Love, whose training in planetary science involved asteroids and collisions, immediately realized the implications of this simplistic, gee-whiz demonstration. "Don!" Love exclaimed, "Do you realize you've just solved the middle stage of planetary accretion?"
In the nebular theory, accretion refers to the collision and sticking of cooled microscopic dust and ice particles *electrostatically*, in protoplanetary discs and Gas giant protoplanet systems, eventually leading to planetesimals which gravitationally accrete more small particles and other planetesimals. [emphasis mine]
The astronauts were conducting a simple demonstration of the already known effect of electrostatics. Love's comment about solving the middle stage of planetary accretion was just humorous hyperbole.
While other hot, jupiter-like planets are known to orbit nearby stars, the "crowded" multiple star nature of this system challenges current theories of planet formation.
This is from a caption on an artist's conception. There's no detail, no way to determine what the caption's author was referring to, and it's not a technical article. As far as I can tell, current theories of planet formation are for a single star. The physics in multi-star systems is extremely complex.
When we peer out into the universe we can observe accretion disks in various stages and situations.
By the way, if a star were to somehow eject a planetary-sized body at less than escape velocity, that body's orbit would intersect the star at the conclusion of the first orbit.
People have already responded to your "evidence is a conversation stopper" comment, so I guess I'm just wondering why you care whether planets form from accretion disks or are ejected from their suns. The universe will still be billions of years old. According to Genesis, God didn't create a molton Earth by ejecting it from the sun and sending it speeding away to spend many orbits and many, many days settling into a circular orbit before spending millions of years cooling with the heaviest elements sinking toward the center.
Accept the ejection theory if you like, but you're just adding to your problems. Your Biblical views still won't be supported by scientific theory, but now the scientific theory you favor is one without evidence.
Why would you want that? I don't understand. Someone with your beliefs should want both theories to be wrong.
I am here to discuss ideas. I don't have the evidence you guys want so either ignore me or quite asking me to do that.
This is a science-based debate site, you need evidence to discuss here, it's in the Forum Guidelines:
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
I forgot to say bye bye! I am off to discuss this where new theories are usually not accepted.
Why go? No one accepted your ideas here either.
I think JT misspoke and actually intended to say that he was going where new theories are not *rejected*. Of course, what he considers rejection is actually just careful scrutiny, which is the best one could wish for a new idea.
JT probably believes the harsh scrutiny was because of close-mindedness and antagonism toward new ideas. People usually project their own qualities onto others, and so he probably believes everyone here knows as little of science as he does, so he felt free to ignore what we told him about what the evidence actually indicates.
One thing we find most puzzling about creationists, and it's a quality you share with them, is that they're completely unbothered, even blasé, about their errors. Here in this thread about the origins of the solar system where you have gotten almost nothing right, you have now added to your already lengthy list of errors. The article you cite (Sun and Planets Constructed Differently, Analysis from NASA Mission Suggests) is evidence *against* your ejection idea:
"We found that the Earth and moon, as well as Martian and other meteorites, which are samples of asteroids, have a lower concentration of the O-16 than does the sun," McKeegan said. "The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun. Just how and why remains to be discovered."
Since the Earth is formed from isotopically different material than the sun, it could not have formed through being ejected from the sun, else its isotopic composition would have been identical.
Now here's the mystery. After making yet another fatal error one would expect that any normal person would pause, think, reflect, reconsider, and rededicate themselves to improving their knowledge, but something tells me that won't be the case here.
I don't know if you're thinking along the same lines I am, but I can think of a couple explanations. What makes me doubt them is that they're so obvious that Nasa must already have considered and rejected them, but on the other hand they weren't mentioned in the article, so who knows.
So one possibility is that the isotopic composition of oxygen is the same on the planets and the sun, but the greater weight of the higher isotopes causes them to be under-represented in the particles that escape the sun to be captured by Nasa spacecraft.
Another possibility is that in the early solar system the heavier isotopes of elements like oxygen and nitrogen were preferentially attracted toward the center of gravity, the sun.
Some of your errors are new, some are repeats from your past messages, and some are just hilarious. It would be nice if we could engage you in discussion about your errors and misinterpretations, but that hasn't proven possible so far, plus you say you're off to deal with the "big boys", so there seems little point in addressing them.
Good luck with the "big boys." Could you provide a link? We could use the entertainment.