breathing are similar.

All I’m saying about these 3 theories, that they started from the wrong place, not from
the start. Even if “my theory” is not right about gravity and magnetism, it does not mean
that the investigation of solar system formation should not starts where it should.

And I can’t see any contradiction in what I said so far (like you point out).

* thanks for the link about gravity waves.

Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby MGmirkin » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:01 am

Though I'm having trouble tracking down the specific articles referred to on the old "Thunderbolts forum 1.0," I recall there were discussions of specific experiments with dust or dusty plasma wherein it was found that either magnetic or electrically charged dust grains had a tendency to form into strings or branching chains, and to continue to collect together. It was suggested that these strings and chains of dust, mutually attracting, would continue to agglomerate into larger structures, and over time into planetesimals, etc.

Wish I could track down the specific articles. I recall they were good reading.

Ohh, almost forgot the one ore two articles I WAS able to track down on a similar topic (though they were not any of the original articles I was after).

(Superglue of planet formation: Sticky ice)
http://www.physorg.com/news3297.html
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/08stickyice/

(Forming electric crystals in a dusty plasma - dust particles in electrically charged gases arrange themselves into crystal-like patterns.)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_15717684

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Solar systems formations

Unread postby MGmirkin » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:28 am

I vaguely recall this site was also mentioned in that thread where other dusty plasma configurations were covered:

(DUST WORMS IN MANY GUISES)
http://www.cosmicastronomy.com/flyers.htm

Though, I don't know how reliable the site or interpretations are. View with a grain of salt. So-to-speak.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Model shows planetary formation theory wrong

Unread postby electrodogg1 » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:47 pm

Space.com wrote
3D Modeling Shakes Up Planet-Formation Theory

Jeremy Hsu
Special to SPACE.com

Gas-rich planets such as Jupiter and Saturn grew from a disk of dust and gas which eventually crumpled like a piece of paper under its own gravitational instability -- or so one theory goes.

Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.

The old, favored theory relies on the protoplanetary dust disk becoming denser and thinner until it reaches a tipping point, where it becomes gravitationally unstable and collapses into kilometer-sized building blocks that form the basis for gas giants. But 3D modeling has shown for the first time that turbulence prevents the dust from settling into the dense disk necessary for gravitational instability to work

"It has been known since the '80s that there have been problems with that theory, but no one had gotten around to doing 3D simulations," said Joseph Barranco, an astrophysicist at San Francisco State University in Calif.

Ripples on a pond

Scientists have long held that dust in a protoplanetary disk ends up sandwiched between an upper and lower layer of gas. But Barranco modeled how the gas layers flow at different speeds over and beneath the dust layer, which creates turbulence.

"What we found is that, like wind blowing over water on a pond, you get ripples," Barranco told SPACE.com. His research showed that the ripples prevent the dust from ever settling into the thin, dense middle layer.

The idea bears strong resemblance to the phenomenon of vertical shear, where wind speeds change drastically at different altitudes. This can cause dangerous turbulence for jetliners flying through Earth's atmosphere.

Another factor which seems to keep the dust layer stirred up is the Coriolis Effect. This occurs on Earth when a jetliner tries to fly in a straight line, but ends up in a curved path because the planet rotates beneath it. Winds may also fall prey to this rotation effect, which feeds into the formation of hurricanes.

Previously, some researchers had hoped that radial shearing -- which occurs when the inner ring of a dust disk rotates at faster speeds than the outer rings -- would help counteract the other turbulent forces. However, Barranco's simulation showed that the Coriolis Effect and vertical shearing usually proved stronger.

Computing planetary evolution

Planet formation theory has itself undergone periods of turbulent change in recent years. Early interest during the 1970s and 1980s eventually died down, only to pick up again in the 1990s when astronomers began finding planets orbiting other stars.

"Planet formation theory was formerly quiet, because we only had our own solar system," Barranco noted. Now scientists scramble to figure out a theory of planet formation that can account for the gas giants orbiting the many different systems observed so far.

Simulations of turbulent forces only arose in 3D during recent years with the advent of supercomputing. Barranco used hundreds of individual computer processors working together in parallel to each tackle a small piece of the puzzle. His study marks the first 3D modeling of such planetary formation, and appears in the latest issue of The Astrophysical Journal

As for explaining planet formation, the astrophysicist wants to reexamine his 2005 research that raised the idea of hurricane-like storms in protoplanetary disks. The quiet eye or center of such storms could theoretically have provided a haven for dust to clump up and provide the seeds for planets, even with chaos swirling all around.

"It's an incredibly challenging field," Barranco said. "We can't observe planetary formation, but we know that planets form because we're standing on one."


More confirmation of EU theory.
Best,

David
electrodogg1
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:20 am
Location: La Quinta, California

Re: Model shows planetary formation theory wrong

Unread postby mnemeth1 » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:57 am

Great find!
mnemeth1
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests