Solar formation via temperature abnomalities

[LKD]

I have a question about a study using computer models that was deriving planetary orbits based on temperature variations. As I read it, none of it seemed to make very much sense to me while applying the limited physics that I understand.

I would really like to know if some one has a little more information about this, or can point me in the direction of where I can learn more, or has considered this and would like to offer some opinions on the subject. As I looked over remarks in their brevity, I had growing reservations about their finding's accuracy.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/e ... 00107.html

Thank you so very much,
L

 

[3488]

Hi LKD,

To be honest I do not fully understand either.

From what I can fathom out, there is specualation based on computer modelling, that the protoplanetary disk did not have an even temperature gradient as was first thought, i.e not the simple, very hot at Mercury's orbit, to very cold in the Kuiper Belt (Pluto, Eris, orbits etc).

Speculation suggests that the temperature differentials were more haphazard with warm zones & colder ones mixed in. This would alter the theorized density profiles as the hotter zones would have silicates & metals only, colder ones with ice & lower temperature volatiles mixed in.

I am just guessing, the article seemed to not be that clear IMO. Perhaps Wayne or someone else can see it & understand it better than me :?: :?: :?:

Andrew Brown.

 

[LKD]

Thank you.

I can very much imagine that it could have a tremendous effect on the makeup of planets initial elements, and that is really amazing if that is the main cause of the variations between a gas giant and a little rock planet.

When they speak on the obit changes, is there evidence that this actually happens? That they contract after the sun lights up and blasts the remnant dust away? Was there a paper that explained that our earth used to have a far greater orbit, but closed in after a time till it reached it's present comfortable orbit?

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I have a question about a study using computer models that was deriving planetary orbits based on temperature variations. As I read it, none of it seemed to make very much sense to me while applying the limited physics that I understand.

I would really like to know if some one has a little more information about this, or can point me in the direction of where I can learn more, or has considered this and would like to offer some opinions on the subject. As I looked over remarks in their brevity, I had growing reservations about their finding's accuracy.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/e ... 00107.html

Thank you so very much,
L

Don't you love it when an article starts like..
"Just how Earth survived the process of its birth without suffering an early demise by falling into the sun has been something of a mystery to astronomers, but a new model has figured out what protected our planet when it was still a vulnerable, baby world"

Why don't we hear of anything "mystery to astronomers" until a theory is produced? It seems like astronomers have already created a model of 'history of everything' without physical evidences and now they are filling in the gaps with theories that match their models. But don't you dare ask "would you please re-check the model?".

From the article it what I am guessing is this, they are talking about temperature of gas clouds between the early earth and the sun. Temperature raises pressure in the gas, and accodring to the article, this pressure exceeded the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth preventing the earth from falling on the sun, thus saving the mankind.

Other opinions on the real meaning of the article are welcome.