Ok but realize that is like saying that the observation of Saturn's rings is evidence of an accretion disk.CharlesChandler wrote:Well, there are a few rare cases where they have been observed, such as around quasars.viscount aero wrote:...there is no such thing as an accretion disk.
Isn't it a bit interesting that we have 2 large and local examples of disks around celestial bodies: 1. Saturn's rings 2. The Sun's asteroid belt ---and yet there is absolutely, completely, and irrefutably zero evidence that these massive structures give rise to accretion?
In fact scientists will quickly agree with me and say "yes, of course, Saturn's rings and the asteroid belt around our Sun are not accretion disks." Yet when they see such structures much farther away, often at cosmological distances, they must be absolutely demonstrative of "accretion disks" And that isn't even yet getting into discussing why the core accretion model cannot ever actually function as it is purported to (which I will not here because you already know why). Don't you find that a bit hilarious and laughably unscientific?
Yes. Your example is more akin to fluid dynamics, particularly uncompressability of water. But it could work across a spectrum of materials. That and a host of other physical impossibilities must be accepted for the core accretion theory to actually work: First off, "hot gas" doesn't accrete. It expands and dissipates. This is why steam engines are so effective. Yet that alone is completely thrown out the window in astronomy and cosmology. They insist everything in space acts as a hot gas. Ok. Then why don't they accept what physical high school science teaches about hot gases? Gases expand under pressure, not "accrete." This is only one reason why core accretion is false. Others include lack of causal agents for the mechanical accretion to even begin. That culprit is never accounted for or ever seen anywhere. This could go on.CharlesChandler wrote: But I'll definitely agree that as a general model, they just don't work. The force necessary to compress a spherical dusty plasma into a pancake simply isn't there. If it was, the increase in hydrostatic pressure due to the compression would cause the "disc" to expand, like rolling dough on a bread board. So the accretion disc model didn't come with any model glue.
viscount aero wrote:...if what you described above happened then all the planets would tend to be retrograde and what we actually see is prograde. So why mention this? Our solar system is prograde.
I'm still not following why you insist that retrograde is the absolute preferred state and it must be reversed by another forceCharlesChandler wrote:Right -- the Newtonian expectation is retrograde axial rotations -- the reason for bringing it up is that it is proof that prograde rotations can only be caused by non-Newtonian forces.
viscount aero wrote:That assumes giant leaps of logic in my opinion and tends to deny Occam his obligatory seat in front.CharlesChandler wrote:So I think that there has to be an external force, which induced the orbital rotation in the original collapsing dusty plasma from which all of this formed in the first place, and which generated the prograde axial rotations. So it was basically a spherical dusty plasma that collapsed, but the Lorentz force induced a small amount of angular momentum (compared to the huge amount of radial momentum in the collapse).
But you are assuming this highly broad galactic "force" is locally reversing a planetary system's "original" direction of rotation. I don't really find that believable. It's too many steps and too reaching. If anything the reversal happens locally due to the Sun's influence on each planet, on a case by case basis.CharlesChandler wrote: I'm not assuming the existence of the spiral arm magnetic field -- we know that it's there. And I'm not assuming that a charged sphere will pick up a rotation if moving through a magnetic field -- that's simple induction. And I'm not assuming that planetary atmospheres (if present) are positively charged, while the solid bodies are negatively charged. The only thing that I'm hypothesizing is that the forces are powerful enough to do the job. Occam wouldn't complain.
viscount aero wrote:You seem all apesh1t for the Lorentz force.
For sake of our discussion I will accept, for now, the idea of a spherical dusty plasmoid as being a real thing that seeds solar systems.CharlesChandler wrote: Still, something induced the rotation, and you ain't gettin' there with Newtonian mechanics, which can preserve angular momentum, but can't create it. But you're right -- I could do more diagrams. On another thread, celeste & I got into a decent discussion about orbits, and we're working on a more substantial presentation of the facts & theories. But for the time being, by "radial implosion", I just mean that a spherical dusty plasma collapsed toward the centroid, and as such, shouldn't have had much in the way of angular momentum. If rotations were purely by chance, half of them would be in one direction, and the other half in the other. The fact that they're almost exclusively prograde is, for me, proof of an external force.
Let us both accept that the Sun and its cadre of planets are moving entities through the galaxy. Orbits, too, are not actually circular and flat as we are taught in school. Orbtis are helix-like and are spiraled paths. The Sun is like a bullet on a perpetual journey with its planets "trailing" along with it, corkscrewing their way around the Sun. Again, orbits are helix-like and spiraled. They are not flat.
As such, the spiraling helix movement itself creates planetary spin as the planets interact with the Sun's "fields"--be they electromotive or gravitational--or both. It is a similar concept as rifling: A gun's barrel is grooved with paralleling spiraling channels within the barrel to give the projectile a spin axis. This insures accuracy and stability as the bullet travels. Consider this to be roughly analogous to planets around the Sun: The Sun acts as a "rifling" causal agent that begets any subsequent captured worlds to assume a rotational profile, ie, a prograde spin in our case. What is happening with Venus is probably due to the idea that the Sun has begun to overcome and overwhelm Venus' original retrograde rotation. We are seeing the end of that retrograde (original) disposition of Venus.
This is very significant because it foretells, perhaps, Venus to be, again, probably a recent addition to our solar system. Before arrival, it was spinning probably much faster in retrograde rotation, millions of years ago, but has now exhausted its angular momentum as the Sun has begun to finally overwhelm it. At a point it will be "tidally locked" for a long time and then probably reverse axial spin to prograde. The time frame for this of course is impossible to know.
viscount aero wrote:I think Venus was not part of this solar system. It may be a visitor or recent addition. My only qualm here is that its orbit is highly circular and stable...
I won't rule out the Lorentz Force because that may also explain what I have posited above: The 'electromotive" force that constrains and "rifles" the planetary "bullets" into spiral orbits and axial spin may be in fact the Lorentz Force---at least in large partCharlesChandler wrote:Right -- a captured planet would have a highly elliptical orbit, and only by chance would it happen to orbit on the same plane as the other planets. So there had to be a collision, and it had to be just right, for Venus to be captured, and to fall into a circular orbit. Or there are other forces that coerce orbits into the same plane, and toward perfect concentricity. Maybe it's the Lorentz force!!!
To add as counterpoint: perhaps, too, a highly eccentric or very elliptical orbit may actually not always be indicative of a newly captured object. That ought to be considered very seriously. Some objects may be very old and yet retain eccentricity. So again, we must beware of "misdirects" and red herrings. Realize that "stabilized and circular orbits are older and more stable" may not actually be a viable benchmark, criterion, or a reality. For example, circular orbits can decay. So how is that a stability? It isn't. It need not be older either. Some man-made satellites in highly circular orbits, for example, decay and drop into the Earth's atmosphere.
viscount aero wrote:...and that it conforms the solar system to Titus/Bode's law--another mystery
Yes another topic, a vast one.CharlesChandler wrote:Bode's law is a whole nuther topic.