Sun and Planets Constructed Differently Than Thought, NASA Mission Suggests

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623145430.htm

"We found that Earth, the moon, as well as Martian and other meteorites which are samples of asteroids, have a lower concentration of the O-16 than does the sun," said Kevin McKeegan, a Genesis co-investigator from UCLA, and the lead author of one of two Science papers published this week. "The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun -- just how and why remains to be discovered."

"These findings show that all solar system objects including the terrestrial planets, meteorites and comets are anomalous compared to the initial composition of the nebula from which the solar system formed," said Bernard Marty, a Genesis co-investigator from Centre de Recherches Pétrographiques et Géochimiques and the lead author of the other new Science paper. "Understanding the cause of such a heterogeneity will impact our view on the formation of the solar system."

[aquart]

1. Utter coolness.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. As always, alternate views exist or rather have existed for years.

Written in 2008:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5&keywords=solar%20system#dest



>> An artist’s impression of the solar nebula. Credit: NASA

However, all is not as it seems. There are objections to the nebular disk accretion model that should be considered fatal were it not for the fact that no alternative seems possible — given the gravity-driven view of the universe. For example, a slowly rotating cloud may tend to collapse under gravity but a point is quickly reached where the outward rotational force counteracts further collapse. Rotational energy must be dissipated somehow to enable the cloud to collapse more. Assuming you manage to form the Sun inside a disk another serious difficulty arises. Gravitational interactions with the disk cause protoplanets to swiftly spiral into the star. Then there is the problem that the Sun, as the most collapsed object, should be spinning the fastest (like a pirouetting dancer pulling in her arms). But the Sun spins slowly. Almost the entire angular momentum in the solar system is to be found in the orbiting planets. And the Sun’s equator is tilted 7 degrees to the plane of the orbiting planets!

Instead of the expected gradation of properties of the planets with distance from the Sun, we find a ‘fruit salad’ of characteristics, which don’t make any sense in the simple nebular model. For example, the Earth has an abundance of water, yet the region where early Earth formed was too hot for water to be incorporated into a solid body. So, in ad hoc fashion, meteorites had to deliver it later. As one expert on the subject remarked, “you need to make a special case for each planet.” Gravitational accretion of planets from a dusty disk doesn’t work anyway—once a disk, always a disk—look at Saturn’s rings. Theory shows it is hard for a planetesimal to get to 1 km in size. But then to avoid fragmentation by collision, a body needs to be 1000 km to provide enough gravity to retain collision debris!

Special requirements abound in the accretion disk model. Even if we assume, despite the objections above, that planets the size of Jupiter can form, we then need a violent phase of activity from the new Sun at just the right time to dissipate most of the matter of the disk while leaving the gas giants with thick atmospheres. But then, how do we explain Jupiter’s three times the solar abundance of noble gases?

[qazplm]

5. yes you are right

crackpot theories, like electric stars, have existed throughout history.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Which part of the explanation did you miss, all of it imho. n/t

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48629

We provide a first look at the results of the Herschel Gould Belt survey toward the IC 5146 molecular cloud and present a preliminary analysis of the filamentary structure in this region. The column density map, derived from our 70-500 micron Herschel data, reveals a complex network of filaments and confirms that these filaments are the main birth sites of prestellar cores. We analyze the column density profiles of 27 filaments and show that the underlying radial density profiles fall off as r-1.5 to r-2.5 at large radii.

Our main result is that the filaments seem to be characterized by a narrow distribution of widths with a median value of 0.10 ± 0.03 pc, which is in stark contrast to a much broader distribution of central Jeans lengths. This characteristic width of ~0.1 pc corresponds to within a factor of ~2 to the sonic scale below which interstellar turbulence becomes subsonic in diffuse gas, which supports the argument that the filaments may form as a result of the dissipation of large-scale turbulence.

[qazplm]

8. word salad

the Palin of science.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. You be sure and tell the European Space Agency that they speak palinease. n/t

[laconicsax]

11. You bring up a good point.

Maybe someone should ask the ESA if their research supports the Electric Universe model.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. Not yet, but prolly soon enough. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. And I am just about sure you missed the one about "sonic booms" in space... heh.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/SEMK0H7S9MG_2.html



“This is not direct proof, but it is strong evidence for a connection between interstellar turbulence and filaments. It provides a very strong constraint on theories of star formation,” says Dr André.

The team made the connection by studying three nearby clouds, known as IC5146, Aquila, and Polaris, using Herschel’s SPIRE and PACS instruments.

“The connection between these filaments and star formation used to be unclear, but now thanks to Herschel, we can actually see stars forming like beads on strings in some of these filaments,” says Göran Pilbratt, the ESA Herschel Project Scientist.

[Bill McBlueState]

14. The Gould Belt Survey team is doing some good work

but I'm not sure what you think they're finding that's out of synch with mainstream star formation theory.

[Odin2005]

13. These idiots seem to be ignorant of the last 30 years in the study of planet formation.

In the last stages of planet formation you had lots of proto-planets being tossed around, hence the "fruit salad". one of those proto-planets smacked the embryonic Earth and formed the Moon from a mixture of mantle material from both the Earth and the impactor.

Another proto-planet blasted off most of Mercury's mantle, another gave Venus it slow backwards rotation.


We can tell where Earth's water came from by looking at isotope distributions. About have the water came from comets, the rest from planetary formation.

[laconicsax]

15. Ignorance is a prerequisite for crackpot theories.

Someone else said it best about this particular one...

How come chemtrails mysteriously radiate from airports? The electric universe!

How come my papers never get accepted? The electric universe!

How come my bottles of pills are always full? The electric universe!

[ret5hd]

16. how come MY bottle of pills is always empty???

i know why, but i want you to say it...and it's not the electric universe!

[meow mix]

3. "first they came for the moon"

and i didn't speak out because i wasn't a moon

[Ready4Change]

4. Then they came for Pluto

and I didn't speak out because Pluto was always a little pipsqueak.

[Cereal Kyller]

17. Fuck Yeah!

Pluto got shafted! What, I'm expected to believe that Ceres is on the same level???

[MisterP]

9. can YOU afford to have one constructed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/gallery/images/1024/magrathea.html