It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

A New Theory of Planet Formation

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   


Rochester NY (SPX) Nov 12, 2004
In June, researchers from the University of Rochester announced they had located a potential planet around another star so young that it defied theorists' explanations. Now a new team of Rochester planet-formation specialists are backing up the original conclusions, saying they've confirmed that the hole formed in the star's dusty disk could very well have been formed by a new planet.


These researchers are in search of a new theory of planet formation to account for some exciting anomalous observations. It seems planets around new stars are forming too, erm, rapidly. Without throwing out the acretion theory, I'd like to show you an interesting photo of a supernova remnant (one of the factories that spew the stuff new stars are made from). Notice the large comet-like 'droplets' that have been 'blown out' of the exploding star's core.

These droplets are the size of planets.

I believe there are indeed protoplanetary nuclei that are expelled from supernovae and hypernovae. They travel through the cosmos until captured by the gravity well of another star- ready made!

Theories?




posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
ive heard a theory on how this is possible before. i cant rember where i heard it but i remember it.
it says that the star was suppsoed to be a binary sisytem ( 2 stars orbitiong each other) but the first activated into a star early and the second never activated and remained a large jupiter esk planet

it mades sense ill try to find where i read it



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I think you have an interesting theory there. A higher mass star could possibly pull more objects closer to it, say from the Oort Coud. These could then condense into planets, which when the star goes nova get expelled... I would think though that the heat and pressure from the explosion would rip the planet to shreads though.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Cmdrkeenkid, I think you have identified yet another mechanism of planet formation, well done. I think what we are witnessing here is that there may be many paths to planet formation, not merely one path that can be called 'the accepted theory'. I think 'the accepted theory' is the biggest intellectual cop-out ever, excusing one from the neccesity to investigate, confirm and to think. Uncertainty is opportunity in science.

Mizar, great point. The solar wind must have blown a lot of the atmosphere off of that planet. Imagine the solar wind from a supernova! Regardless of the actual means of formation of Earth in particular, it has suffered unimaginable ages of incredible emptiness punctuated by processes of unbelievable violence. We are made of strong stuff. Fascinating.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Chakotay]



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I have a theory on planet formation and I've got some of it down on paper. Will publish it one day


I'm a bit excited though 'cause:

"Notice the large comet-like 'droplets' that have been 'blown out' of the exploding star's core.

These droplets are the size of planets."

Could fit in with my theory


part of my theory is that planets are formed from a "unique" composition to start off with...maybe these "droplets" are composed of that "unique" composition



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well done, astoreth! I became curious years ago when examining a cross-sectional drawing of a supernova core at the moment of explosion. It triggered a memory of a similar cross-sectional drawing of the Earth's interior. All the elements, arranged in shells. It was as if the Earth were a tiny supernova core. Then I reasoned: the hydrodynamics of a supernova core explosion would produce adiabatic mixing and coalesecence on the order of miliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours and days- forming droplets from dust grains to cores the size of Jupiter and larger- which would continue to coalesce at a slower rate for millions- billions- of years- according to the accretion and impact theories.

This formed-in-a-droplet hypothesis has consequences for radionucleides in the deep Earth.

The hottest science is on the net, and thanks to ATS you three are three of the hottest. Very well done, my friends.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Chakotay]




top topics
 
0

log in

join