Slashdot Mirror
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.
No doubt the actual article says something completely different, but I can't be arsed to read it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
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.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
And there's nobody there to hear it
Will there be a slashdot post about it?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Dr. Velikovsky, you really should sign up for a named account.
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Sorry, you're right. I didn't look at the numbers right.
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.
"So it turns out that wasn't..." (Removes glasses) "... such a nice model afterall!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Thanks.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
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.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"