Can Solar Systems Form Naturally?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Can Solar Systems Form Naturally?

Post #1

Post by LiamOS »

The format of the debate will be the following:
-Shermana's argument.
-Aki's rebuttal.
-Shermana's rebuttal.
-Aki's second rebuttal.

-Aki's argument.
-Shermana's rebuttal.
-Aki's rebuttal.
-Shermana's second rebuttal.

-Closing arguments from both parties.

I now invite Shermana to proceed.

Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #11

Post by Shermana »

Hope you've had a good summer so far Aki,

I'll keep this short and simple
The Jeans criteria neglects viscous forces among others, and is as such less reliable as density and angular momentum increase. However, at the equilibrium state viscous forces are completely negligible(as the cloud is very diffuse) and its angular momentum is also negligible.
Does this ultimately mean "The calculations on the allowance for formation may be in dispute but once it gets there (achieves stability) they are valid?"

Once again, there's a big "Whence" question. Are you saying that we only know what happens at the moment of collapse and not after? How does this figure with the collapse itself?
The paper is commenting on how using Jeans' equations to obtain solutions of any precision is essentially not viable.
What is important is that initially, the Jeans criteria holds on the scales and such in question.
Can you clarify the above please, at least the last line.

Andromeda vs Spike Psarris would be worthy of a H2H on its own.

I've watched Andromedawake's videos before, his voice is more painful than his cheap shots, but much of his own theories rely on....speculation. Like Mercury's Coating to prevent it from freezing. What is this "Core Cooling" all about and is there more "Scientific Literature" you can point to? The 86 Page Oort Cloud may be a nice read, the first few pages were simple enough, if I'm not mistaken it seems the evidence of the Oort clouds is: Comets themselves. (A bit circular). What came first ,the Oort Cloud or the Scattered Disk? Or the "Jupiter-sized Mass object" which this article says is the best hypothesis.

But here is one element of the Oort Cloud said to be disproven: (Though that does not disprove the theory itself) The "Tyche" planet. ... overy.html

As for the Earth's magnetic field, I challenge you to pick apart and disprove this AIG article on the subject. ... fossil.asp

So, as Humphreys says, if Coe and Prevot are correct, we can infer important facts about the earth at the time when this ‘Miocene’ lava was flowing at Steens Mountain, a time which many creationists would place during the latter part of the Flood year, or soon thereafter.36 Some physical process must have then been at work in the earth’s core which could produce very rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.

The magnetic field change found recorded in flow B51 at Steens Mountain was about 50,000 times faster than the 2,000 plus years previously thought to be the theoretical minimum time for geomagnetic reversals, and millions of times faster than the shortest reversals previously found recorded in geological strata, that is, according to the evolutionary time-scale. But these actual field data were found exactly as the creation scientist Humphreys, working within a young earth/Creation/Flood framework, predicted they would be. So if the magnetic reversals have occurred in days and weeks rather than thousands and millions of years, then the earth’s rock layers, in which there is a continuous sequence of these magnetic reversals, are by implication probably only thousands of years old. Thus these data are important new evidence for a young earth.

While I understand there is much reliance on asteroids as an explanation for any kind of orbital oddity (I like Andromeda's idea that Venus is "Upside down" though), I think we can both agree that more evidence is necessary. Did you say "Almost" all models because a few models don't include massive amounts of asteroid collisions that could eventually have such a precise impact necessary?

Likewise, I don't fully buy the idea that Mercury crashed into something and got its iron core (which I don't deny it has, in its partially molten form), and I don't buy the idea that it has just the right coating necessary to not freeze (at least randomly), as well as exist in such distance from the sun without compressing, but perhaps you can explain AW's answer in more detail. But it's an interesting Speculation.

Here's another AIG article for you to debunk. Does that file address this issue?
According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet nuclei during this process.

This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for the comets that we see. The researchers postulate ‘escape valves’3 that could supply up to 3.5 Earth masses, but this is still ‘low compared to recent estimates of the mass of the Oort cloud’. They go on to ‘speculate that a distant source region for Oort cloud comets’3 could resolve some other problems [emphasis added].

That's an interesting idea of a Water-Ammonia interior for Neptune, that would be an interesting thing to know how it happened, can you think of any argument against this idea? What would Spike Psarris say? Would it still be cooling off after billions of years?

So, it seems that the Jeans equations are good for....the beginning? The formation period? The phase where it achieves Equilibrium? Where does all this leave us in the bottom line of how its possible for a Self Collapsing Gas Cloud to ignite at 15 million degrees, and if CDMHC must be thrown out the window, does it have a bearing on whether the initial starting forces can allow a "Natural" formation or do we just go by "It just happened", like with the cooling of Population III stars?

Perhaps I could email Spike and ask him to elaborate on why he believes only tiny planets could form under the current theory.

Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #12

Post by Shermana »

I wanted to add that Spike's assessment ,according to this post on Richard Dawkins' forum, has a legitimate basis. So far, the theory to answer for large planetary formation is Turbulence, says the sources that Hotshoe quotes from. Perhaps you can weigh in on this. ... 1&p=564924
He is correct that this is currently a scientific problem. "During the initial stages of planet formation in circumstellar gas disks, dust grains collide and build up larger and larger bodies. How this process continues from metre-sized boulders to kilometre-scale planetesimals is a major unsolved problem: boulders are expected to stick together poorly, and to spiral into the protostar in a few hundred orbits owing to a `headwind' from the slower rotating gas."
quoted from the abstract of a peer-reviewed paper in Nature, 2007
The new proposed solution: turbulence. "Here we report that boulders can undergo efficient gravitational collapse in locally overdense regions in the midplane of the disk. The boulders concentrate initially in transient high pressure regions in the turbulent gas, and these concentrations are augmented a further order of magnitude by a streaming instability driven by the relative flow of gas and solids. We find that gravitationally bound clusters form with masses comparable to dwarf planets and containing a distribution of boulder sizes. Gravitational collapse happens much faster than radial drift, offering a possible path to planetesimal formation in accreting circumstellar disks."

Post Reply