[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
4128
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Giant impact hypothesis ... the "ejection" of a planetary body
|
"... a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and the Earth would have been ejected into orbit around the Earth." but they don't really know ... since it's a "hypothesis" ... they think that it's possible that something like this might have happened and that's how science works ... hypotheses are formed ... and so forth ... that's the scientific method what does not fall within the strict confines of the scientific method are unsubstantiated assertions that something is possible or impossible the multitude of factors for such a scenario are input to a computer simulation ... and it's the rigorous mathematical constraints of the model that determine the hypothetical outcome but unsubstantiated assertions are definitely not allowed as a basis for acception or rejection of a hypothesis to assert whether something is possible or impossible ... one must exhibit the mathematical rigor involved necessary to form any formal confirmation or rejection of a hypothesis which is exactly what the detractors of Velikovsky lacked ... they presented no proof ... no mathematical equations representing the forces involved all the detracters did was throw around terms like gravity and momentum and then stood back and jeered at the man some "science" huh? all that the mass of establishment science could muster in the face of Velikovsky's hypothesis were UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS ... and that's what they continue to rely upon they could offer no formal PROOF ... so they just said "No, it's impossible." ... and figured that we "laymen" would be convinced by the unanimity of their unsubstantiated assertions |
Responses:
[4136] [4140] [4138] [4133] [4129] [4130] [4134] [4131] [4135] [4132]
4136
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: unless and until mathematical proof offered for hypothesis rejection
| there will not be any response to your frivolous posts ... in other words ... don't waste your time or mine |
4140
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: unless and until mathematical proof offered for hypothesis...
|
I have climbed Mount Everest. Unless and until you provide proof that I did not, then don't argue against me or waste my time. :) Brian |
Responses:
None
4138
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: mathematical proof??
|
Hi HG, > unless and until mathematical proof offered for hypothesis...there will not be any response to your frivolous posts ... in other words ... don't waste your time or mine Mathematical proof?? Come on HG you are slinging out random science that doesn't support Velikovsky and I'm pointing that out. This is a discussion forum and if you post these things you shouldn't be surprised that others point out the flaws in what you post. And you did start this latest series of posts by saying "one caveat for this post and all that follow ... logical arguments disputing this post will be answered as my abilities warrant ... unsubstantiated assertions will be ignored". I'm just posting logical arguments. Velikovsky wrote some interesting things, but even he acknowledged they were impossible by Newtonian celestial mechanics that have been used to accurately describe the movements of solar system objects for centuries. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4133
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Giant impact hypothesis ... the "ejection" of a...
|
Hi HG, > which is exactly what the detractors of Velikovsky lacked ... they presented no proof ... no mathematical equations representing the forces involved > all the detracters did was throw around terms like gravity and momentum and then stood back and jeered at the man > some "science" huh? Well that's completely false. "The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were irreconcilable with Newtonian celestial mechanics, requiring planetary orbits which could not be made to conform to the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum (Bauer 1984:70). Velikovsky conceded that the behavior of the planets in his theories is not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movement of the planets, although such forces between astronomical bodies are essentially zero (Friedlander 1995:11-12)." The paths of objects in the solar system can be described mathematically with great precision via Newtonian celestial mechanics. Velikovsky himself admitted his theories did not align with the mathematics that have been used to accurately show the movements of planets and comets for several centuries. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4129
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: gas giant and ice giant size and compostiion comparisons
|
ice giant description gas giant description "A gas giant is a massive planet with a thick atmosphere of hydrogen and helium. They may have a dense molten core of rocky elements or the core may have completely dissolved and dispersed throughout the planet if the planet is hot enough. ... The hydrogen and helium in 'traditional' gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn constitutes most of the planet, whereas the hydrogen/helium only makes up an outer envelope on Uranus and Neptune which are sometimes called ice giants, as they are mostly composed of water, ammonia, and methane molten ices." "Jupiter and Saturn consist mostly of hydrogen and helium, with heavier elements making up between 3 and 13 percent of the mass. ... Their structures are thought to consist of an outer layer of molecular hydrogen, surrounding a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen, with a probable molten core with a rocky composition. The outermost portion of the hydrogen atmosphere is characterized by many layers of visible clouds that are mostly composed of water and ammonia. The metallic hydrogen layer makes up the bulk of each planet, and is described as 'metallic' because the great pressure turns hydrogen into an electrical conductor. The core is thought to consist of heavier elements at such high temperatures (20,000 K) and pressures that their properties are poorly understood." |
4130
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: "planetesimal-driven migration and planet-planet scattering"
URL: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_formation_and_migration
|
"Planetesimal-driven migration ... A planet that ejects a planetesimal from the planetary system must give up energy, and thereby moves closer toward the star (this occurs, to a negligible degree, when spacecraft make use of gravitational slingshots from the giant planets). Conversely a planet that scatters planetesimals into shorter period orbits gains energy, and migrates outward. To order of magnitude, a planet will suffer a substantial change to its orbit if it interacts with a mass of planetesimals that is comparable to its own mass. Since the ratio of solids to gas in typical protoplanetary disks is of the order of 10 −2 this condition is easier to meet for ice giants, which have accreted relatively modest gaseous envelopes, than for very massive planets with near stellar composition. The distribution of trans-Neptunian objects provides strong evidence for planetesimal migration having occurred early in Solar System history. In addition to Pluto itself, a large number of other bodies (called Plutinos) are observed to be trapped in 3:2 resonance with Neptune. Some of these bodies have eccentricities high enough that they cross Neptune's orbit. This unusual distribution is likely the result of the outward migration of Neptune, driven by the scattering of a disk of planetesimals inward into orbits that eventually led to encounters with Jupiter and ejection from the Solar System. Simultaneously, the slow outward motion of Neptune captured Pluto and other bodies into the 3:2 resonance (a process known as resonant capture) and excited their eccentricity. Although the evidence is less direct, it is also possible that all of the giant planets in the Solar System originated in a more compact configuration, which then evolved under the action of planetesimal scattering to its current state. The Nice Model postulates that this evolution included a crossing of the 2:1 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn, and links this crossing to the Late Heavy Bombardment (a transient spike in the cratering rate) on the Moon. The full consequences of such large-scale rearrangements of the giant planets remain to be explored." "Planet-planet scattering ... Interactions between planets can also occur after both the gas and planetesimal disks have been lost (or depleted to a dynamically negligible level). No general stability criteria is known for a planetary system with N planets >2 , so numerical N-body experiments are needed to study the evolution of such systems. An initially unstable planetary system can evolve via: Ejection of one or more planets (typically the lightest) An increase in the orbital separation of the planets, toward a more stable configuration Physical collisions between planets, or between a planet and the star The relative probability of these channels depends upon the orbital radii and masses of the planets, and so no blanket statement about the outcome of planet-planet scattering is possible. However, typically the survivors after scattering has ceased have migrated modestly inward, and gained significant eccentricity. Numerical calculations have shown that planet-planet scattering can reproduce the observed eccentricity distribution of massive extrasolar planets, and as a result this mechanism is the leading candidate for explaining why extrasolar planets frequently have non-circular orbits." |
4134
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: "planetesimal-driven migration and planet-planet...
|
Hi HG, You do realize that the ejection this discusses is the gravity caused ejection of one body by another body in the early solar system and NOT the ejection of a planetary core Velikvosky style. This is based on the celestial mechanics... the same celestial mechanics that show Velikovsky's ideas are not possible. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4131
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: "possible for colliding super-Earth-mass embryos to reach cores"
| "Through a series of numerical simulations, we show that it is possible for colliding super-Earth-mass embryos to reach the cores of gas giants." |
4135
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: "possible for colliding super-Earth-mass embryos to reach...
|
Hi HG, Yes, that is the Shu Lin Li paper that Scranton mentioned and I posted a link to last week. The paper discusses that such an impact could reach and destroy the core of a gas giant planet. It in no way supports Velikovsky style core ejections and is talking about what may have happened early in the history of the solar system. You seem to be searching for real science papers with words like "ejection" and "cores" and posting them as if they support Velikovsky without understanding what they actually say. There is a reason why no one with any scientific understand has ever supported Velikovsky's tales of cosmic catastrophe. Instead of railing about how scientists dissed Velikovsky and then posting random science papers as if they support Velikovsky why do you actually discuss the subject? You know, a dialogue between people instead of endless monologues? Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
4132
From: Dreamz, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re:Nothing about them getting flung out out the gravity well .
|
"In general, impinging sub-Earth-mass planetesimals disintegrate in gas giants' envelopes deposit heavy elements well outside the cores and locally suppress the convection. Consequently, their fragments sediment to promote the growth of cores." Nothing about them getting flung out out the gravity well of a gas giant D- Must try harder |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]