The sun is pregnant!

I shall remind everyone that this is a discussion. No one here is trying to change your beliefs or even saying that this is true. It is a clever idea and other than a few discrepancies within the universally accepted laws of physics, he has backed his cause with supporting effects.

So, let us talk about how this isn't possible, rather than flame a guy with a clever idea that he wants to discuss.

Far to many times I see here on ATS people posting creative thoughts that go against the norm, never suggesting that it may be true. But thien the flamers come and flame and cause the OP to defend his idea to a point where it looks like he's trying to shove it down your throat.

To all the bashers, go home, or articulately debate the issue.

Please?

AAC

BDL POST SRY

[edit on 10-3-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

This is a Brilliant Theory! It asks the reader to question the very core of traditional beliefs and forces the expansion of one's mind into the far reaches of theoretical planetary birth. Thank You OP.
Just Recently I was reading on the topic of the creation of the moon. The two most regarded theories being 1) The Moon was created by the collision of the Earth with another planetary body resulting in a large chunk
of the earth creating the moon...this theory leaves the unanswered question or possible explanation of the current "continental draft' plate techtonic theory. 2) the second theory is that during the early days of the solar system the earth was spinning so quickly that the moon split away...however this theory doesn't make a lot of sense because the moons rotation and axis doesn't support the theory.

Back to Your Planetary Birthing Theory.

The Sun is the Mother of the Galaxy and gives birth to a, let us use "Planetary Core" instead of "hairball". The Planetary Cycle then begins where Mercury is currently located and each time the sun gives birth to a new planet all of the planets are pushed away "magnetically/graviationally" to make room for the new planet.
The New Planet, (Mercury) is then in phase #1 where it collects exotic material/space dust and also has some type of reverse magnetic field that pulls asteroids and meteors into it, and would also be volcanically active
...so that it can increase its size. As time goes on the original planetary core will be surrounded by a crust and mantel, then it will pass into the venus phase where it developes a voilent atmasphere of gasses
around a developing crust on the surface as the core cools, the planet then passes to Earth's Phase where Cooling Persists and forms a division Oceans of Liquids and Land, and also a more moderate atmasphere/gravity. Complex Life is possible during this phase, but it is not a Guarentee. The right conditions must be available such at least 1 moon to control tides and then thr planetary core will eventually cool...which would be where Mars is now.

This would explain the inward belief that many people have that advanced life once existed on Mars, because it was once in the current orbit of Earth.

Have you ever seen "The Pillars of Creation" (google it! its awesome!) you've probably seen the picture and still had no idea what you
in fact where looking at. The Pillars of Creation is a Star Nursery...its Amazing! You suggest that after the stars are created that they are then "ping ponged" to the outer edges of the galaxy...Someone then
mocked you, but I am on your side, that if you look at the pillars of creation you will have to come to one of two conclusions. 1) That the Nursery (the gas cloud) is constantly moving further away as it creates new stars...2) or that in creating new stars the magetic balance of the galaxy changes and other stars are pushed further away.

This is exactly what you are suggesting with your theory of planetary birth, and i think you are definately on to something here!
But Here are some Questions that I have...

1. Scientifically how do you explain the Gas Giants of Jupiter and Saturn?

I think i can help you explain this! What happens to the Sun when it gets old? It goes SuperNova and expands to supersize. What if the Original Birth of the "Planetary Core" ,what we would also call the "Earth's Core",
had a shelf life that was similar in nature to the sun. In that once it cooled during the 'mars phase' it would then go supernova and consume the entire planet...which would then shoot all the "earth/dirt" into its orbit...which would create the MANY moons that Jupiter and Saturn Have. My Next Question would then be if added up all the moons of saturn plus the loss from space debris would you equal the original planet of Saturn before its core went supernova. And the same goes for Jupiter.

After the planetary core goes supernova during the saturn and jupiter phase it eventually cools down and becomes a dwarf planet
on the outer rings of the solar system. This would also mean that Venus is in line to be the next planet to be in the habitable life orbit of earth...
and that Earth is about to become Mars!!!

I think this theory would definately light a fire under the arse of anyone still sitting on the fence of whether or not to promote interplanetary/ spacetravel.

Also If your theory is correct, then shouldn't we be witnessing mercury growing at a measuable and incredible pace?
Afterall somehow Mercury is going to grow to atleast the size of Venus, Earth. Also, is Mercury at this point basically an iron molten core that is spinning? Is it Volcanically Active? Is it attracting Debris to land on it to increase its surface area? Is the planetary growth phase at the end of phase 1 or the start of phase 2, or during both?

And Also How Long is it between Birthing Phases???
Scientists suggest the sun is something like 4.6 billion years old. The oldest Rocks on Earth are the same as the moon which is around 3 billions years old....Also their is evidence that the Sun at somepoint gave birth
to twins which collided and became the asteroid belt, so it could be that the Birthing Phases are irregular in timing.

Are Their Any Sun Experts on here that can talk about Solar Phases? The Sun has been around for around 6 billion years, modern humans only 200,000 years at the most and language far less than that? What I am saying as that we don't know jack about what the sun is capable of doing. We haven't even been witness to what the Earth is Capable of; being Supervolcanic Eruptions, Magnetic Poll Reversal, and Prolonged Ice Ages.

What Happened to the Planet thats supposed to be After Mars???

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Where2Hide2006]

Originally posted by sleeper

Originally posted by PapaHomer

How was your theory of planetary formation repeated tested? Please provide links to verify it for the rest of us, or stop wasting our time by saying it is a "theory" like those proposed by actual scientists and researchers.

[edit on 3/10/2007 by PapaHomer]

Oh excuse me…..I didn’t know theories where the exclusive domain of scientist and researchers

Mods you need to put those “new” rules so that us commoners can see them, and therefore don’t waste PapaHomer’s valuable time----

Actually, that's what the word "theory" means. It means something that has enough parameters that you can test it. And if you use the word "theory"around these parts, you'll get legitimate questions just like PapaHomer asked.

Otherwise it's "speculation" and we move it over to Skunk Works where they don't ask you for the specifics of a theory.

Originally posted by Akareyon
I applaud you, sleeper, for this mind- and heart-enlightening theory :-)

And forget about those who say "but it contradicts the official, scientific theory!" - of course it does, and rightfully so, because "common knowledge" has its flaws as well.

What the # do we know?

Thanks Akareyon,

It’s mind boggling the insecurity of some people when someone bumps their apple cart they immediately go into road rage----

Originally posted by sleeper
It gets ejected similar to a solar flare which can be shot out millions of miles into space in an instant.

Just FYI, the only reason that solar flares get shot so far out is because they don't have much mass. Something the mass of a planet can't actually escape the sun's gravity when it's that close.

To escape the sun's gravity, a planet would have to be going much faster than the escape velocity of the sun (because you combine the impact of the planet's gravitational attraction to the sun. Soooo... to get away from the sun in a spaceship you have to be going 617.5 kilometers/second -- about 380 miles per second.

That's 1,368,000 miles per hour. Once it got going at that speed, there's nothing to actually stop it at the orbit of Mercury.

All bodies of mass act like sails on ships and the sun with its solar winds push on that mass. Because of the magnetic shields around many planets the solar wind blows mostly around them, nevertheless, planets are ever so slowly nudge further away from the sun by this force---only my .02

There's not enough mass in the solar wind to nudge a planet. You don't get knocked down by the brownian motion of still air (which is about the same kind of impact on you as solar wind has on planets.)

Planets move away from their suns because of angular momentum.

Bryd, for the applause BTW,

If you were standing/floating on the surface of the sun and you were to toss a baseball off of the surface as hard as you could. So hard that the moment it lost its velocity, it was far enough to hold it's orbit (satalites).

If the sun was able to sneeze out a chunk of constituents (like the baseball) why couldn't that chunk stick into an orbit?

You speak about matterless flares ejected, but if the force was stronger couldn't larger objects be ejected?

Again, what if the sun was like a woman and able to change catagorically when pregnant?

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Every doubter is stuck on the excuse that the sun and solar system are stuck in these theoretical laws that prevent this from happening. I agree.

But........

Doesn't the female body COMPLETELY change when they become pregnant, only to return back to form after delivery?

Good thread sleeper.

AAC

Good analogy there, thanks Creation!

Originally posted by Long Lance
Q for everone, but sleeper in particular:

which kind of planet would you expect the sun to 'give birth' to? analogies with known planets welcome, if not applicable, please describe in some detail.

thanx in advance.

edit: i'm braindead

More in line with a younger Mercury, the basic mold; once born the other elements are added kind of like electroplating---one layer at a time as dust gases and other solar system debris bombard it.

Originally posted by jra

You also didn't answer Johnmike's question. How would the planet get into orbit? How much energy would it take to force out an object with a decent sized mass, say comparable to Mercury, into a circular orbit around the Sun?

I answered that in another post but I will answer it again; mass the size of Mercury is insignificant compared to the mass of the sun---like a snowflake in hell, virtually nothing. Therefore it wouldn’t take any among of energy at all to launch it into space.

If the embryo spun around the sun like a corkscrew before ejection it would come out with a spin and a trajectory into an orbit around its mother sun---it would then remain near the sun for a time, just like a child to its mother’s breast.

I would imagine that it would have to shoot the thing out fairly hard, so that it just doesn't fall back into the Sun itself.

The sun ejects and radiates away every second bazillions of tons of material; even though the sun has a huge gravitational field it manages to launch infinite amounts of solar mass throughout the solar system and beyond---that’s a lot of outward thrust

Originally posted by sleeper
mass the size of Mercury is insignificant compared to the mass of the sun---like a snowflake in hell, virtually nothing. Therefore it wouldn’t take any among of energy at all to launch it into space.

It's a good thing this isn't a science class, you'd get a big fat F.

The mass of an Earth orbiting satellite is insignificant to the mass of Earth itself. Yet they can fall back to Earth due to its pull of gravity, if the satellite doesn't have enough velocity to maintain its orbit. Same thing with your planet birthing idea. If it doesn't get enough velocity to achieve orbit, it will fall back into the Sun. Due to the Sun's size and the strength of its gravity, it would take a lot of energy to launch it. I believe Byrd posted the numbers.

The sun ejects and radiates away every second bazillions of tons of material; even though the sun has a huge gravitational field it manages to launch infinite amounts of solar mass throughout the solar system and beyond---that’s a lot of outward thrust

"bazillions" eh? The Sun may radiate tons of material in every direction when you total it all up. That does not compare to popping out something with the mass of a planet all at once.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by jra]

I for one am fascinated by this thread.

If we don't explore alternative theories (however ridiculous they may seem at first) how are we any different than the religious zealots of the middle ages? Assume that we 'KNOW' nothing. It is ALL theory ladies and gents.

Science is not a religion - quit acting like it is one.

Originally posted by redseal
pregnant? well who it the universe is the father?? Explain this to me, how will it evolve another planet??

i think he's pointing to the theory that the sun is asexual in its reproductive nature? i would like to see some links and such to backup sleeper's claims but then again this is in skunk works so speculate away!

peace,
- Naz

(upon reading byrd's reply i changed theorise to speculate)

[edit on 10-3-2007 by nazgarn]

Originally posted by Smack
If we don't explore alternative theories (however ridiculous they may seem at first) how are we any different than the religious zealots of the middle ages?

Exploring alternative theories is all well and good, when there is something to explore. Theories are testable, this is not. This is speculative at best.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Smack
If we don't explore alternative theories (however ridiculous they may seem at first) how are we any different than the religious zealots of the middle ages?

Exploring alternative theories is all well and good, when there is something to explore. Theories are testable, this is not. This is speculative at best.

And The accretion disk model is different how?

I'm confused by your usage of the word 'speculative' in this context. Theory is speculation; they are synonymous.
How can we discover the shape of a thing without testing every facet of it. Question everything!

Jra,

You respond as if you are the leader of the cult of pre-established science. I bet you'd really be frustrated with spiritual discussion.

Sience changes every so often you must remember. Sometimes up is down depending on the perspective.

BTW, satelites do EVENTUALLY fall back to Earth. But they don't spin at 1000 mph and gain momentum throughout the solar system. Remember, the entire universe is alive and intelligent.

AAC

Either way, I am with Smack on this one. What a cool thread. It always makes me happy to see people thinking outside the box.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Bryd,

for the applause BTW,

If you were standing/floating on the surface of the sun and you were to toss a baseball off of the surface as hard as you could. So hard that the moment it lost its velocity, it was far enough to hold it's orbit (satalites).

If the sun was able to sneeze out a chunk of constituents (like the baseball) why couldn't that chunk stick into an orbit?

First, the sun doesn't have much in the way of constituents other than hydrogen and helium. There's some iron and other elements that have been forged in the sun, but they're heavier than hydrogen and helium and they've sunk all the way to the middle of the sun (more than 200,000 miles below the surface).

You can see the composition of the sun here:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

So there'd have to be some way of delivering the core material to the surface, through 200,000 miles of fusioning hydrogen. The other materials are 18-80 times more massive than the hydrogen of the sun. So they have to 'swim upward' through a thick nuclear fusion soup.

We're talking a huge amount of energy there that's supposed to be focused on one spot (rather than the sun exploding.)

Now... when stars go supernova, they blow up in such a way that the core material is ejected. Of course, any solar system circling them is also trashed, but that's the way that iron and the other heavier metals are formed in our universe.

So... it would take a localized 'supernova' to do that.

You speak about matterless flares ejected, but if the force was stronger couldn't larger objects be ejected?

The force needed would be about 1.5 million miles per hour to deliver it just from the surface into space (I added in some figures for a small rocky planet.) I didn't go into how much of an explosion would be needed to do that, but it should be somewhere in the neighborhood of "supernova."

Again, what if the sun was like a woman and able to change catagorically when pregnant?

Speaking from personal experience, women don't change that much when pregnant. You get hormonal changes, but you're not growing another head on your shoulders. A life form that is able to grow by absorbing part of the nutrients that you eat begins to grow inside you. Some hormonal changes start the lactating process (breast milk) and signal birth and loosen slightly the cartilaginous joints in the pelvis so the baby can emerge. But that's it.

The sun isn't being fed by anything.

I'd like to thank Asala for moving this tripe to SkunkWorks.
Sleeper, have fun.

Lex

Originally posted by Lexion
I'd like to thank Asala for moving this tripe to SkunkWorks.
Sleeper, have fun.

Lex

Did you go whine to Asala Lex? You seem to be enjoying yourself---