It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says (here we go)

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:55 AM

The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.

An illustration of a planet with a highly inclined orbit found around the star HAT-P-11.

With the tally of confirmed planets orbiting other stars now more than 500, planet hunters are heading for a golden age of discovery, said Geoffrey Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley. But that bonanza has been a headache for theoreticians, he said, because many of the newly discovered star systems defy existing models of how planets form.

Current theory holds that planets are made from disks of gas and dust left over after star birth. In our solar system, it's long been thought that the large, gassy planets such as Jupiter and Saturn initially took shape in the far reaches and then migrated inward, as gravitational drag from leftover gas and dust eroded their orbits. The migration process halted when most of the gas and dust had been swept up to make various objects, leaving the planets more or less where we find them today. In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But according to Marcy, theory has implications not born out in reality.

Implication #1: All planetary orbits should be roughly circular.

Implication #2: With minor exceptions, everything in a star system should orbit in the same plane and in the same direction.

Implication #3: Neptune-size planets should be rare across the universe.


Well, hey, I am a total noob at this but I have to say that this article does seem to shake the trees. Lets see what falls out.

I am hoping this catches the attention of the Spacperts here at ATS and they can examine and discuss these theories or lack of them.

I think now... that the planets form by the collection of gases and floating material coming together and the forces of gravity pulled them tight and they eventually spin until round and/or oval.

I really wish we could get a HUGE Moon core sampling. I mean as deep as possible. I think that would prove to be very interesting.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:04 AM
Planets being created from the birth of a star? I never thought that theory would work out any ways its more like the death of star cause that's the only thing that could create elements over 40 in the periodic table, and considering that so much of it is released when a supernova happens then we could explain that there is hundreds of planets orbiting a single sun. So we may have been part of an existing small nebula that dissipated to form different things.

Gravity is real a mystery and we don't know how it suddenly forms. Could it be from the attraction of atoms when they get close together attracting more and more till an infinite pulling force is achieved? Or is it from the collapse of the universe on its self in specific areas? Or maybe a whole in the bubble?

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by foreshadower99

Man, this is what I am talking about. Look at you. Just joined today.

Did you join to answer this thread?

Welcome and you sure make a good first impression. Enjoy ATS.

Gravity... hmmmm.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by foreshadower99

Well our sun is third generation apparently

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:11 AM
Has anyone considered that planets are birthed by stars? Baby stars covered in a protective shell until they grow large enough to one day ignite.
Everything in nature grows, look at every street and sidewalk with grass and dirt breaking through, the Earth is growing, suns are growing, etc.

The planets are moving outward from the sun in a spiral pattern, very slowly moving out but they are growing as they move out. I estimate that our sun was once a planet orbiting Sirius, I could be wrong about which star we orbit but I believe it's Sirius. It then ignited and it's moons became it's planets. Jupiter is like the oldest son in our solar system and will one day ignite, it's made up of 98+% of what our sun is comprised of, not a coincidence.
edit on 23-2-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by anon72

Thanks, well I joined to try and answer as many as I can and possibly put up questions of mine own. Im really interested in science and astrology is very interesting.
In all the recent threads which I have been following this site for weeks now, all I could see is UFO sightings and interactions from space. I do certainly believe something is going to happen over the course of few years. I believe that NATO has already created there own flying saucers and preparing to take over the world, although I do believe that Alien's could be in some form of partnership to stop us from destroying ourselves.
Thanks a lot =D

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by JibbyJedi

Nope that's impossible because the only thing we get is a brown dwarf which basically a # load of gas that cannot ignite, u can get massive stars but u cannot get small ones like the one u mentioned.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:29 AM
Has anyone considered that maybe there is more than one way a planet is formed.

Now lets not get hooked on the "my story is right," I am thinking that there may be several ways a planet can form. Hmm, maybe not. Who has all of the answers?(please do not tell me Jesus). We are learning new things everyday, so I will not get stuck on one explanation.(example: poor Pluto

S&F op.
edit on 23-2-2011 by liejunkie01 because: S&F

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:51 AM
I think the assumption is that gravity shares between different masses and accounts for the oddness of these discoveries,in othewords gravity changes,as I have postulated in my other threads,gravity waves possibly the missing interaction that will explain this .Like the cogs in a clock or watch ,a external force varying the extent of gravity transferrance versus electromagnetic.All other particles ,quarks,mouns being too small to be affected.
There is alot not known but the unknown spurs us on.
The old constant may not be so constant.especially in the ripples on the pond eventually stabilzing to uniformety and stability.Waveforms during this era would account for a interferance in the maths to equate this oddity as waves are hard to equate as they rebound of each other.imagine dropping diferent objects of varying weights into a bath of water ,each ripple ineractig differently as the collide,well its much the same with the early universe and that ,in my mind would explain this oddity.

Sorry if that was to deep,the universe is very deep and thats whats interesting.
edit on 23-2-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:02 AM
Until we began to discover other solar systems a few decades ago, all the theories of planetary formation were based on the orderly nature of our own. It is now clear that not all planetary systems are as tidy as ours. Clearly, there must be several ways that such systems form, including the capture of rogue planets that were formed elsewhere. In other words, we have been reminded that we don't really know everything. The most probable explanation remains that clouds of interstellar gas and dust collapse together from a combination of mutual gravitational attraction and pressure from the interstellar "wind." Why angular momentum does not seem to be conserved in some cases may be due to perturbations from other passing stars or the capture of a rogue planet that was expelled from the system of its origin.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by DJW001

Now that makes sense to me.

Great reply. Star and if I could, a flag.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by DJW001

Exactly. Before we decide that the current theories of planetary formation need to be revised, or thrown out altogether, I think we need to first decide what observations can be attributed to external, unrelated effects. For instance, different orbital planes for planets in the same system could be due to the disturbance of the system by some nearby star or other rogue object.
So, what are the chances that "anomalies" are the result something other than the process of planetary formation itself? After we figure that out, then we can rule that our theories are wrong. Until then (and I do believe there's still a lot for us to learn concerning most everything in the universe, so that day will probably come), they're the best we've got.

new topics

top topics


log in