New Space Telescope Observations Upset Theories of Planet Formation

[G_j]

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=07EC1AA0-F5D7-4BC8-B8B515785488F811&title=New%20Space%20Telescope%20Observations%20Upset%20Theories%20of%20Planet%20Formation

New Space Telescope Observations Upset Theories of Planet Formation

David McAlary
Washington
18 Oct 2004, 21:24 UTC

The leading theory of how planets form is being revised because of new observations from the U.S. Spitzer Space Telescope. The process is not as smooth and quiet as once thought, but rather the result of violent collisions between massive space rocks.
If you look at the dust under your bed long enough, you will see it clump together into bigger dust balls. This is a rough analogy to the process astronomers thought caused planets to form.

The theory suggests that the disk of dust swirling around a star, a remnant of that star's formation, merges through gravity. U.S. space agency astronomer Jonathan Gardner says the grains gather to form small clumps that attract other clumps to make bigger ones, and so on relatively smoothly over a few million years, or so it was thought.

"Particles in the disk clump together, forming planetessimals, which then collide with each other, building up to form the planets. The planets then sweep up or dissipate the disk," he said. "Now, we will have to rewrite the text books because these observations reveal that view to be wrong."

..more..

[benburch]

1. Fascinating!

I love Astronomy!

[aquart]

2. Worlds in Collision, by Immanuel Velikovsky.

Getting truer by the day.

[lazarus]

6. impossible

since it's complete dreck.

[aquart]

11. Which part, dear? Since you know it so well.

Point out some dreck.

[lazarus]

17. well

We can start with:

PROBLEM I - THE EJECTION OF VENUS BY JUPITER

Velikovsky says: Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet.

Sagan says: To escape from Jupiter, the comet must have a kinetic energy of 1/2mv^2, where m=cometary mass and v=escape velocity of Jupiter. This equals about 60 km/sec. At least 10% of this kinetic energy will go into heating the comet.

The minimum kinetic energy per unit mass is 1/2v^2 = 1.3 x 10^13 ergs per gram.

The heat portion of the kinetic energy is more than 2.5 x 10^12 erg/gram. Rock melts at about 4 x 10^9 erg/gram. Thus, any event that ejected a comet or planet from Jupiter would melt rock (or organic compounds or ices).

Another problem is the escape velocity from the Sun's gravity (at the distance of Jupiter it is about 20 km/sec). Thus, if a comet leaves Jupiter at velocities less than 60 km/sec it will fall back to Jupiter; if greater than about <(20)^2 + (60)^2>^1/2 = 63 km/sec it will escape from the solar system. There is only a narrow and therefore unlikely range of velocities consistent with V's hypothesis.

Further, the mass of Venus is more than 5 x 10^27 grams. The total kinetic energy required to propel Venus from Jupiter's escape velocity is about 10^41 ergs, which is equivalent to all the energy radiated by the Sun in one year and 100 million times more powerful than the largest solar flare ever observed. V wants us to believe that an ejection event occured on Jupiter that was vastly more powerful than anything on the Sun.

---

There's so much, much more.

"The less one knows about science, the more plausible Velikovsky's scenario appears." -- Leroy Ellenberger

Or you can just read the Top Ten things wrong with the whole work.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Velikovsky's "theories" have nothing to do with this.

Velikovsky's claptrap is junk. He has no real science behind it and it has been disproved many times.

[aquart]

10. Actually, it hasn't and he's dead on about Egyptian chronology.

He was right about Mars having had water, wasn't he? Didn't we find that out just recently? Didn't we? Hmmmmmmm?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Water on Mars is not particularly surpising.

Velikovksy's worlds in collision idea has nothing to do with planetary formation. Instead, he thinks that Venus grazed Earth within recorded history. There are no planetary dynamics that would allow that and the current orbits, which have been calculated back tens of thousands of years, beyond recorded history.

Like a creationist, Velikovsky starts with a colorful story and selectively tortures facts to make ridiculous assertions in support of it. He does not explain how the laws of physics would be repealed, as would be necessary for his "theory". He is anti-scientific and a crackpot.

[wurzel]

3. It is a bit like the equivalent of evolution's "punctuated equilibrium".

[sally343434]

4. Heresy!

Anyone who disputes that everything was created in seven days a few thousand years ago is challenging The Fearless Leader's Religion and will be dealt with properly by the Ministry of Homeland Security!

[daleo]

12. If you look through a telescope you are looking back in time

So if we just look at the right place 7000 light years from here, we should see a big guy with a long beard waving a wand, with stars instantly zapping into existence. Once this is done, the heretics will fall silent.

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. Wrong. Oh, man, you are sooooooooo wrong.

According to one of the Creation Science books I read - and it was merely purporting what is essentially basic theory of creation science, so it doesn't matter what Creation Science book you read - especially since none of the assholes ever bother with either mathematic proof and/or footnoting anything they say (much like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or our own War Criminal Fake President Traitor) - the speed of light has changed over time. Yes, that's right - they base their theories on the fact that the speed of light as measured FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO measured a speed of light significantly faster than we measure it today. Well, imagine that - someone in the 1600s, using a drip cup as a time piece, at a period in human history when the fastest speed anyone knew was a horse, getting the speed of light wrong. But no, to the Creation Scientists, their theory holds together only if we assume that that experiment gave a 100% perfectly accurate measure of the speed of light.

Thus, your theory is utter bogus secular humanist darwinist God-hating spew. Since if we look back 7,000 years ago, we only THINK we are looking back 7,000 years ago, but as the Creation Scientists know, you'd actually only be looking back about 1,000 years or so because the speed of light has changed over time. So the only way to look back 7,000 years (as you secular humanist fetus-destroying Kerry-and-taliban-supporters think of "years") is to look back the 15,000,000,000 years you family-destroying Jesus-despising "scientists" think that is the beginning of the universe.

So, go on believing all you want that the universe is 15,000,000 years old. The Creation Scientists, who have Truth as their foundation, know that it's only 7,000 years. And it's 7,000 REAL years, as we know them, not 7,000 mathematically compressed years, so don't try to pull any of that LIEberal Bible-burning-hatred wool over their eyes.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Strange. This is the very theory offered in the PBS series "Origins"

when it aired a number of weeks ago.

:shrug:

[Massacure]

8. I've seen this theory even before "Origins"

I wonder if it is really so "upseting" and not "confirming'

[Seabiscuit]

9. I see it as a fake offshoot of the same theory

Nothing's changed. The same theory still holds true.

[progressivedancer]

13. Interesting

This is fascinating. I know many people are either supporting or destroying this new finding, but what I got from the article is that these two theories are applicable to the formation of our solar system. I decifer that the solar system was first a suspension of smaller dust objects that formed larger objects which in turn participated in many collisions, eventually forming today's solar system.
I think the problem here is that people find the need to accept just ONE truth, just ONE theory, when in fact there may be many events with different truths that concluded into the current solar system.

[G_j]

15. yes, I'm not a scientist

but it seems 'one theory' may not always work.
It is sort of fun to watch theories clash.

[Paleocon]

16. Interesting...

Science is our future...

[Chicago Democrat]

18. We are born of destruction

and into destruction we go!!!


Bush/Cheney is like when worlds collide!