Oh, That Crazy Solar System!

siriusmre · Dec 19, 2005

From SPACE.com (no less) comes yet another blow to the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation. Will these new discoveries force astronomers to think outside the box? Will these discoveries serve to falsify the hypothesis? One can hope, but probably not. "A swath of space beyond Neptune is getting stranger all the time as astronomers find an ever-more diverse array of objects in various orbits and groupings. "A pair of discoveries this month along with a handful of others in 2005 have begun to reveal what some astronomers long suspected: The outer solar system contains a dizzying array of round worlds on countless odd trajectories around the sun, often with multiple satellite systems. "The problem is, current theories of the solar system’s formation and evolution can’t account for it all. [Emphasis added]" <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> More from SPACE.com: The Solar System Gets Crazier <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Dec 19, 2005

LOL! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

robnissen · Dec 19, 2005

"Will these new discoveries force astronomers to think outside the box? Will these discoveries serve to falsify the hypothesis? One can hope, but probably not." Of course, astronomers want to think outside the box. Fame and fortune does not come to scientists that confirms theories, they come to scientists who come up with new theories. But a theory is not speculation. For a theory to lead to fame and fortune, it must be supported by data. The problem is, the best current fits for the data we now have, are the current theories, whether Big Bang, Black Holes, solar nebula, whatever. To say that "I don't believe in black holes," is irrelevant. Rather a scientists must say, the data does not support black holes because of 1) ... 2)... 3)... And that furthermore, here are a set of equations that better describe the universe, and that fit the data better than black holes. The problem is, that is EXTREMELY difficult to do, because the conventional wisdom best fits the data and the math. That is not to say, that some of the current conventional wisdom may some day go the way of the ether, but it is to say, that merely saying you don't believe in something is a waste of breath. An additional problem is that because confirming existing theories does not lead to fame and fortune, there will always be charlatans out there, who will try for fame and fortune the easy way, by claiming that they have math and data that discredits existing theories. But they are charlatans, and the way you can tell, is they don't publish in peer-reveiwed scientific journals (and don't think for a second that the journals wouldn't be falling all over themselves to try to be the first to publish the a brand new theory that overturned the conventional wisdom AND was supported by data and math). So instead the charlatans merely put up web sites, which their simple-minded followers take as gospel, and then complain that scientists are too timid to think outside the box.

summoner · Dec 19, 2005

Very good post Rob, good to see someone point out that the theories that are in place are there for a reason and to have them shot out of the water is going to take credible evidence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

rhodan · Dec 19, 2005

Maybe some future historian will read the threads we had here about the solar system's composition and evolution and just giggle. We still no virtually nothing about our star system.

bonzelite · Dec 19, 2005

Maybe some future historian will read the threads we had here about the solar system's composition and evolution and just giggle. We still no virtually nothing about our star system. well put. i think in the next ten to thirty years instrumentation and innovation in techniques for locating and observing celestial mechanics will inexorably bury current theories and heavily modify others. i think a lot of major theories will be modified rather than entirely replaced. for example, removal of vagueness about things like "is there really liquid on mars today anywhere" will be entirely known with 200% certainty, yes or no, in a short time. so there will be no place to hide anymore. and this will just have a very broad reach very soon. once stephen hawking and his ranks die and new talent emerges with new ideas and techniques, we will see a renaissance of knowledge. it may be a couple of generations removed from this one, but it will inevitably happen, albeit beyond anyone's lifetime presently typing on this forum. until then we are living in the age of Ptolemy. i think science will not ever know where we came from. layers of the cosmic onion are beyond understanding.

CalliArcale · Dec 19, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />i think a lot of major theories will be modified rather than entirely replaced.<hr /></blockquote> I think you're right. Some like to say "scientists are all wrong" or "scientists are all right", but of course the truth is somewhere in between. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> layers of the cosmic onion are beyond understanding.<hr /></blockquote> That's what's so exciting about it! There's always something more to explore, to study, to ponder, and to learn. I'm not sure I'd compare the current age to the age of Ptolemy. This is today. It is it's own age. It is not an age of unreason or unthinking dogma. Your suggestion that it will take new talent to produce a renaissance of knowledge implies that you think hardly anybody is really doing anything worthwhile in science today, which is not only insulting to them, it also denies the fact of the sheer volume of work that has been done just in the last quarter century. Take continental drift; that's thinking outside the box, and it was considered laughable when it was first suggested -- even though now it has nearly universal acceptance. Scientists of today are not unthinking, dogmatic, ignorant, arrogant morons. They're people, just like you or me, but they are driven by an insatiable thirst to understand. Just like the scientists of a century ago, but with a different foundation for their work. Science is progressive; it builds on what came before. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Dec 19, 2005

as i said, i think a lot of major current theories will be MODIFIED rather than replaced. this includes such ideas from Hawking and Einstein and others who have pioneered cosmology. scientists are not unthinking or moronic. i never have thought that. they're among the few who still possess a sense of wonder and are among some of the people left today who actually think. i think science, as in any other field, suffers from being trapped in it's own time of what is considered to be known and factual. and some facts will change with the times. and others will not, hence modification. for example, core accretion theory which has been considered a sacred cow is threatened with overruling by theories that supercede it --at least ideas that pose to heavily modify it; such is the premise for this thread. yet if anyone until recent times challenged this view, THEY were the moron!

siriusmre · Dec 20, 2005

"Of course, astronomers want to think outside the box. Fame and fortune does not come to scientists that confirms theories, they come to scientists who come up with new theories." Yes, but it seems that only theories that support a pet paradigm get most of the "face time." Everybody knows that the type of research that succeeds is the research that gets funded. The research that gets funded is determined by a highly politcal process; most academicians simply follow the money. Further, laboratory experiments in electrical plasma physics have demonstrated that electrical engineering equations and simulations reliably duplicate and account for galactic phenomena at least as well as the BB or any other gravity-only hypothesis. Indeed, the "conventional wisdom" itself stands in the way of truly seeing something different. I don't believe in "black holes" because I have seen laboratory results which show that electrical effects are able to produce the behavior and motions of galaxies--without using conveniently infinite mathematical objects like "black holes" to make the equations work. It has been demonstrated that they are necessary only if one ignores the dominant role of electricity in space. This does not mean that I think that all gravity theory should be abandoned, but I do believethat there is enough evidence for us to at least consider that perhaps gravity is not the be-all-end-all of universal forces, especially given the types of uncertainties pointed out in the article in my first post. Why won't they consider other forces? Why do they continue to try to shoe-horn every observation into a gravity box? I'm not sure which "charlatans" to which you refer, but I have not made anybody rich in examining any alternative hypotheses. Do you mean "charlatans" like Nobel Laureate Halton Arp? How much of any alternative hypothesis have you yourself ever investigated? Does the fact that you dutifully toe the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

formulaterp · Dec 20, 2005

Do you mean "charlatans" like Nobel Laureate Halton Arp? Do you know what Nobel Laureate means?

bonzelite · Dec 20, 2005

Arp is no charlatan. nor is Alfven.

kmarinas86 · Dec 20, 2005

Definitions of nobel laureate on the Web: Nobelist: winner of a Nobel prize wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn The Nobel Prizes are generally awarded to people, (or in the case of Nobel Peace Prize, also to organisations) who have done outstanding research, invented groundbreaking techniques or equipment, or made outstanding contributions to society. In the areas it is awarded in, they are generally regarded as the supreme commendation in the world today. As of March 2005, a total of 770 Nobel Prizes have been given. However, a few prize winners have declined the award. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Laureate

siriusmre · Dec 20, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"My impression of you, in the relatively brief time you've been a member, is that you are more interested in overturning conventional scientific beliefs, even if they are well-supported, merely because they ARE conventional, than you are of actually pursuing scientific truths."<hr /></blockquote> Nothing could be further from the truth, crazyeddie. In fact, I'm all about finding scientific truths. I am advocating a position that seeks to question the assumptions of "conventional wisdom," especially when it runs afoul of conundra like KBOs. Instead of asking real questions about the basis of their assumptions--which must be somehow flawed if they were not able to predict what we see--instead of trying to reframe the entire problem in light of new "surprising," "mysterious," and "puzzling" observations, most seek to take for granted the necessarily less-informed--if we are to assume progress; for, if nothing else, certainly we have expanded the catalog of observations--assumptions of a select group of previous scientists, who themselves relied on the assumptions of an ordained group of their predecessors. I do not question their diligence or their work, per se; I am thankful for all of them, even the ones who were not so popular. Even though, clearly, what we think we know about gravity in space has allowed NASA scientists to perform some amazing feats of sheer engineering prowess (such as recently accurately flying a probe to a distant comet), these same standard model adherents have a tremendous blind spot when it comes to creatively interpreting what they see. Actually, creativity has ben the problem; it has led people to actually believe that impossiblly massive objects like "blak holes" are not just figments of mathematical imagination. What has hampered modern astronomy is its ignorance of electrical plasma theory. For example, I entreat you to take another look at Deep Impa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Dec 21, 2005

crazyeddie, in all due respect to your "galaxy" post status, the nebualr theory has been under fire and is now under fire. and core accretion is being questioned even by nasa scientists as in need of modification. we are not disagreeing willy nilly just to be contrary, which is what you seem to be doing. science is only as factual as what it can reveal in it's latest point of development. and that point is carrying ahead with new ideas and evidence. in this way we share the same sentiment, as stated that in your post. i think we are really all curious, and respond to this curiosity in differing ways. the thing is, nobody knows how the solar system got here. and it would be highly delusional to think otherwise.

nexium · Dec 21, 2005

15 posts, and few details about why our outer solar system casts doubt on the the nebula hypothesis, nor any details of alternate theories, two of which are God or ET built our solar system. Capture into orbit is likely rare. What are some other alternative origins? Neil

siriusmre · Dec 21, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"15 posts, and few details about why our outer solar system casts doubt on the the nebula hypothesis"<hr /></blockquote> Uhh...did you even read the article linked in my first post? Perhaps we didn't feel that it was necessary to repeat what is written in the article itself. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"What are some other alternative origins?"<hr /></blockquote> Well, one hypothesis of planetary formation involves planetary birth by electrical ejection. The way this works is that because our sun--like all stars--is the focus of an electrical z-pinch of galactic Birkeland currents and very closely resembles a Faraday motor, it is susceptible to periodic surges in those power transmission cables. When the electrical stress on a star system becomes high enough, the star will fission (nova, supernova, GRB), increasing the surface area across which to distribute the incoming charge, creating a companion star or gas giant planet. Electrical discharge bolts, as well as a plasma tube, may exist between the star and its new companion. Within this plasma tube and subjected to the powerful electrical discharges may be several rocky bodies; some large and planet-sized, others smaller and asteroid/comet sized. These electrical discharges are capable of creating severe circular cratering, even on small bodies (such as Saturn's moon Mimas). They are also capable of removing and depositing huge amounts of planetary material in a process very similar to the modern industrial process known as electrical discharge machining (EDM). It is hypothesized that precisely these types of discharge interactions later in the early life of our solar system are responsible for much of the currently visible planetary morphology, including most planetary scarring (e.g., Valles Marineris on Mars and the Grand Canyon on Earth) and cratering such as that on Mimas. These later <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Dec 21, 2005

yes. mitosis, cell division as taken to an interplanetary scale. galaxies as well may divide and procreate this way, forming the myriad galaxy pairs in "collision" that we see. they are not always colliding; they are dividing. i suggested on the pioneer effect thread that the heliopause may be a macroscopic analogue to a cell, with the termination shock zone as the semi-permeable membrane. the heliopause, thus, expands and contracts, as the "turgor pressure" within it's membrane changes, taking with it upon this contraction the objects, organelles, within it. in this way, i tend to believe that the micro mirrors the macro, and the macro mirrors the micro, as nature patterns itself over and over again. if we look far out into space, we are really looking deep within. the rub with offering alternative ideas on SDC is that even when asked for, they are rejected anyway. unless you are a core-accretion, gravity only, big bang conoisseur who lives and dies by stephen hawking's words, you are marginalized and preached down to as if you are a little child.

savagehenry · Jan 10, 2006

Oh I see how that guy could see how you said that Sasqwatch and E.T built the Solar System with Micheal Jackson and Elvis... :/ <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Whos the charlatan?

harmonicaman · Jan 10, 2006

I, for one, don't think we have to start over and create an entirely new theory for Solar System formation. The accretion disc model still seems very safe to me. The only problem with these new planetary discoveries is that they highlight our incomplete understanding of all the forces interacting with the accretion disc as the Solar System forms; especially as we get farther and farther away from the center, where the forces of the sun's gravity and Heliosphere may be overpowered by forces originating from outside the Solar System.

CalliArcale · Jan 10, 2006

I'm with you, harmonicaman. I don't see how it invalidates the accretion idea at all, or even lightly challenges it, frankly. It seems quite reasonable to me that the further you get from the Sun, the more chaotic the solar system will become. In fact, call me crazy, but to me this seems to strengthen the notion of core accretion. After all, if it's all down to gravity's influence on the dust cloud that was here before, wouldn't it be progressively less organized as that influence wanes due to distance? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Jan 10, 2006

Imagine you have many spinning rings of matter, like a gyroscope going around and around (very diffuse though, barely distinguishable). These rings shrink, and the spin faster and faster. An inner ring also tended to latch onto an outer ring and dragged it somewhat. They also tend to hit one another, causing them to lose velocity in the tilt axis. Then what is left are the planetary orbits. On the outer of edge of the solar system, these "rings" were passing through each other most of the time, and thus the rings did not bang each other to form a single ring, and that how we come up with the circular and wild orbits of the Kupiter belt.

siriusmre · Jan 10, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"the rub with offering alternative ideas on SDC is that even when asked for, they are rejected anyway. unless you are a core-accretion, gravity only, big bang conoisseur who lives and dies by stephen hawking's words, you are marginalized and preached down to as if you are a little child."<hr /></blockquote> Indeed, bonze. And then, just a few days later, SavageHenry decides to be an exemplar of your analysis: "Oh I see how that guy could see how you said that Sasqwatch and E.T built the Solar System with Micheal Jackson and Elvis..." Nice. I have come to the disappointing conclusion that most "SdCers" are actually not at all interested in discussing anything that does not fit within the narrow scope of "conventional wisdom," especially the Electric Universe--even in the Phenomena forum! Sad, really. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

siriusmre · Jan 10, 2006

With all due respect to you and harmonicaman, CalliArcale, for your extended presence here and whatever particular professional expertise you two may have, but exactly how much has either of you studied the tenets of the Electric Universe? If you have done any study into the EU, were you able to approach it on its own terms? Or do you bring to it a clear sense (prejudice) of what you "know" to be possible and impossible? I asked this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here too, but has any "conventionally wise" SdCer actually done any serious analysis of the major EU claims to at least as full an extent as they have of the major claims of the gravity-only model? Anyone? I'm curious. Further, let me point out that I do not wish to see the current models supplanted so much as understood in a wider context, which is obviously required given all thwe "surprises" that we have seen over the past 100 years. There is a place for gravity in an electric universe, just not a dominant place. Everyone--astronomers and "conventionally wise" SdCers alike--seems to agree that, at best, the current models are "incomplete." Well, why not take a step back from the cutting edge for a second to get some perspective? Why not take a look at the FULL body of astronomical observations--including all things "conventionally" seen as "anomolous," "strange," and "mysterious"--and try to piece together a model unrestrained by prior outdated assumptions? A model based on the PHYSICAL data, and not heavily skewed towards mathematical principles, which may or may not fully and accurately describe the reality in which we live. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Jan 10, 2006

I'll be honest -- I'm a layperson. My field is software engineering, although I also have a degree in English. I do like to read, though, and science has always fascinated me. I've learned about the Electric Universe mainly through the World Wide Web. In fact, I was first introduced to it here, by an individual named forged. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (There's a test of how long someone's been here!) It's an interesting idea, but it seems cumbersome and unlikely to me. I've mostly read about Velikovsky's notion of it, and there's so much there that we should be detecting if it's true, and we're not. I also find his tendency to fall back on myth to be a stumbling block for me. That's not a good first premise, in my opinion, especially since it requires making quite a lot of original assumptions about those myths. Beyond that, frankly, most of it seems like wild speculation to me with not a lot of thoroughness or empirical evidence. That doesn't invalidate it. But it does make me less likely to give it much credence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

harmonicaman · Jan 10, 2006

SiriusMrE - As with Calli; I'm also a lay person. I've worked in the field of High Energy Physics, but my degree is in Design (studied with Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller; designer of WDW's EPCOT Center, inventor of the Geodesic dome, a buddy of Einstein and the person whom "Fullerenes" are named after). I have trouble with the Electric Universe model (as you have already surmised) primarily on philosophical grounds. To me, scientific knowledge is like a tree which grows as our knowledge increases. Sometimes we learn something is incorrect and a branch has to be thinned; but a new limb of knowledge takes its place. Science is all about thinning and pruning the steadily growing tree of universal knowledge! What the Electric Universe Theory proposes is that we chop down the whole tree and grow a new one! I don't think there's enough evidence supporting the Electric Universe Theory to justify changing our current view of the universe as presented by the mainstream models. If you could point out some kind of observable phenomenon which supports your view of the universe, such as giant lightening bolts creating craters anywhere in the Solar System or something that directly contradicts current models, I think that would vastly improve your argument. The Electric Universe Theory just has too many gaping holes in many of its basic tenets to be taken seriously by mainstream scientists. The logical course is stay in the mainstream until observations prove you're on the wrong course! -------- Calli - BTW; I don't think bribing the kid with chocolate is the best way to toilet train. We've had great success with the opposite approach. Whenever she wets herself we burn her hand on the stove - and she stays dry for the rest of the day! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Oh, That Crazy Solar System!

siriusmre

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

robnissen

Guest

summoner

Guest

rhodan

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

formulaterp

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nexium

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

savagehenry

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page