Leading Theory of Solar System's Formation Just Disproven (forbes.com)

StartsWithABang writes: In 2005, scientists put forth the Nice Model to explain the configuration of the Solar System's planets. It was thought that the outer planets, Jupiter in particular, migrated through the inner Solar System, and were then pulled back out by the presence of the outer giants, causing the late heavy bombardment of the terrestrial planets as it crossed the asteroid belt. But not only are extra gas giants that have since been ejected required to explain the outer worlds, but the migration would have ejected the inner, terrestrial worlds, indicating that the rocky planets finished forming after the gas giants were already in place. R.I.P., Nice Model: 2005-2015.

Comments

frisyt

[Hognoxious]

No doubt the actual article says something completely different, but I can't be arsed to read it.

Re:frisyt

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt the actual article says something completely different, but I can't be arsed to read it.

No, the actual article also just says "frisyt". Surprised me too.

Re:frisyt

[Anonymous Coward]

A wise man are you. The writer needs clickbait for his patreon account.

Re:frisyt

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the writer didn't title it "Nice Model Not So Nice After All".

Re:frisyt

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as I find out that somebody read the article I need to leave. FUCK, thanks Obama!

Re:frisyt

[delt0r]

You will do well here.

Re:frisyt

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the "Thanks !" is going to be applied to every subsequent president in the history of the United States, don't you? Thanks anonymous coward! (... for speading a pointless meme that provides no constructive input to the dialog whatsoever.)

Re:frisyt

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I doubt that it will be applied to all presidents.
It is pretty much a meme used only by the true idiots in our society. And they may one day get another idiot fascists into office similar to W. that will make them very happy and cuming over each other in their mass mutual masturbation parties.

Bollocks! The Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks, I say! I feel that the existence of the Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt explain why there wasn't the expulsion of gas giants. We know that the Asteroid Belt was at one point, before the presence of Jupiter, a rocky, prototypical planet between Mars and what was then the gap up until the Kupier Belt proto-planet and Pluto. This gap is why the gas giants eventually migrated into the region; the gravity gradient is such that it's too far from the Sun for larger solid planets to orbit (that's why Pluto and the small rocky planet that became the Kuiper Belt are so far out), but it's still strong enough that gaseous bodies may be present. Much as we see today in the Trocadero Region, where we've observed gas giants migrating between solar systems, our solar system's gas giants came from elsewhere. The Asteroid Belt was created by gravitational distortions caused by the incoming Jupiter, Saturn, and the prototypical Neptune/Uranus gas giant (it split into the two separate gas giants we have today, giving Uranus its unusual axis of rotation). These gravitational distortions tore apart the prototypical, rocky body that was between Mars and Jupiter, giving us the Asteroid Belt. Mars, which was orbiting on the other side of the Sun at the time, was spared, although it suffered severe crustal displacement the first time it did orbit near the gas giants. The Kuiper Belt on the other side of the gas giants formed in the same way. The prototypical planet for that was destroyed by similar gravitational distortions caused by the incoming gas giants. It's only when we take a holistic view of our solar system does it become clear why the Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt exist, and this explains how the gas giants arrived much later than the solid, rocky planets formed.

And?

[Coisiche]

So a model gets discarded because it won't work. Nothing to see here.

The proposition of a new model will make a better slashdot article.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe the submitter can create it in a less snarky, obnoxious way...

Re:And?

[MBGMorden]

Of course there's something to see here. If you never hear that this model has been disproven then people can go on to throw it out as plausible later.

A theory being disproven - particularly one that was highly regarded - is very much newsworthy.

Re:And?

[Applehu Akbar]

"So a model gets discarded because it won't work. Nothing to see here."

Fortunately, this model is in a discipline which has not gone political. We can make changes to it without holding any Maoist show trials where researchers get called "deniers."

Re:And?

[Dcnjoe60]

"So a model gets discarded because it won't work. Nothing to see here."

Fortunately, this model is in a discipline which has not gone political. We can make changes to it without holding any Maoist show trials where researchers get called "deniers."

I don't know about that. The status of Pluto seems/ed to be pretty political.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you'd say that, Pluto Denier!

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

The status of Pluto seems/ed to be pretty political.

It is political, but it isn't really science. The status of Pluto amounts to classification for jargon purposes, and has no impact on the science of what Pluto is and its significance. It just amounts to what wording scientists need to use when discussing groups of solar system things in science literature. Not all classification schemes in science have the same significance in meaning, and many come down to just convenience.

Re:And?

[Coren22]

I don't know about that. The status of Pluto seems/ed to be pretty political.

Part of the problem is that star scientists voted to reclassify Pluto without involving planet scientists in the decision. Why the world should listen to them however, I have never understood.

Re:And?

[david_thornley]

Researchers are rarely called "deniers". That particular epithet applies to those who disregard the science because it makes them emotionally uncomfortable or might cut into their profits or something.

Re:And?

[jeffmflanagan]

Where are there Maoist show trials where researchers are called deniers? Is this what the insane global warming deniers now pretend is the case? The Conservative cult is highly motivated to never engage with reality, all for the profits of those who so easily manipulate Conservative superstitions. Their whole house of delusions would crumble if they engaged any critical thinking skills instead of immersing themselves in conspiracy theories.

Re:And?

[jeffmflanagan]

Yeah, I suspect you're replying to a global warming denier. He seems to have a paranoid perspective that sees delusional people as just having a different belief.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, rather, the ignorant who deny the evidence no matter what, who then go and perform mock victimhood and claim everyone who isn't agreeing with them is a Maoist.

If you stop denying the evidence, you won't be called a denier.

It's not done by "Maoists", it's an accurate damn label of what you are.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the problem is that was a complete load of bollocks.

The "star scientists" ARE the damn scientists who were involved and ARE the "planet scientists".

Why the hell you should be believed, I will never understand.

Re:And?

[Coren22]

Because clearly someone who can't even manage to make an account is more of an expert than actual planetary scientists:

http://www.space.com/12710-plu...

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how every survey done since has the members of the IAU voting the same, no matter how much more inclusive you made it. Turns out the vast majority of the planetary astronomers don't care that much one way or the other, and a small vocal minority will yell about one side or the other. That you found someone upset about it doesn't change that the results of the vote were representative, and similar to how pretty much all IAU votes go.

Re:And?

[RockDoctor]

There is a "thumbnail" (not a formal paper, but a good undergraduate level explanation) of the Pluto decision by one of TFA's authors (Hal Levison). I have always preferred the materials science POV for defining "planet" (i.e., it has self-gravitated to a rough sphere) over the IAU's complex criteria, but after reading Levison's "thumbnail" I am much less opposed to the IAU definition than I was 6 months ago. (For context, I've been interested in Planetary Science since the mid-80s, which includes this question.)

Levison's "thumbnail" ; he used the term "hand waving" ; [SHRUG].

Re:And?

[RockDoctor]

I do not understand how you could make this assertion, if you actually listened to the arguments at the time (I did).

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So a model gets discarded because it won't work. Nothing to see here."

Fortunately, this model is in a discipline which has not gone political. We can make changes to it without holding any Maoist show trials where researchers get called "deniers."

I don't know about that. The status of Pluto seems/ed to be pretty political.

They just didn't want to have to force schoolchildren to relearn the solar system every time they find a dwarf planet on the way out to the Oort cloud.

Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[denzacar]

Can someone sum it up in a more tabloid-click-bait-like form for me?

"You won't believe how Solar system ACTUALLY formed..." or some such thing.

Re:Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[swb]

"A bunch of straight, old, white professors thought the solar system formed this way, and then a blind, black, transgender, muslim girl proved them wrong. You won't believe their reaction!"

Re:Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[thegarbz]

How much more clickbait can you get than "StartsWithABang writes:" ?

Re:Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reductionists hate her!

Re:Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's clickbait about someone mentioning his morning sexual activity in his nickname?

Re:Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[Xenx]

Around here, that would be a bit disingenuous.. aye?

Re:Soo... This proves or disproves the Bible?

[RockDoctor]

I'm surprised - almost astonished - that StartsWithABang didn't do this itself, and linked to Medium or Vice (I forget which is it's forte). I wonder if it's feeling well, or gets paid more by Forbes (the commercial link included).

I may well pay more attention to it's submissions now, instead of binning them on seeing the attribution.

"Less than 1% chance"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because nothing odd has ever occurred in our universe. Why is it that every scientist today seems to feel they need to assume our solar system, planet, place in the universe, etc must be "normal" and that equates to "average"? Something being unlikely does not make it impossible in a massive universe where unlikely things happen all the time - us not having as thing or two about our solar system be "unlikely" would be strange, given the variations in the universe.

Regardless the statement that this disproves the theory is incorrect based on my understanding after I RTFA.

Re:"Less than 1% chance"

[MBGMorden]

Because 1% chance means quite unlikely.

Unless we literally get a time machine working, its unlikely that we'll be able to show EXACTLY what happened. All we can do is model it, and anything that has a very tiny chance of happening is generally thrown out unless all other potential avenues are exhausted. Otherwise, each time we say "yeah, that 1% course is possible, lets stick with that" - we're wrong 99% of the time.

Re:"Less than 1% chance"

[Ken D]

So... if you walk up to a one hundred sided die, and the face of the die shows 31. Your position is that means the die is lying because there's only a 1% chance of that happening? ... interesting.

Re: "Less than 1% chance"

[gmiller123456]

No, the dice can be directly observed, so this is not a good example. A more appropriate example would be you guessing that the dice was 31 without observing it. So it is reasonable to belive there's a high probability that you're wrong.

Interesting cosmic pinball

[Antique Geekmeister]

The "cosmic pinball" of the larger planets ejecting other planets from the solar system is fascinating. If such ejections are common in different star systems, it might explain the startling number of planets and planetoids that are _not_ in orbits around stars being discovered as orbital telescopes improve. Most of these planets were too cool, and too small, to be detected until quite recently, The advent of infrared telescopes, and of extremely stable orbital telescopes to detect very small, non-luminescent interstellar objects have exposed thousands of such exoplanets.

I've suggested that if they're common, they might explain the "dark matter" problem of cosmology:namely, a reservoir of matter around galaxies that is impossible to detect by normal means, but doesn't require any exotic, unverified forms of matter to explain.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[Gavagai80]

The mass of everything else in the solar system doesn't approach the mass of the sun. Interstellar planets could never have enough mass to account for dark matter, which is supposed to be 73% of the universe by mass.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[lgw]

I've suggested that if they're common, they might explain the "dark matter" problem of cosmology:namely, a reservoir of matter around galaxies that is impossible to detect by normal means, but doesn't require any exotic, unverified forms of matter to explain.

Sorry, dark matter explains three observations: galactic rotation rates, the balance of matter in the early universe (as observed in the CMBR), and gravitational lensing where there is no visible matter. And it explains the first two of those in a way that matches quantitatively.

We know (as much as we know anything in science) that most of the matter in the early universe was not made from electrons and protons, sorry. Whatever its nature may be, most of the matter in the universe doesn't interact with light in any way.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[Anonymous Coward]

I've suggested that if they're common, they might explain the "dark matter" problem of cosmology:namely, a reservoir of matter around galaxies that is impossible to detect by normal means, but doesn't require any exotic, unverified forms of matter to explain.

Except there have already been too many observations searching for rogue planets through IR, microlensing, and occlusion effects. The quantity of such bodies it would take to account for dark matter means we would have had to seen a lot of them by now. Not seeing them doesn't mean they aren't there, but does set some upper bounds on how many are out there.

If you get a chance, read about the history of the MACHO theory for dark matter, as it was the first thing astronomers thought of, and also one of the earliest to be tested thoroughly. It has been over a decade since it has been ruled out (except for the most extreme, esoteric forms of the theory that involve things weirder than just an undiscovered particle), long enough that it is discussed in astronomy textbooks.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[HiThere]

IIRC, there have been a few found, or possibly found. (Free planets are quite hard to see, and you can't get repeated observations.)

The real problem is that "dark matter", whatever it may be, is non-baryonic. I.e., it doesn't contain protons. And electrons are so light that you can't plausibly make it out of combinations of leptons (e.g. an electron bound to a tau-positron).

That said, I've never heard it explicitly stated that it must be non-quarkish matter, so perhaps it's made of quarks in some stable configuration larger than triplets. But IFAIK so far all attempts to detect such entities (outside of accelerators) have failed.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with electrons is not that they are light, as many dark matter candidate particles are much lighter, but that they are charged and interact with EM strongly.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[Anonymous Coward]

Another theory states there was an earlier set of planets in the inner solar system. These were Neptune-sized gas worlds that got pushed into the sun by Jupiter's migrations and the gas/dust fallout that caused. The current inner planets formed later from the leftover debris.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[RockDoctor]

I've suggested that if they're common, they might explain the "dark matter" problem of cosmology:namely, a reservoir of matter around galaxies that is impossible to detect by normal means, but doesn't require any exotic, unverified forms of matter to explain.

This was a viable proposition in the late 1970s - as the "missing mass problem was going from "are our measurements correct" to "our measurements and our theories don't add up" - resulting in several surveys looking for evidence of cold, lumpy matter. In particular the search for MAssive Compact Halo Objects ("MACHO") was targeted at exactly this question.

MACHO didn't find anything like enough matter. It did find several interesting "transiting, free-flying planet" signals, whereas it would need to have hundreds or thousands to account for the missing mass. I think the programme is still running, but for constraining planetary populations, not explaining the cosmological problems.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[Antique Geekmeister]

> MACHO didn't find anything like enough matter

I must admit that I'm also not thoroughly convinced about the amounts of matter they need to find. The cosmology of the expanding universe is _extremely_ vulnerable to small measurement errors. Even numbers like the Hubble Constant are still being refined, and the gravitational analyses and behavioral analyses of galaxies billions of years old and billions of lightyears distant is vulnerable to many distortions and misanalyses. There comes a point in the deduction of extraordinary solutions, such as the speculative forms of "dark matter", that you need to pause, apply Occam's Razor, and ask "Did I measure this right in the first place? Or is my instrument mistuned?".

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[RockDoctor]

The amounts of "missing mass" needed to account for the orbital velocity profiles of spiral galaxies is around an order of magnitude greater than the upper limit of non-luminous compact matter detected by MACHO surveys. Other surveys looking at luminous matter and dispersed non-luminous matter (dust clouds and gas nebulae) also didn't find enough matter to explain the discrepancy between the apparently present gravitating mass, and the inventory of luminous and non-luminous matter.

you need to pause, apply Occam's Razor, and ask "Did I measure this right in the first place? Or is my instrument mistuned?".

Your lack of conviction is noted. Have fun getting it past a funding allocation committee.

People spent decades working through these arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, designing experiments and instruments to investigate exactly these questions, then publishing the details. That wheel has been thoroughly investigated and found to be circular, to within a couple of % (better than the wheels on your car probably). To try another metaphor - that dwarf is standing there, asking you to climb onto it's shoulders so you can see further.

Re:Interesting cosmic pinball

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit that I'm also not thoroughly convinced about the amounts of matter they need to find. The cosmology of the expanding universe is _extremely_ vulnerable to small measurement errors.

Measurements of galaxies and clusters on the other hand, suggesting that the missing mass is a factor of 5 larger than what we see, is not something that is vulnerable to small measurement errors... this is not some small fraction of mass that is missing.

There comes a point in the deduction of extraordinary solutions, such as the speculative forms of "dark matter", that you need to pause, apply Occam's Razor, and ask "Did I measure this right in the first place? Or is my instrument mistuned?".

And then there comes a point when Occam's razor suggests you should be asking, "How likely is it that so many different instruments and measurements have to be wrong in a cooperative way? Is it simpler that they are in agreement because of a common phenomena they are observing instead of a variety of methods having matching systematic errors?"

The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[slashdice]

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

This needs to be novelised. Well done!

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

This got to be one of the funnies and well written long slashdot comments i've ever read.

Chapeau!

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Applehu Akbar]

The flaw in your scenario is that it would require liberals to use technology.

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

My Vote - The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:4, Insightful)
by Valdrax (32670) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @02:10AM (#20820315)

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Rotation of the Earth? I think you mean rotation of the sun around the Earth!

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU must be new here. These posts: "The Moon...", "Old Ike", "Linux Gay Conspiracy", "Open Source: Openly Racist" have been around since Slashdot's beginning in the 90s.

Not to mention Natalie Portman & Hot Grits

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish someone would repost some of the old "Open Source Man" ones..

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

More evidence to this: the first launch of the "moon" actually failed in 1947, and crashlanded in Rosswell, New Mexico. The military first claimed it was a UFO, but later had to admit it was actually a weather balloon.

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Earliest I'm finding is 23 May 2000.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5645&cid=1051491

Not saying you aren't right about the 1990's; my GoogleFu may be weak.

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[PPH]

before 1950. That is when it was initially launched.

OK. But I was taught the Nazis launched it at the end of WWII. And it rotates to keep one face toward the Earth so we can't see their base on the other side.

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[david_thornley]

You actually believe that people have launched satellites? I hope you at least have a crossbow in your desk drawer.

Re:The One True Model

[Anonymous Coward]

God created the solar system 6,000 years ago and created a little world called Earth so his children could live in peace and harmony. He even had a son called Jesus who lived among us and performed miracles.

Science is for the weak of mind.

Technically, that is the leading theory here in the US, so TFHaS was wrong in that sense.

Fortunately, there is still room for FSM. Ramen.

Editors, schmeditors.

If a tree falls over in the forrest

[Big Hairy Ian]

And there's nobody there to hear it

Will there be a slashdot post about it?

Re:The One True Model

[Anonymous Coward]

God created the solar system 6,000 years ago and created a little world called Earth so his children could live in peace and harmony. He even had a son called Jesus who lived among us and performed miracles.

Science is for the weak of mind.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you're one of the idiots who is part of the problem.

Re:Bollocks! The Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt is

[jeffb (2.718)]

Dr. Velikovsky, you really should sign up for a named account.

NIce to see

[Anonymous Coward]

models and hypotheses being tested by the scientific method. So why doesn't this skepticism and rigor extend to climate science? Answer: the leftists are too heavily invested politically to allow the scientific method to proceed untainted.

Re: NIce to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore and his cronies are making too much money on green technology.

Re:NIce to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Because at this point weather/climate prediction is about as scientific as voodoo. We can't even predict what weather will be a few days out let alone changes over years or decades. Its needless to say that dumping gigatons of CO2, particulates and other gasses into the atmosphere is a bad thing, but we don't have a clue how bad. Anyone who says they know is either outright lying or is being willfully blind to their own ignorance.

Re: NIce to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell we can't even predict weather a few hours from now. Too many times the hourly forecast says 0% chance of rain, and it is raining buckets out. Weather forecasting, even with all today's technology, is still a crapshoot.

Re:NIce to see

[jeffmflanagan]

models and hypotheses being tested by the scientific method. So why doesn't this skepticism and rigor extend to climate science?

It does. The willfully-ignorant Conservatives just keep denying reality.

Answer: the leftists are too heavily invested politically to allow the scientific method to proceed untainted.

Hahaha, no...That's the wingnut "explanation." None of their bizarre claims regarding people outside their cult are true.
Why is it that the fantasy-role-playing RWNJs keep pretending that it's the tricksy left that's anti-science, when we can all see that it's the Republican lunatics who chose superstition, and rejected science. It's not the left who keep coming out as bigots and blaming their superstitions for their failure as humans, making them doubly-stupid.

Re:NIce to see

[HiThere]

To be fair, the left are also science deniers whenever it suits their political agenda. Start talking about inherent differences between populations of people and you'll soon find out. But they don't usually have a lot of money invested in their bias, so they're more flexible. (Slightly.)

Most of humanity of every stripe is unwilling to change it's beliefs just because of evidence. It needs a strong political or religious (i.e. emotional) motivation. I have hypotheses as to why, but very little in the way of evidence.

Re: NIce to see

[Anonymous Coward]

If you will judge the state of a science by websites and news stories that are rounding percentages to the nearest 20% and glossing over any actual detail, maybe you should leave judgements of science to those that work with actual data involving things like error bars...

Play nice!

[rmdingler]

Surprisingly enough, the summary is a bit misleading.

tldr: It appears the 2005 explanation for the formation of our little solar system isn't completely dead;

it merely requires an additional gas giant or some other tweaking to explain the existence of the four inner rocky worlds, including earth.

It's still fascinating how advanced we are as a life form to begin to question the origin of everything.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be too amazed there, chances are that this theory, the next theory, and the one after that will be disproven eventually. Theories that are based droves of information all recently collected are regularly disproven, let alone theories based on rough mathematical proofs with almost no historical data. Remember that only a few decades ago we though that ours was the only galaxy in the cosmos, as recently as 20 years ago scientists swore that large impacts didn't happen in the solar system any more (then Shoemaker Levy 9 smacked into Jupiter), I think it was only a decade or so ago that we realized that we don't know what over half of the Universe is made of (dark mater/dark energy). Not saying we shouldn't look for answers, but we also shouldn't assume that our answers are going to be right either.

Re:Play nice!

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's still fascinating how advanced we are as a life form to begin to question the origin of everything.

Come now, we've been questioning the origin of everything since we could talk. What do you think "religion" is all about?

Re:Play nice!

[Anna Merikin]

The five senses we humans possess are those which allowed us to adapt to our environment and live in it; there is no reason for me to believe they are sufficient to explain our universe.
That is, if we are smart enough in the first place, which is very, very doubtful.

I would add to Socrates' famous quotation, "All I know is I know nothing," the phrase, "and I can't even be sure of that."

Re:Play nice!

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, strictly speaking religion is a bit more about where we go to then where we came from ;D

Re:Play nice!

[cyberchondriac]

The five senses we humans possess are those which allowed us to adapt to our environment and live in it; there is no reason for me to believe they are sufficient to explain our universe.

Very eloquently said.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

as recently as 20 years ago scientists swore that large impacts didn't happen in the solar system any more (then Shoemaker Levy 9 smacked into Jupiter),

What? The K-T extinction was proposed as an impact 25 years ago, and would have involved an impactor larger than the fragments of SL9. The Voyager mission also saw evidence of geologically recent impacts from similar chains of fragments. Who swore that such impacts don't happen any more, when there has been evidence of them for decades? There has been argument for years over exactly how common some of these occurrences are, but I don't remember anyone ever saying they never happen any more.

Re:Play nice!

[jeremyp]

We're making a pretty good fist of it so far. There's no reason to suspect that the senses we have are not sufficient to explain the Universe and the evidence of our progress suggests that they probably are.

Re:Play nice!

[Maritz]

It's still fascinating how advanced we are as a life form to begin to question the origin of everything.

I'd love to agree on how amazing our advancement is but our inability to deal with real existential threats is anything but advanced.

Re:Play nice!

[Maritz]

Yeah I think he'd find it hard to put a name to the claim that large impact don't happen any more, as it would be a profoundly silly thing to say.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did we miss the "any more" part of the statement (human history, not geological history)? The widely held belief before Shoemaker Levy 9 was that the solar system had been swept of clean of virtually all large impactors for tens of millions of years (basically they thought the KT event was the last) and even smaller impacts (like Tunguska) were exceedingly rare. After it scientists began looking for impact evidence and reexamining possible impact features on Earth and were astonished at the number of impacts and how recently some of them have happened. What was once thought to be a once in a million year occurrence is now though to be a 1 in 300-600 year event. And the events that were once thought to not happen ANY MORE happen on average once every 20 million years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The K-T event is very recent by solar system timescales. There was no expectations that the solar system was swept clean since then. The cleaning was thought to take place over the first billion years or so, not in the last 50 million. If it was known to happen as recent as that, no one was saying it couldn't happen again.

Re:Play nice!

[jeffmflanagan]

Religion is a set of fantasy-based, absurd fake explanations. Sticking with fake explanations that give you the warm fuzzies is the opposite of questioning origins.

Re:Play nice!

[jeffmflanagan]

More to the point, it's about pretending that we don't really have to die because people can't cope with how temporary our existence is, but it usually also comes with an origin story.

Re:Play nice!

[KGIII]

Who's to say the ants have not already figured out the origins of the universe? They just lack opposable thumbs and don't care to tell us. Mayhap they've already tried to tell us or they keep it to themselves as a collective knowledge store amongst their individual groups?

Or, I could just be a little high.

Re:Play nice!

[KGIII]

I'm a Buddhist, not a very good Buddhist, but one regardless. I'm going to die. I'm okay with that. Someday? My atoms will be the material that makes up a star. That is my reincarnation.

Re:Play nice!

[JeffAtl]

Your molecules were once in a star, but they most likely won't ever be part of a star again since the sun isn't massive enough for a supernova.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sun is large enough to produce a planetary nebula, which is quite capable of spreading material over several light years on a 0.1-1 million year timescale. This is a significant method for spreading spreading light "metals" like C, N and O to new stars.

Re:Play nice!

[jrumney]

it merely requires an additional gas giant or some other tweaking to explain the existence of the four inner rocky worlds, including earth.

Or perhaps another passing star?

Re:Play nice!

[KGIII]

I'm gonna go with believing Brian Cox unless you've some sort of greater expertise?

Re:Play nice!

[rmdingler]

Yes, many possibilities.

IMHO, the work done in 2005 is unlikely 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate.

It did too well in some of the developmental models of the Solar System's formation to be completely discounted.

Re:Play nice!

[rmdingler]

We are so close, simultaneously, to unilateral destruction and universal expansion... not out of the Great Filter yet!

Re:Play nice!

[JeffAtl]

I doubt that Brian Cox thinks our sun will go supernova. You should check your sources again.

Re:Play nice!

[JeffAtl]

The earth won't be part of that nebula though.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that Brian Cox would have assumed that it was this sun that we'd be a part of, eventually.

Re:Play nice!

[Maritz]

Indeed ;) I've seen that a lot of people hope we don't find life elsewhere in the solar system because of the great filter. If we find it, it implies that the filter is in our future and we're therefore fucked.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman: since a supernova isn't required, Brian Cox's thoughts on the Sun not going supernova is irrelevant.

Re:Play nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth will likely become part of the Sun, in which case it will be part of that nebula. And even if the Sun doesn't get large enough and the Earth doesn't have a change in orbit, the Earth will still be stripped of a large fraction of its volatile elements, which will still be blown away during the formation of a nebula.

Let's just ask

[Anonymous Coward]

God

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I never agreed with that model. It's too outlandish.

The long standing model I always heard is the most likely truth. A large disk of spinning sand and rock stabelizes in orbits, and smaller pieces joing larger ones to eventually form a planet.

Even the gas giants must have a rocky core, as gravity would capture it and form one. And it's not going to be small either.

Re:Nonsense

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, that model doesn't work. And at many distances from the sun ices are stable enough to create a core to build things around. Interestingly Jupiter's orbit is around the place where water ice becomes solid enough to form such a core. This might be taken as an argument that Jupiter formed in position, and never moved, which in turn would imply that the same was true for the other giant planets.

Please note that this is not a complete model, but only an argument that would need to be countered in any model that required that the giant planets migrate. It does, however, seem to indicate that the small rocky planets, including Earth, probably DID migrate. If this is the reason that the asteroids are small fragments, then the larger rocky planets probably formed further out but in the shadow of one of the giants, so they didn't have a chance to grow, that the giants probably at one time had much larger families of moons, and that orbital interactions destabilized the orbits of some of them, sending some fraction of those flying into the inner solar system. Then SOMETHING has to have slowed them down to allow capture. This is going to be difficult to explain as Venus, e.g., has a nearly circular orbit. Possibly there was still a large disk of unconsolidated matter which acted as a resistive medium. The "late heavy bombardment" could have been the final clearing of the area.

Please note: This is only the sketch of a hypothesis. This doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis. But if we start with "A large disk of spinning sand and rock", then Earth won't end up with any water. Earth orbit is too hot even currently.

Re:Bollocks! The Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt is

[khallow]

Until you find the spindizzies that are pushing the gas giants around, you have the problem of not having a mechanism by which planets can move in the way you suggest and result in the nearly circular orbits of the gas giants today. Nor is there enough mass in the Asteroid Belt to account for your "gap" discussion (the current mass of the asteroid belt is less than a tenth that of Io (3*10^21 kg versus 8*10^22 kg), the smallest of the four major moons of Jupiter).

Jupiter has 90% of all non-Sun mass in the Solar System. There is nothing in the Solar System capable of capturing Jupiter, unless there was already one or more Jupiter mass objects present which were flung out as Jupiter came it. And circularizing all the orbits of the gas giants, given such mass exchanges with other star systems, would require vast amounts of time or intelligent interference (like the spindizzy engine), neither which is evident.

Gravity doesn't work this way. You need a mechanism that would explain this process.

And the age of the sun is?

[ChromaticDragon]

How does this affect or is affected by our estimates of the age of the Sun and Solar System?

As far as I understand, the best guide we have of the age of the Solar System is rocks on Earth used to estimate the age of Earth.

How much extra time would be required for this supposed possibility of the inner planets forming after the gas giants sweeping in and back out?

What tests could be done with rocks from Callisto or Ganymede to constrain the age of the Solar System?

Re:And the age of the sun is?

[Anonymous Coward]

This model has already been disproven by its own internal inconsistencies. That was the point of the article in the first place.

If it can be tweaked to remain internally consistent and then matches exoplanet calculations as well as our local sample, such a stable model might have predictive power. Until such a model is presented, I cannot offer any sort of speculation at what predictions it might create.

Re:And the age of the sun is?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but I do know that scientists consider asteroids and comets to be 'primordial' (they are the age of the solar system). So examining those bodies can answer a lot of questions.

Re:And the age of the sun is?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I understand, the best guide we have of the age of the Solar System is rocks on Earth used to estimate the age of Earth.

There is a lot more information in those rocks than just an age. The chemistry involved with radioactive elements is really important, because you have various decay products that are removed by some processes and not by others, allowing you to date different events based on how much decay product accumulates after they were cleaned out. This gives dates for things like the coalescence of the Earth, the time it took for silicon & iron compounds to separate, and time for things to solidify. Additionally, meteorites and measurements from probes on other planets can give relative timescales and gradients for processes across the early solar system. The data doesn't make everything simple and certain, but it does place multiple strong constraints on early solar system models.

Re:And the age of the sun is?

[bughunter]

This Planetary Society blog entry by their Senior Editor does a pretty good job of explaining how the chemistry of a primordial rock can tell you the conditions under which it condensed, and zircon U-Pb dating can give you a pretty good idea of the age. This gives astronomers a clear picture of what the primordial system was like.

Re:And the age of the sun is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radiometric dating of many meteorites consistently give an age of 4.5 billion years. The radioactive decay clock starts when the meteorites solidify by cooling down from the initial primordial dust cloud. The sun has also been dated by looking at the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium that currently exist relative to the original ratio of the primordial system, and simulations agree that the sun has been fusing hydrogen to helium for about 4.5 billion years. A recent New Scientist article said that an analysis of 10,000 zircon crystals found at least one that was 4.1 billion years old and contained carbon that suggested possibly being from a living system, making that the oldest known (possible) evidence for life. A rock system in Greenland has been dated by 5 different radiometric methods and consistently shows that the rocks there cooled at 3.6 billion years ago. All of which gives a very reliable, consistent system of ages. So if the gas giants moved prior to the formation of the terrestrial planets, they only had a few hundred million years in which to do it.

Re:And the age of the sun is?

[RockDoctor]

How does this affect or is affected by our estimates of the age of the Sun and Solar System?

Fair enough question.

The answer is : not in the slightest.

As far as I understand, the best guide we have of the age of the Solar System is rocks on Earth used to estimate the age of Earth.

Your knowledge is incomplete - it is a LONG way from the state of the art in the 1960s, and since then we've acquired a lot more knowledge.

Once radiometric dating had reached a reasonable degree of accuracy - a few percent, instead of the 10-20 % of the early 1950s (I've got a copy of one of Holmes' 1950s papers, signed by the man himself), they did start looking at meteorites, and as techniques got more accurate and used smaller samples, looking at grains WITHIN meteorites. They found, fairly rapidly, that age estimates were variable (well, the solar system is an active place), but maximal ages were older than maximal ages for terrestrial samples, with a lot of spread. Some of the spread was obviously due to corrosion problems (the most easily recognised meteorites are iron-containing, which are obviously very corrodable), but many meteorites have complex internal structures, and these seemed to have differing ages.

In the late 1960s, they started to get lunar samples back from the Russian landers, thne the Apollo missions. These also showed ages comparable with or higher than the oldest (dientified) Earth samples.

As techniques improved (and sample sizes decreased) through the 1970s, the ages slowly pushed back, but a new sample source came into play : Antarctic meteorites. These were important because they have lower identification biases than previous techniques, which strongly favoured the unusual textures and compositions of the "iron" and "stony-iron" meteorites that dominated earlier collections. And as sample sizes for dating continued to fall from grammes to milligrammes to microgrammes, it became easier to measure the ages of the structures within the different components of meteorites. Also, with samples taken from within single grains, more complex atomic clocks (including extinct clocks) could be sampled to get the relative dating of events within a single rock, while the whole-rock measurements gave an age for the rock as a whole.

The consequence is that the state of the art (last time I looked - a few years ago now) is that the oldest known structures in meteorites are what are known as CAIs (Calcium-Aluminium-rich-Inclusions) which date to about 4600 Myr and were formed early in the disc stage of planet formation. A few million years later, the CAIs plus dust were collecting into kilometre scale bodies cemented with dust grains, which heated sufficiently to weld into the "stony" (and stony-iron and iron - much rarer) meteorites at around 4575 Myr. A few million years more and the inner "rocky planets are assembled and more or less complete.

A decade ago, the various estimates for the Earth added up to convenient "4567" Myr grand average. that conveniently memorable number didn't last long, but it has reached the point that people are now trying to detect the signal of things like the Moon-forming event. No-one has precise measurements of that - if the data is present, it's hanging around in the noise in the measurements at the moment. But we're getting there.

Our understanding of the age of the planets in the solar system are informed by measurements of rocks, not orbital models.

Darn it, I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you are friends - proof of intelligent design! Praise the Lord(s)!

exoplanet searches found nothing like our system

[peter303]

Kepler found several dozen multiplanet systems. Most of these were planets as large as Neptune orbiting is less than two years. There is a bias toward fast and large planets in the current technology.

Solar system is a Myth!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is your "consensus", the science is not settled and should all be taking evidence of the solar system's "existence" with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Re:The One True Model

[grub]

"The problem" started when people began to question His writings and opted to not circumcise their sons.

Science is a great thing, but God trickles out knowledge to us bit by bit to help us grow as his children. Unfortunately some people think Science is the be-all-end-all and ignore Him. That is why we have earthquakes, AIDS, and terrorists.

Re:Bollocks! The Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt is

[Anonymous Coward]

Jupiter has 90% of all non-Sun mass in the Solar System.

More like 70%, not 90%. Saturn has 30% the mass of Jupiter, and Neptune and Uranus about 5%, which is not a trivial amount when it comes to multi-body dynamics. That is a long ways short of what is needed to capture a Jupiter sized body, but is plenty to allow migrations within the solar system and to allow evolution of eccentricity of orbits.

Re:Bollocks! The Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt is

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks, I say! I feel that the existence of the Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt explain why there wasn't the expulsion of gas giants. We know that the Asteroid Belt was at one point, before the presence of Jupiter, a rocky, prototypical planet between Mars and what was then the gap up until the Kupier Belt proto-planet and Pluto. This gap is why the gas giants eventually migrated into the region; the gravity gradient is such that it's too far from the Sun for larger solid planets to orbit (that's why Pluto and the small rocky planet that became the Kuiper Belt are so far out), but it's still strong enough that gaseous bodies may be present. Much as we see today in the Trocadero Region, where we've observed gas giants migrating between solar systems, our solar system's gas giants came from elsewhere. The Asteroid Belt was created by gravitational distortions caused by the incoming Jupiter, Saturn, and the prototypical Neptune/Uranus gas giant (it split into the two separate gas giants we have today, giving Uranus its unusual axis of rotation). These gravitational distortions tore apart the prototypical, rocky body that was between Mars and Jupiter, giving us the Asteroid Belt. Mars, which was orbiting on the other side of the Sun at the time, was spared, although it suffered severe crustal displacement the first time it did orbit near the gas giants. The Kuiper Belt on the other side of the gas giants formed in the same way. The prototypical planet for that was destroyed by similar gravitational distortions caused by the incoming gas giants. It's only when we take a holistic view of our solar system does it become clear why the Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt exist, and this explains how the gas giants arrived much later than the solid, rocky planets formed.

You know nothing John Snow

Nice Model you've got there.

[Anonymous Coward]

A shame something happened to it...

Re:The One True Model

[Anonymous Coward]

First I wondered what you had injected today. Then I saw your signature.

Re:The One True Model

[grub]

Injections go against the sanctity of the human body. I would sooner die of a disease than defile the temple He created in His image with a single injection.

Re:Bollocks! The Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt is

[khallow]

Sorry, you're right. I didn't look at the numbers right.

Re: The One True Model

[Anonymous Coward]

While these problems are considerable and man is not receiving God's promised favor until his day arrives, please do not perpetuate the belief that his judgement day takes place now.

The scriptures warn us in James 1:14 'When under trial, let no one say: âoeI am being tried by God.â For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone

Man is to blame for those things that aren't attributed to accidents. The whole world lies in the influence of the wicked one, Satan (1 John 5:19). Soon this will no longer be the case when God's Kingdom fulfills Revelations ch 21 and sets up its tent on Earth forever.

2005 Theory was not a nice model

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason that theory was forwarded was because, at the time, detection of large gas giant planets close to stars in other solar systems were the only good observation we had of planets around other solar systems. So since we could only detect large planets whose orbits created wobbles in remote stars the scientists at the time thought, "We this is pretty common so maybe all solar systems have gas giants orbiting close to their star at some point in their lifetimes." But as with most cosmology, the more data we get and the better observations we have the old theories based on limited data are junk.

Cue David Caruso

[Locke2005]

"So it turns out that wasn't..." (Removes glasses) "... such a nice model afterall!"

Coren22 proven a TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject - OR did you NOT say this:

"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

behind my back (since I can't see signatures) like the punk you are & KGIII noted it:

"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which I COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides which I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines no less NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

* You're a disgusting LIAR & burying yourself ALL THE MORE for me... thank you!

APK

P.S.=> The beatings WILL continue libeling liar... much to YOUR OWN dismay, & you've only brought it on yourself (signatures? what a punk... man to man, I've shown how technically inept you are, & I doubt you're what you CLAIM to be in MCSE, SystemEngineer, & Security - most posts that are that 'beating' on you show QUITE otherwise)... apk

Coren22 proven a LYING punk

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides?

I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

You did all that? No!

(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk

Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!

Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?

Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

Now I get it!

[denzacar]

Thanks.

Complex Theory can it also...

[ppalme]

explain the axial tilts of the planets. Also not sure if they have taken the Schwadron retention theory into account and how these neely discovered interstellar boundaries could play a role in planet formation.

Oh, Forbes is saying that... about a MNRAS paper

[Anonymous Coward]

  Were they rejected in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Icarus or Nature perhaps... ?

Re:The One True Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Until about 2 centuries ago, even people who were considered smart for their time actually fell for that kind of derp. Now religion is strictly for the slow-on-the-uptake, or willfully-ignorant crowds.

What reason is there to believe they are inadequat

[Anonymous Coward]

What reason is there to believe they are inadequate? Just a desire to "know" that science probably has it all wrong?

Here's a thing to know. You can measure the wavelength of visible light with a ruler.

Yup. Not a weird one, but a normal steel rule such as a professional engineer would use, graduated to the mm.

Here's how: use it like a diffraction grating. Shine the light at a shallow angle and the effective width of the markings drop as the sine of the angle.

Measure the angle and the diffraction pattern caused by the laser light shining off it and you can calculate the wavelength of the light with a normal steel ruler.

It isn't that our senses are inadequate, it's that you have to use them intelligently.

YMMV.

How does the modelling work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a numerical integration of the positions of the planets (and planetesimels) over millions (or billions) of years based arbitrary starting positions and velocities? Or is it based on some algorithm for how the orbital elements of each planet (semi-major axis, inclination, eccentricity, etc) change in response to other masses (and impacts) with their own orbital elements? Or something else?

Re:How does the modelling work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is based on numerical integration and modelling the coalesces of gas and planetesimels, with a large ensemble of starting points.

I win

[Anonymous Coward]

The planets all formed at the same time, just the inner rocky ones had their gas envelopes blown off by their proximity to the local star.

I'll take my Nobel with a pumpkin latte please.

Coren22 proven a TROLL (NSA/GCHQ?)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject - OR didn't you say:

"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

behind my back (I can't see sigs) & KGIII noted it:

"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which I SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

* You're a disgusting LIAR & burying yourself!

---

DEFENSE INDUSTRY? Coren22 from http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

"Theory" here - you working for the NSA/GCHQ now?

They tend to "recruit from within"!

They're KNOWN to attack SECURITY software (like mine) https://theintercept.com/2015/...

(If so THEY PICKED BADLY using YOU as a lapdog - (not theory ->) you're brain-damaged w/ Aspergers as you admit- "the sins of the father" = visited on his kids too)

Dumb - folks like me help SECURE folks via wares like mine - folks in NSA/GCHQ are spying on us is NOT helping folks in the US!

This "theory" of mine wouldn't surprise me 1 bit - considering GCHQ hacked /. https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Not after proof I put up (IF you're their crony tell your "handlers" they're busting on the WRONG guy for "character assasination" - I help do the RIGHT thing, not the wrong one spying on US folks! I protect 'em)

Wouldn't be a 1st: I've had PROFESSIONAL trolls try it (Cito) & advertisers' cronies (AndyMadigan & RayMorris) do it on /. - I dusted + busted 'em.

APK

P.S.=> You've bring it on yourself (signatures? Punk! I've shown you're technically inept & I doubt you're MCSE, SystemEngineer, & Security - my posts show otherwise)... apk

Coren22 proven a LYING punk

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides?

I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

You did all that? No!

(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk

Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!

Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?

Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

TFS seriously misstates TFA

[RockDoctor]

TFS talks about the gas giants migrating into the inner solar system, then out again.

This is incorrect. What marched through the inner solar system was a series of small-number resonances (1:2, 2:3, 2:5, etc) with the orbits of (proto-)Jupiter and (proto-)Saturn, as the planets moved by considerably smaller amounts.

The migration of those resonant orbits disturbed the orbits of smaller bodies, which then interact (collide) with other bodies and amongst themselves, resulting in accretion or ejection.

Both Jupiter and Saturn produce resonances, though the Jovian ones are much the stronger.

Without the ejection of a fifth gas giant, I cannot see a way for Jupiter and Saturn to exchange positions. And I can't see a way to circularise their orbits after such an exchange.