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.
Originally posted by Bullfrog
Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any.
Why do the gas planets, each with unique formation histories of their own, have satellite systems containing a consistent fraction of each planet's mass, and why is this fraction so small compared to solid planet satellites? Dr. Robin Canup and Dr. William Ward of the SwRI Space Studies Department propose that it was the presence of gas, primarily hydrogen, during the formation of these satellites that limited their growth and selected for a common satellite system mass fraction.
As the gas planets formed, they accumulated hydrogen gas and solids such as rock and ice. The final stage of a gas planet's formation is believed to involve an inflow of both gas and solids from solar orbit into planetary orbit, producing a disk of gas and solids orbiting the planet in its equatorial plane. It is within that disk that the satellites are believed to have formed.
Canup and Ward considered that a growing satellite's gravity induces spiral waves in a surrounding gas disk, and that gravitational interactions between these waves and the satellite cause the satellite's orbit to contract. This effect becomes stronger as a satellite grows, so that the bigger a satellite gets, the faster its orbit spirals inward toward the planet. The team proposes that the balance of two processes — the ongoing inflow of material to the satellites during their growth and the loss of satellites to collision with the planet — implies a maximum size for a gas planet satellite consistent with observations.
www.swri.org...
Originally posted by Bullfrog
I would be more apt to believe that planets and stars throw off little particles that later, through the accretion process, become planets and moons. Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any. I don't see centrifugal force being able to lift something with a mass that large though...
Originally posted by Beachcoma
Originally posted by Bullfrog
Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any.
Sure we have!
Hubble Observations Provide Insight into Planet Birth
Hubble Reveals Two Dust Disks Around Nearby Star Beta Pictoris
Elusive Planet Reshapes a Ring Around Neighboring Star
And a whole lot more here.
Stars usually form in nebulas.
NASA's Spitzer Digs Up Troves of Possible Solar Systems in Orion
Some of these nebulas are in the galactic core region.
Journey to the galactic core
And sometimes the supermassive black hole in the galactic core flings them out to become runaway stars!
Two Exiled Stars Are Leaving Our Galaxy Forever
So that part of the theory isn't far-fetched
Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
what you are all failing to realize is ... we don't really know. show pictures all you want, but unless we have video of the whole process, sleeper is just as accurate as 'science'.
Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Sleeper, you'd be a great sci-fi author, but not so hot as an astronomer.
Seriously, my friend, I think you need to take a course in astrophysics. this idea is sillier than the sun having babies
Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Science has evidence and knowledge based on incessant testing.
Sleeper has an active imagination.
Saying sleeper's theories are as accurate as the accumulated body of scientific knowledge is like saying the daily horoscope in your local paper is as accurate as statistical analysis.
Sleeper's entertaining, I'll give him that. But this theory is so cracked it's leaking water everywhere.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
Well you've got to do better than that. Otherwise your theories are just like those "worn out theories" you deride. Except those theories have a lot of empirical evidence to back them up.
"October 18th, 1989, Space Shuttle Atlantis launches with the Galileo space probe. The probe is powered by 17.2lbs of Plutonium 238.
September 21st, 2003, Galileo is destroyed with a controlled impact with Jupiter.
October 19th, 2003, A mysterious black spot appears on Jupiter.
The spot is 7,900miles in diameter.....roughly the size of the earth.
Due to extreme pressure of Jupiters Hydrogen atmosphere, the nuclear payload triggered a chain reaction.
The largest weapon ever made was the Tsar bomba, 50 Megaton Nuclear bomb. The fireball was 2.8miles in diameter.
The Galileo space probe produced a blast 2821 X bigger than the Tsar Bomba.
October 15th , 1997, The Cassini space probe launches.
The probe is powered by 72.3lbs of Plutonium 238, the most ever launched into space.
On the 7/7/08, Cassini will impact Saturn causing an even larger blast.
With an atmosphere composed almost entirely of Hydrogen, there are theories that Saturn will become a second sun.
The effects on the earth of a "saturn Star Formation" are unknown.
The theory is that a constant radiation shower will hit the earth, lasting many weeks and killing millions.
The effects will become visible about 28days after impact. "
Originally posted by sleeper
As the moons form and gain mass they don’t sink but float ever higher above the thick clouds of gas via the centrifugal force of the rapidly spinning planet and are deposited into its orbit.
My .o2
Originally posted by sleeper
And without physicists and astronomers we wouldn’t know that all matter in the universe came out of a small dot smaller than the one at the end of a sentence. And some day all that matters in this universe will be shoved back into that small spot---talk about your ouch factor!---that one is going to hurt---
Originally posted by sleeper
Oops, that’s impossible, there is not enough visible matter in the universe to make that happen----hey, I got an idea, lets call the missing matter “Dark Matter”---if you can’t see it just give it a name---and a theory is born---see, there are others who think like lawyers---only scientifically---