Very cool! That's quite a financial commitment, but they intend to "do it right." [Cat, would the period be inside the quote since it is integral to the sentence?]
The general model I think is understood. Every young accretion disk will have a frost line - where the temperature allows only ices. The inner zone is more prone to thinning as the star gets hotter. These gases move outward and also fuel the fast-growing outer protoplanets. No doubt, the data from the mission will be able to tweak thinks like composition, will may help define where in the disk it originally formed.
Yes, but this isn't part of his model of evolution. The Origin of the Species, is not the origin of life; it is how species evolve into new species. This is similar to the BBT that never begins at the true beginning (t=0).
I think this was Erasmus Darwin. His 1803 poem is interesting:
"Yes, but this isn't part of his model of evolution. The Origin of the Species, is not the origin of life; it is how species evolve into new species."The general model I think is understood. Every young accretion disk will have a frost line - where the temperature allows only ices. The inner zone is more prone to thinning as the star gets hotter. These gases move outward and also fuel the fast-growing outer protoplanets. No doubt, the data from the mission will be able to tweak thinks like composition, will may help define where in the disk it originally formed.
Yes, but this isn't part of his model of evolution. The Origin of the Species, is not the origin of life; it is how species evolve into new species. This is similar to the BBT that never begins at the true beginning (t=0).
I think this was Erasmus Darwin. His 1803 poem is interesting:
Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs’d in Ocean’s pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
As you note, there is no evidence supporting his supposition.
I may be misunderstanding your point. How did Newton explain gravity? He admitted that he couldn't but he could quantify its behavior into a nice equation.
I don't see your how.
No scientist would suggest you would see a protoplanet in our system since a massive accretion disk is required. We can infer how they formed by observing other protoplanets form, as well as, use physics to produce models where the initial conditions can be somewhat assumed.
Right, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It may be very important to us that, if it did take place, it isn't frequent so that it reeks havoc on other life forms, like us.
Unlike abiogenesis, we do see it elsewhere to some extent. More "seeing" is coming, especially from the eyes of the JWST and others like ALMA.
Nice dodge Helio but in our solar system we do not see proto-planets or proto-planet embryos and we do not see abiogenesis as Darwin postulated in his 1882 letters, even 140 years later. Charles Darwin postulate for the origin of life on Earth from non-living matter is the foundation for astrobiology. If this is not the true explanation for the origin of life, astrobiology as a *science* falls apart. This must be clearly expressed to the public I feel.
No dodge. One is apples the other oranges.
He offered no real explanation for abiogenesis. He was offering only supposition, which isn't based on known objective evidence. Indeed no one has. For this reason, I don't technically consider abiogenesis a theory since nothing specific can be tested. But the supposition for it is not without merit. A supernatural explanation is certainly no better scientifically, but if one wishes to use a supernatural explanation then it should also have wiggle room for abiogenesis as a choice for a "prime mover" as a design mechanism.
You may know better than I do whether Charles Darwin deserves this distinction. Why not his grandfather, given the poem, or another more prominent scientist with far more knowledge?
I'm open to either because I have no real idea.What science requires abiogenesis? The current evolution models won't change just like the BBT won't change if we get even closer to t=0, or even reach t=0. Gravity will not suddenly change, only the history of gravity will change.
Uranus seems better to me because it is such an odd-ball. The crazy axial tilt it has demands that it has had a very odd past, likely a violent one. A huge impact probably caused the tilt but did this move Uranus in our out of its prior orbit? Lots of questions.
Uranus is very odd with a 98 deg. tilt. [Ok. Venus is essentially upside down, so that too is interesting.]
Good point. We might learn more from Uranus on this, but a trip to Neptune would be better for this issue, no doubt.
No dodge. One is apples the other oranges.
It would be a huge hiccup in science if we did discover a protoplanet forming in the solar system. The scientific models make it clear why we wouldn't ever find a protoplanet forming in a 4.5+ Gyr star system like ours.
He offered no real explanation for abiogenesis. He was offering only supposition, which isn't based on known objective evidence. Indeed no one has. For this reason, I don't technically consider abiogenesis a theory since nothing specific can be tested. But the supposition for it is not without merit. A supernatural explanation is certainly no better scientifically, but if one wishes to use a supernatural explanation then it should also have wiggle room for abiogenesis as a choice for a "prime mover" as a design mechanism.
You may know better than I do whether Charles Darwin deserves this distinction. Why not his grandfather, given the poem, or another more prominent scientist with far more knowledge?
If we do find life on other planets or moons, it will add great credibility for abiogenesis. The contrary is also true.
What science requires abiogenesis? The current evolution models won't change just like the BBT won't change if we get even closer to t=0, or even reach t=0. Gravity will not suddenly change, only the history of gravity will change.
Ok, you're addressing today's model's placement of protoplanets, not actually "seeing protoplanets in the solar system today...".
Thanks for that link. It's interesting how composition within the atmosphere can greatly affect things like formation models.
Yes. Perhaps it will take a lot more data from probes traveling deep into planetary interiors, and many more improved values for variables to establish an effective model, but I would bet we have a long way to go. The "herding cats" fun phrase likely applies to those trying to do this.
Yes, that is a nice coincidence since we can more easily understand its seasons. Since Mars, however, doesn't host a massive moon relative to the mass of Mars, then its axial tilt varies up to 45 deg, though I'm going on weak memory. This creates big environmental issues for Mars with this much instability.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram