FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > General Science and Nature

Greetings!

General Science and Nature General discussions on all aspects of science and nature.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-17-2009, 01:57 AM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Formation of Solar System

It does not makes sense to say that the sun and earth are formed from the same interstellar dust. The composition of each is vastly different. And why are all the densest elements in the Earth but not elsewhere?

Why is the heaviest (the sun) made up of light stuff like H, and He, whereas comparing Saturn and Jupiter is chalk and cheese. Saturn is super light and Jupiter very dense.

They should either have all very simliar composition, or at least the heavier elements should be in the Sun.

But the Earth is the densest.

One answer is to say that the planets were captured by the Sun over time, and therefor have differing compositions; which I accepted until I made a solar system simulator to see.

http://www.software-multimedia.com/S...0simulator.htm

In such a model its very difficult to deliberately place planets in balanced orbits. And one single planet being 'out' just knocks all the others out of orbit.


Now I have been reading on this topic for about 30 years, and have never found an even vaguely ok answer to this.

I can only conclude ...
actually you all know my conclusion ...

don't you?

:-?
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-17-2009, 10:21 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
It does not make sense....
You really are a complete and utter mental spastic, aren't you.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Big Cat's Avatar
Big Cat Big Cat is offline
But the cat himself knows
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
It does not makes sense to say that the sun and earth are formed from the same interstellar dust. The composition of each is vastly different. And why are all the densest elements in the Earth but not elsewhere?
Wow.

Quote:
Why is the heaviest (the sun) made up of light stuff like H, and He, whereas comparing Saturn and Jupiter is chalk and cheese. Saturn is super light and Jupiter very dense.
Just...wow.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2009, 11:12 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
lots of critical evaluation here I see
lots of reasoning
from people that have the ability to make a solar system simulator themselves for eg

ya know

people with a bit of math, computing capacity

....

the pressure of the sun enough only to generate H to He,
not enough to form heavier elements,

yet the little pressure on the earth enough to squash everything to form the heavier elements like gold, uranium, etc....

and the solar system using the same interstellar dust
does not have an equal distribution of the elements

....

but hey, don't let me distract you from your notions of 'science'
or 'reason' to consist only of ad hominem attacks

and not a single shred of reason AT ALL

let alone some demonstrated math capacity

proving once more that science has become mere hegemonic dogma
screamed from the pulpit of ego
trying to pretend it is reason

and you all wonder why Islam has you by the short and curleys?
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-18-2009, 10:11 AM
Big Cat's Avatar
Big Cat Big Cat is offline
But the cat himself knows
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 210
If this makes me sad, I wonder what it would make Mike Dubbeld.

Anyway, here is your answer.



I'll give you a hint; the above does not happen on Earth or in the Sun, but somewhere else...guess where?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-18-2009, 03:22 PM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Gravity is such an interesting thing. No one knows how the solar systems were formed because they were not there when it happened. However, there are some pretty and logical theories.

The Earth actually formed before the Sun did. There is not much reason to think the mix of "stuff" in the solar plane was uniform, so there is not much of a basis for the idea that all the planets would be alike.

We note that there is very little material between the planets. Perhaps as the original planets absorbed material from the solar plane they moved away from the center (the Sun) and their orbits stabilized only when there was no more material to absorb.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-18-2009, 06:45 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Well I can accept that the sun sucked in most of the gas cloud,
which is said to be the remnants of older stars that had gone nova.
Its these forces which produced the elements with higher density.
Thus most of the gas cloud was hydrogen.

Perhaps then the denser stuff (having more momentum and therefore less prone to have its path deflected by collisions) was left behind to form the planets.

But then the problem is that the planets themselves should be similar to one another in composition. Now as you say, Bobbo, why should the dust cloud be uniform? Why too should the leftovers be uniform that formed the planets?

Well, a dust cloud is very similar to a gas, and given the time and many collisions, it just seems reasonable that this stuff would spread out like any fluid-type stuff. Much the same as gas and liquid do.

But the denser elements could not have formed out of the less dense elements at this point as there is just not enough pressure / energy. This requires novas and such.

So the Earth itself, being atypical of the elements in the dust cloud must have formed prior to the sun. As you say : The Earth is older than the sun.

If the Earth had formed at roughly the same time or later than the sun, this would require that its heavier elements were clumped together and not more evenly distributed as one would expect in cloud of dust. This is because the dust would behave like a liquid or gas : the many many collisions dispersing everything more evenly.

When you stir a cup of coffee, it all mixes together. The more you stir, the more evenly distributed it gets.

But even if it was stirred badly, the trans-Neptunian objects could not have formed as solids here. The further from the centre the more gaseous the bodies should be. A principle that does more-or-less hold true, but only as far as Neptune.

Its a very iffy subject.
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-20-2009, 09:26 PM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
A very iffy subject indeed. If we consider that a cloud was somehow formed, how is it that a disk formed out of that cloud? There haad to be some non-uniformity which favored one (or more) planes of orbiting stuff increasing in mass. Those objects that orbited the center of the cloud in an orbit other than the favored plane would be at a disadvantage as far as maintaining their orbits over long periods. It seems likely that they would have been absorbed into objects in the favored plane by collisions.

It does not seem likely that even a small dense solid object would be captured by a large gaseous object. More likely it would just pass through the larger gas ball, perhaps its orbit being deflected a bit. I think it makes sense that solid proto-planets would capture more solid objects than the gas-type proto-planets. It also seems logical to me that the proto-planets with the greatest gravity would capture more gas than the smaller planets.

Thus a giant gas ball would attract more gas and fewer solid objects while a small solid planet would capture more solids but not accumulate much of an atmosphere. In other words, the way the proto-planet first got started may have determined what it would eventually become.

Or it could be something entirely different.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-20-2009, 11:30 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Thats a good one, how the solid objects pass through the gaseous,
but only in the very early phases, as all the gas giants have solid cores.
Apparantly the sun does not. Thats perculiar. Its core is HE/H

But at the phase where there is still lots of clutter around, the clutter would act like friction. Anything in an orbit would be slowed, and drawn to the centre of gravity. I am certain of this, as my 2d model (Orbit game OG version 1) shows this mathematically.

http://www.random-games.com/orbitgame/og.htm

There would also have to have been many failed orbits at the start, in order to clear the clutter so that real orbits could be maintained in mostly empty space.

The gas forms a disk because of the centrifugal force opposing gravity.
Russia wants to launch its rockets near the equator for this reason.

If one compares the sun, to the gas giants as an analogy, it seems strange that there are no rings inside the orbit of Mercury.

All the gas giants have rings closest, and solid moons further;
whereas the sun has no rings close by, and yet has its ring in between the planets.

I still find it very odd that the planets are not more uniform in composition.
Jupiter and Saturn are very different in their densities, so they must have quite different compositions as they are similar in size.

The densest (Earth) is neither the largest or the smallest, but middlish-sized.
This is the part that bothers me the most.

Despite Venus and Earth being so similar in density and size, Earth has a massive magnetic field, and venus ... has none. So they must have vastly different compositions.

My internet searches have given vague answers so far; and I am trying to verify and clear up this matter.

Looking at how planetary composition is determined; its seems to rely on a massive amount of guesswork.
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2009, 07:50 AM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
... Apparantly the sun does not. Thats perculiar. Its core is HE/H
I'm not so sure about the phase of matter in center of the Sun. Do we know or are they guessing? A gas at that temp and pressure? Certainly not what we think of as a "normal" gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
But at the phase where there is still lots of clutter around, the clutter would act like friction. Anything in an orbit would be slowed, and drawn to the centre of gravity. I am certain of this, as my 2d model (Orbit game OG version 1) shows this mathematically.
Wouldn't that depend on the velocity of the clutter? Upon colliding, two objects orbiting in different directions would likely eject a great deal of their mass from their orbital planes. Two objects orbiting in the same direction would tend to conserve momentum and keep the mass in the orbital plane upon one overtaking the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
http://www.random-games.com/orbitgame/og.htm

There would also have to have been many failed orbits at the start, in order to clear the clutter so that real orbits could be maintained in mostly empty space.
Certainly. Do any of the planets orbit the Sun in exactly the same plane?

I suspect, even with similar initial conditions (obviously conditions couldn't be the same for 2-D and 3-D systems), a three dimensional model would produce an outcome quite different from a two dimensional one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
The gas forms a disk because of the centrifugal force opposing gravity. ...
Centrifugal force is not real. I accept that an object will maintain an orbit because of the centripetal force applied upon it by gravity, but it does not tell us why a disk would form from a cloud.

A more massive object requires a higher speed to maintain its orbit at a given distance, does it not? If an object lost speed in a collision while gaining mass, its orbit would begin to decay. If it gained speed and mass in a collision its orbit might remain the same or it might begin increasing its orbit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
If one compares the sun, to the gas giants as an analogy, it seems strange that there are no rings inside the orbit of Mercury.

All the gas giants have rings closest, and solid moons further;
whereas the sun has no rings close by, and yet has its ring in between the planets.
You might also consider the contribution of the asteroids and the comets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
... My internet searches have given vague answers so far; and I am trying to verify and clear up this matter.

Looking at how planetary composition is determined; its seems to rely on a massive amount of guesswork.
Considering the very short time we have been investigating the solar system and the instruments we have deployed I think we have done OK.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-25-2009, 09:36 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
I still find it very odd that the planets are not more uniform in composition.
All of the material present in the solar system with the exception of Helium generated by fusion within the Sun was here in the original collapsing cloud. You are no doubt correct that collusions between particles in the cloud affected the density and mass distribution within the cloud to some extent before the planetary formation process. What you seem to miss is that the Solar wind subsequently blasted the lighter elements away from the planets depending upon their distance from the sun and their gravity.

Changes since the solar system's inception:

It is generally accepted that the Earth obtained additional dense core material and lost lighter mantle material in the collusion that gave us our outsized moon.

Mercury has suffered light crustal material loss when impacted due to it's low gravity and close proximity to the Sun. Albation of surface material and light volitiles has also occured.

Venus was affected early on in some unknown way by a large impact that actually reversed it's rotation.

Mars origin is still in question. It may well be formed from leftover material from the collusion that formed the asteroid belt. Mars slowly lost it's atmosphere due to it's low gravity.

Jupiter is large enough in mass to gravitationally crush it's hydrogen into a denser form, thus increasing it's density. Both Jupiter and Saturn were able to hold on to the Hydrogen of which they mainly consist.

Neptune and Uranus are much smaller and have lost some of their Hydrogen. They now have proportionately more methane which makes them somewhat denser. The fact that they have cooled off to a greater degree also increases their density.

Pluto is a fluke object thrown into it's own orbit in the outer system.

Additionally, the gas giants develop rings when moons fall inside of their Roche limit and get torn apart. This could happen with the Sun but the debris would get vaporized and blown away rather quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-26-2009, 03:52 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
What you seem to miss is that the Solar wind subsequently blasted the lighter elements away from the planets depending upon their distance from the sun and their gravity

Pluto is a fluke object thrown into it's own orbit in the outer system.
The trans-neptunian objects are all small dense pluto-like bodies, so pluto is quite typical.

Following from the processes you describe the trans-neptunian objects should all be gaseous.

And given all the failed orbits at the start of the solar system, there should be a great deal of dense matter in the sun.

Its interesting that Jupiter actually does give off energy, making it technically, a very puny star.
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-27-2009, 09:29 AM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
Following from the processes you describe the trans-neptunian objects should all be gaseous.
Not at all! With surface gravities of less than 7% of Earth's, none of them could hold on to light gasses.




Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
And given all the failed orbits at the start of the solar system, there should be a great deal of dense matter in the sun.
There is! Our sun has a relativly high metallicity:

Hydrogen 73.46%
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Sulfur 0.12%
Neon 0.12%
Nitrogen 0.09%
Silicon 0.07%
Magnesium 0.05% ...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-10-2010, 06:36 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Look, its called and accretion disk for Gods sake. Just like a circle is a special case of and ellipse, for some some collection of matter in the universe to be not spinning would be the equivalent of a circle. Circles are the exception. Not the rule. The gas that formed the sun and planets and asteroids and all else in our solar system were spinning. More dense portions of matter had greater gravity. More gravity causes more attraction of other matter and the effect snowballs. Initally the sun glows simply from the kinetic energy of collisions of in-spiraling atoms and molecules of gas. As the pressre built up the temperature increased to incite fusion of hydrogen into helium. This resulted in an outward pressure to balance the inward pressure due to gravity. The 2 forces resulted in an equilibrium state with the sun with the photosphere of the sun the size that it is.
The sun fuses hydrogen into helium in a very well known fusion process. The element composition of the sun is known by spectrographic analysis which I won't go into here.

How did the cloud become a 'disk'? It did so simply because when you whirl a cloud in a particular direction, the gas that is above and below that direction spiral into the center which is the sun. The only gas that does not is in the plane of the spin because it whirls around the fastest and is thereby able to escape the gravity of the dense matter center's gravity of the sun. Their is the issue about when the matter spirals inward toward the center forming the sun, the angular momentum must be conserved. Well, if the sun is much smaller than the original acretion disk, it must result in the sun turning much faster - like when an ice skater spins around holding out her arms pulls them in she turns much faster. So where does the angular momentum of the acretion disk go? It is retained in the outermost regions where the planets coalesed. The planets were the depository means by which the acretion disk conserved angular momentum.

The sun has the same composition as the planets when you take the fact that its gravitational pull is so much greater. When you have a tremendous gravitational pull, the lighter elements are most easily pulled into the sun accounting for the huge amount of hydrogen and helium in the sun. Even so, the gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn have huge amounts of hydrogen and helium. Why? Simply because the have the necessary gravity to hold hydrogen and helium in their atmospheres. The terestrial planets like Earth, Mars, Venus and Mercury have far too little gravity to hold hydrogen and helium in their atmospheres and they have evaproated off into space. (The amount of kinetic energy of these gases exceeds the escape velocity of the planets gravity).

To me these are basically trivial things. The age of the universe of 13.7 billion years and the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years means their has been plenty of time for supernovas to create elements heavier than the atomic number of iron. All the way up to iron you can get elements by stellar fusion. When the Coulomb force repelling atomic nuclei of protons becomes so great (at atomic number of iron), no more elements above that atomic number can be produced. There is not enough kinetic energy produced by collisions to enable nuclei of 2 iron atoms to get close enough for the strong nuclear force to cause them to 'stick' producing atomic numbers heavier than iron.

So where do the elements above the atomic number of iron come from? Supernovas. Tha is why all elements above the atomic number of iron (the number of protons determines atomic number) are so rare. But when a star explodes the necessary heat (collisons containing enough kinetic energy to cause even iron atoms with its large number of positive protons to stick/collide with other atoms to produce heavier elements)
arises to create heavier elements.

The story is far more interesting than this little bleep but when you don't even have the basic necessary background it is pretty pointless trying to talk about the more subtle things. For instance no one here is likely going to be debating things like the effects of polarization on the Recombination stage of the universe 380,000 years after the BB. P is on my ignore list. Had you all not responded I would never have responded at all.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-24-2010, 12:35 PM
Nef Raven's Avatar
Nef Raven Nef Raven is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,011
Blog Entries: 81
Quote:
dogma
screamed from the pulpit of ego

Very good. If you listen to it enough you end up doing the same. That Bully.



The solar system was developed one day when God wanted scrambled eggs.He broke an egg and it did not go into the frying pan so he knew he had to create gravity. SOdudes, the yoke became the sun and the egg shells became the planets. Then he created gravity after the shells formed their own distances from one another.


Thank you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'Little Bang' Triggered Solar System Formation NewsFeed Space and Time News Feeds 0 10-03-2008 06:40 AM
Arguments why Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid nightdreamer General Philosophy 12 07-20-2008 05:52 PM
Mega science book download (960 e-books) Ромѕкі General Science and Nature 10 12-03-2006 12:14 AM
God-Subjective & Objective view points dattaswami Religion 6 03-31-2006 05:36 AM
Is "MAN" = "A GOD" TruthInArt General Philosophy 54 02-04-2005 04:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network