Planetary Formation

[Sputnick]

Please bear with me as I start another topic.

I have read in a magazine either resembling Scientific American or being Scientific American that a molecule dropped into water will grow rock in layers, beginning with Electron Scanning size layers. Electron scan photos were inlcuded in the article, showing these layers, and they clearly resembled layers of rock most of us have seen while on beaches or hiking trails or on highways through which rock cuts have been made .. the only apparent difference being size which can be explained through growth over millions of years.

So - why is this process of rock formation totally ignored in all of the books I have read when the authors examined planetary formation, automatically assuming all planets were made through accretion? We know water is created in galaxies (probably through shockwaves moving through clouds of hydrogen and oxygen, right?). From there tt is fantastically easy to picture water molecules collecting into small globes, and then bigger globes, even planet sized globes .. with Europa being an easy candidate. Sure, Europa seems to have a rocky core through which tidal forces warm the water, and it might be easy to take the normal approach and to say the water was rained onto the core in comets .. but after reading the article and seeing the photos it was easy for me to much more easily assume the rock core grew within the water globe.

Naturally enough, not keeping written records of my reading, and having read this article a few years ago, I can't quote when or where or from what magazine .. but perhaps someone skilled in research could find it.

[neufer]

I have read in a magazine either resembling Scientific American or being Scientific American that a molecule dropped into water will grow in layers, beginning with Electron Scanning size layers. Electron scan photos were included in the article, showing these layers, and they clearly resembled layers or rock most of us have seen while on beaches or hiking trails or on highways through which rock cuts have been made .. the only apparent difference being size which can be explained through growth over millions of years.

One molecule will grow what in layers? An ice cube?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/growingcr ... rystal.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/crystalre ... lgeode.htm

[Sputnick]

I have read in a magazine either resembling Scientific American or being Scientific American that a molecule dropped into water will grow in layers, beginning with Electron Scanning size layers. Electron scan photos were included in the article, showing these layers, and they clearly resembled layers or rock most of us have seen while on beaches or hiking trails or on highways through which rock cuts have been made .. the only apparent difference being size which can be explained through growth over millions of years.

One molecule will grow what in layers? An ice cube?

Sorry Neufer - will grow rock in layers .. I did a terrible job on that first paragraph .. I'll edit. I've emailed Edmond Mathez of the Rose Centre for Earth and Space for whatever knowledge he could provide. I'm just hoping he's the right person to ask about this.

Edmond Mathez
Curator, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Dr. Mathez's expertise lies in igneous petrology and high-temperature geochemistry.

I've also emailed James D. Webster
Curator Physical Sciences, Earth & Planetary Sciences ..

... so it should be obvious I want to explore this topic scientifically.




http://chemistry.about.com/od/growingcr ... rystal.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/crystalre ... lgeode.htm[/quote]

[Chris Peterson]

I have read in a magazine either resembling Scientific American or being Scientific American that a molecule dropped into water will grow rock in layers, beginning with Electron Scanning size layers.

I'm taking your followup comments as evidence that you realize that what you are saying here is meaningless, and cannot be commented on without a much better statement of what you read.

So - why is this process of rock formation totally ignored in all of the books I have read when the authors examined planetary formation, automatically assuming all planets were made through accretion?

Well, first we need to know what process you are referring to. Water is not ignored in our understanding of planetary formation- hydrates are formed early on. There is no liquid water present during planetary system formation, however, so processes like crystal growth in aqueous solution isn't considered. Planets began their formation by accretion; heat is produced by collisions and by radioactive decay, which begins the process of differentiation- original materials began reacting and separating, forming the oldest rocks. When a body cools enough to support liquid water, other processes begin. None of this is subject to much controversy- the process is understood pretty well in broad strokes. A large number of geochemists and geophysicists are involved in studying the details. This was one of the earliest areas of planetary science to develop, because we have a rich collection of meteorites that allow the direct study of extraterrestrial material, and which have been incredibly useful in reconstructing details of the formation of the Solar System.

We know water is created in galaxies (probably through shockwaves moving through clouds of hydrogen and oxygen, right?). From there tt is fantastically easy to picture water molecules collecting into small globes, and then bigger globes, even planet sized globes...

I suggest you read up about the thermodynamic concept of the triple point, in particular the triple point for water, and then reconsider this suggestion.

[Sputnick]

I have read in a magazine either resembling Scientific American or being Scientific American that a molecule dropped into water will grow rock in layers, beginning with Electron Scanning size layers.

I'm taking your follow up comments as evidence that you realize that what you are saying here is meaningless, and cannot be commented on without a much better statement of what you read.

No, my statement is not meaningless .. it has meaning to me and hopefully to someone on the forum who has done some reading apart from books approved by the consensus. Hopefully my statement might cue a memory in someone, or prove interesting to someone.

So - why is this process of rock formation totally ignored in all of the books I have read when the authors examined planetary formation, automatically assuming all planets were made through accretion?

Well, first we

Who is 'we'. I would prefer your answer to respond for yourself, not assuming that you know the minds of others who are old enough to speak for themselves.

need to know what process you are referring to.

The process in my statement.

Water is not ignored in our understanding of planetary formation- hydrates are formed early on. There is no liquid water present during planetary system formation

there is no water present during planetary system formation according to your understanding at this point in time.

however, so processes like crystal growth in aqueous solution isn't considered. Planets began their formation by accretion

Planets began their formation according to accretion according to your present understanding, and I can accept that many planets form this way, but I can easily accept that planets are formed in other ways also.

heat is produced by collisions and by radioactive decay, which begins the process of differentiation- original materials began reacting and separating, forming the oldest rocks. When a body cools enough to support liquid water, other processes begin. None of this is subject to much controversy- the process is understood pretty well in broad strokes. A large number of geochemists and geophysicists are involved in studying the details. This was one of the earliest areas of planetary science to develop, because we have a rich collection of meteorites that allow the direct study of extraterrestrial material, and which have been incredibly useful in reconstructing details of the formation of the Solar System.

We know water is created in galaxies (probably through shockwaves moving through clouds of hydrogen and oxygen, right?). From there tt is fantastically easy to picture water molecules collecting into small globes, and then bigger globes, even planet sized globes...

I suggest you read up about the thermodynamic concept of the triple point, in particular the triple point for water, and then reconsider this suggestion.

I shall attempt this but it will not change my mind that some planets are formed from within planet sized globes of water,
and I foresaw your arguments and that's why I emailed for support for my proposal outside the forum.

[bystander]

Well, first we ...

Who is 'we'. I would prefer your answer to respond for yourself, not assuming that you know the minds of others who are old enough to speak for themselves.

How can you object to Chris's use of the word 'we' when you use it yourself? Or do you think you are better positioned to speak for the masses?

We know water is created ...

BTW: Sputnick, go back and 'edit' your post above. See what I did to fix your quotes. Before submitting your posts, try using the 'preview' function. Just a suggestion.

[Sputnick]

Well, first we ...

Who is 'we'. I would prefer your answer to respond for yourself, not assuming that you know the minds of others who are old enough to speak for themselves.

How can you object to Chris's use of the word we when you use it yourself? Or do you think you are better positioned to speak for the masses?

We know water is created ...

Oops - caught me doing a nasty. I apologize. It's a fine example of oversimplification. Thanks, Bystander.

I found a Wikipedia explanation of 3 point (your url didn't work, Chris) .. and you will probably use 3 point to say water cannot exist as a globe in space which has no atmosphere - but I will say just like laws of gravity appear to change over large cosmic distances, so too might the laws affecting water molecules. I can't explain how planet sized globes of water would travel through space (yet) but I will not drop the possibility.

[makc]

I found a Wikipedia explanation of 3 point (your url didn't work, Chris) .. and you will probably use 3 point to say water cannot exist as a globe in space which has no atmosphere - but I will say just like laws of gravity appear to change over large cosmic distances, so too might the laws affecting water molecules. I can't explain how planet sized globes of water would travel through space (yet) but I will not drop the possibility.

Why not as well keep the possibility of ID, for example? After all, planet sized globes of water do not need to follow any known laws of physics, when there is a force that can change them at will.

[Chris Peterson]

I suggest you read up about the thermodynamic concept of the triple point, in particular the triple point for water, and then reconsider this suggestion.

I shall attempt this but it will not change my mind that some planets are formed from within planet sized globes of water,
and I foresaw your arguments and that's why I emailed for support for my proposal outside the forum.

This is precisely the reason you are not being taken seriously. I offer you something to study that will demonstrate the flaws in your suggestion, and you have made up your mind before even reading it that it won't change your mind.

You believe in what you want, you don't care about evidence, you don't care about science. I don't understand what you're doing here.

[bystander]

Why not as well keep the possibility of ID, for example? ...

I think ID is most appropriate -

It is the dark, inaccessible part of our personality, what little we know of it we have learnt from our study of the dream-work and of the construction of neurotic symptoms, and most of this is of a negative character and can be described only as a contrast to the ego. We all approach the id with analogies: we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations ... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle.

New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1933)

Yes, makc, I know this is not what you meant, but it does seem strangely appropriate.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

I read your first post and while the point counterpoint is in full swing there is something you mentioned at the very start of your thread which eluded me. It's probably dumb to ask but what to type of molecule were you referring to when you said, "........one molecule......"?

[Doum]

Planetary Formation by sputnick

Nahhh, forget it.

You also say,

"but I will say just like laws of gravity appear to change over large cosmic distances, so too might the laws affecting water molecules."

Nahhh, forget it.

And also,

"Hopefully my statement might cue a memory in someone, or prove interesting to someone. "

Nahhh, forget it.

Cya next time.

[Sputnick]

The problem with water in space is that it would take atmospheric pressure to prevent it from sublimating directly to space and it would take relatively high temperatures to keep it in liquid form to allow for the time needed for the dissolved solids in the water to form around the molecule involved in the experiment. Space is a Cold, Pressureless, near void in which water molecules can only survive as Ice (cold) or individual molecules (pressureless) or in the form of hydrates. The more Water molecules you bring together in space, the best you can form is a comet of increasing size. It takes the mass of a planet, proxcimity to a star (0.7 - 1.3AU or so) for warmth and atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water at the surface. Now what you propose could be happening to a small extent on some of the distant moons that may have liquid oceans but not to the extent of forming planetary bodies.

[Sputnick]

The problem with water in space is that it would take atmospheric pressure to prevent it from sublimating directly to space and it would take relatively high temperatures to keep it in liquid form to allow for the time needed for the dissolved solids in the water to form around the molecule involved in the experiment. Space is a Cold, Pressureless, near void in which water molecules can only survive as Ice (cold) or individual molecules (pressureless) or in the form of hydrates. The more Water molecules you bring together in space, the best you can form is a comet of increasing size. It takes the mass of a planet, proxcimity to a star (0.7 - 1.3AU or so) for warmth and atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water at the surface. Now what you propose could be happening to a small extent on some of the distant moons that may have liquid oceans but not to the extent of forming planetary bodies.

Okay - how about a planet-sized globe of water forming within a molecular cloud, the cloud's density sufficient to prevent the globe's sublimation? Those clouds would have to become pretty dense to create stars - I understand the overall density of the sun is only slightly more than water. (?) So - as the cloud condenses it is creating heat capable of keeping the water globe liquid and density enough to keep the water from sublimating .. with the molecule or molecules within the globe building a rock core, the core growing large enough that its outer layers 'crack' into techtonic plates, the plates begin moving creating volcanic heat and mountains, the volcanic heat as well as the cloud's heat from contraction allowing life to begin in the oceans, and that life to create an atmosphere separate from the molecular cloud, finally the cloud's constraction forming a star .. a sun for the planet. (?)

[Sputnick]

Q) Can water, if containing enough dissolved iron solids, become magnetized and display signs of polarity?

If so, a totally liquid planet (as seen in a Star Trek Voager episode) might be hypothetically possible IF it were to have enough mass to retain an atmosphere, be close enough to its parent star so that the water remains liquid, and be able to generate an active magnetic field to prevent solar induced atmospheric loss to space. But, assuming that the water contains the same ammount of dissolved solids as our earth does, the planet would only be able to produce a miniscule core before there weren't and solids remaining in the water. There would need to be a steady infusion of solid material from off world sources to both maintain dissolved solid:water ratio and to allow for a rocky planetary body to form.
So If water containing dissolved Iron Solids could not become magnetized, the proposed world could not exist naturally.

Your scenario gains weight when we think of the number of impact craters on the moon.

[Sputnick]

Hello Sputnick,

I read your first post and while the point counterpoint is in full swing there is something you mentioned at the very start of your thread which eluded me. It's probably dumb to ask but what to type of molecule were you referring to when you said, "........one molecule......"?

That's the question I asked in two emails to New York - to the Rose Centre.

[apodman]

Okay - how about a planet-sized globe of water forming within a molecular cloud, the cloud's density sufficient to prevent the globe's sublimation? Those clouds would have to become pretty dense to create stars - I understand the overall density of the sun is only slightly more than water. (?) So - as the cloud condenses it is creating heat capable of keeping the water globe liquid and density enough to keep the water from sublimating .. with the molecule or molecules within the globe building a rock core, the core growing large enough that its outer layers 'crack' into techtonic plates, the plates begin moving creating volcanic heat and mountains, the volcanic heat as well as the cloud's heat from contraction allowing life to begin in the oceans, and that life to create an atmosphere separate from the molecular cloud, finally the cloud's constraction forming a star .. a sun for the planet. (?)

Déjà vu!

The Rite of Spring is a condensed version of the natural history of the Earth from the formation of the planet, to the first living creatures, to the age, reign, and extinction of the dinosaurs. The sequence showcased realistically animated prehistoric beasts, and used extensive and complicated special effects to depict volcanoes, boiling lava, and earthquakes.

[Sputnick]

I suggest you read up about the thermodynamic concept of the triple point, in particular the triple point for water, and then reconsider this suggestion.

I shall attempt this but it will not change my mind that some planets are formed from within planet sized globes of water, and I foresaw your arguments and that's why I emailed for support for my proposal outside the forum.

This is precisely the reason you are not being taken seriously. I offer you something to study that will demonstrate the flaws in your suggestion, and you have made up your mind before even reading it that it won't change your mind.

You believe in what you want, you don't care about evidence, you don't care about science. I don't understand what you're doing here.

Chris - I don't care about science? Here is some of what I have read in the past two weeks (the books authors all being conventional proponents of Big Bang), re-reading much of it, also reading some of the url references here, looking up my own internet stuff including learning a little about scientists including Pascual Jordan, contacting the Rose Centre in New York, etc.

Einstein’s lectures: The theory of relativity; e=mc2; Physics and Reality; the fundamentals of theoretical physics; the common language of science; the laws of science and the laws of ethics; an elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy.

Origins, Neil de Grass Tyson, 2004

Hyperspace – Our Final Fronteir, John Gribbin, 2001

In the Beginning – After Cobe and Before the Big Bang – John Gribbin, 1993

Through a Universe Darkly, Marciaa Bartusiak, 1993

Shadows of Creation – Dark Matter and Structure of the Universe – Michael Riordin and David N. Schramm, 1991

Your statement, Chris, really meant, "you don't care about scientific operations as I practice them." You cannot accept my instinct that I am right about what I believe - that's fine with me - but it certainly doesn't mean I don't care about science. I don't think you would have told Albert Einstein his instinct should be trashed .. and our friend Albert said he relied on instinct. Now, you Chris my try to turn that last statement around and say "Preposterous - Einstein relied on observations and mathematics" while my statement did not say he did not rely on those things .. but he himself said he also relied on instinct.

I think one of your difficulties understanding me, Chris, is that I am not willing to overlook the huge voids which the authors of the books I have read admit lie within the scientific observations of Big Bang .. while you seem to be be able to overlook them quite happily. that's fine - I can't convince you and I'm not trying to convert you.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris - I don't care about science? Here is some of what I have read in the past two weeks (the books authors all being conventional proponents of Big Bang), re-reading much of it, also reading some of the url references here, looking up my own internet stuff including learning a little about scientists including Pascual Jordan, contacting the Rose Centre in New York, etc...

My suggestion would be to largely stop reading books about astronomy. This is a field where books are pretty useless, except for first year astronomy classes dealing mostly with basic concepts (and that doesn't include much cosmology). All of the books you list are out of date with respect to cosmology- most are badly out of date. You would do far better limiting yourself to peer reviewed papers, Internet publications (but you need the savvy to discard the large amounts of rubbish to be found here), and articles in recent editions of popular science magazines.

I think one of your difficulties understanding me, Chris, is that I am not willing to overlook the huge voids which the authors of the books I have read admit lie within the scientific observations of Big Bang .. while you seem to be be able to overlook them quite happily. that's fine - I can't convince you and I'm not trying to convert you.

There are no "huge voids". There are many unanswered questions, and that is quite a different thing.

My problem with your natural philosophy (which I will not call science) is that you place what is possible and what is probable on the same level. That is not rational thinking.

[Sputnick]

Why not as well keep the possibility of ID, for example? ...

I think ID is most appropriate -

It is the dark, inaccessible part of our personality, what little we know of it we have learnt from our study of the dream-work and of the construction of neurotic symptoms, and most of this is of a negative character and can be described only as a contrast to the ego. We all approach the id with analogies: we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations ... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle.

New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1933)

Yes, makc, I know this is not what you meant, but it does seem strangely appropriate.

Yes - almost totally appropriate except I don't think it is the darkside - instinct for self preservation for instance can be classified as paranoia, while oftentimes our parents, teachers, social mentors, governments, etc. all consciously or unconsciously want us to think our instincts are darkness ('Hey - if I go to war I might get killed and have to kill someone' is met with 'shut up and shoot'. Modern manifestation of the the Biblical gift of tongues has been described by the medical profession as mental illness while new studies in genetics reveals language is wholly or partly genetically based, and therefore accountable for such things as the woman in Florida (I believe it was florida) who came out of a coma speaking a foreign language she never learned.

My instincts tell me things can and do happen .. and while they may or may not produce a collective will according to time and place and people involved, they do in me at times create a definite will along with energy to learn - my reading of the past two weeks being proof - all these books written by PHD proponents of Big Bang by the way ..
all written by PHDs in Physics, Astrophysics or Astronomy

Einstein’s lectures: The theory of relativity; e=mc2; Physics and Reality; the fundamentals of theoretical physics; the common language of science; the laws of science and the laws of ethics; an elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy.
Origins, Neil de Grass Tyson, 2004
Hyperspace – Our Final Fronteir, John Gribbin, 2001
In the Beginning – After Cobe and Before the Big Bang – John Gribbin, 1993
Through a Universe Darkly, Marciaa Bartusiak, 1993
Shadows of Creation – Dark Matter and Structure of the Universe – Michael Riordin and David N. Schramm, 1991

I have also in the past two weeks reread bits and pieces of all those books .. and I have read small amounts about and from people like Pascual Jordan, read from urls referenced here on the forum, looked into trying to find easy definitions of how water is made and under what conditions, and also read a bit from and about Hannes Alfven – Nobel Winner 1950s 1960s – Plasma Cosmolgy from Kristian Birkeland early.

Pleasure? Certainly. Along with great frustration at times .. but wow - what a wonderful experience this past two weeks has been!

[Sputnick]

Okay - how about a planet-sized globe of water forming within a molecular cloud, the cloud's density sufficient to prevent the globe's sublimation? Those clouds would have to become pretty dense to create stars - I understand the overall density of the sun is only slightly more than water. (?) So - as the cloud condenses it is creating heat capable of keeping the water globe liquid and density enough to keep the water from sublimating .. with the molecule or molecules within the globe building a rock core, the core growing large enough that its outer layers 'crack' into techtonic plates, the plates begin moving creating volcanic heat and mountains, the volcanic heat as well as the cloud's heat from contraction allowing life to begin in the oceans, and that life to create an atmosphere separate from the molecular cloud, finally the cloud's constraction forming a star .. a sun for the planet. (?)

Déjà vu!

The Rite of Spring is a condensed version of the natural history of the Earth from the formation of the planet, to the first living creatures, to the age, reign, and extinction of the dinosaurs. The sequence showcased realistically animated prehistoric beasts, and used extensive and complicated special effects to depict volcanoes, boiling lava, and earthquakes.

Cool, Man! No doubt though they started with a rock planet acceting from a dust disc (?)

[Sputnick]

Chris - I don't care about science? Here is some of what I have read in the past two weeks (the books authors all being conventional proponents of Big Bang), re-reading much of it, also reading some of the url references here, looking up my own internet stuff including learning a little about scientists including Pascual Jordan, contacting the Rose Centre in New York, etc...

=Chris My suggestion would be to largely stop reading books about astronomy. This is a field where books are pretty useless, except for first year astronomy classes dealing mostly with basic concepts (and that doesn't include much cosmology). All of the books you list are out of date with respect to cosmology- most are badly out of date. You would do far better limiting yourself to peer reviewed papers, Internet publications (but you need the savvy to discard the large amounts of rubbish to be found here), and articles in recent editions of popular science magazines.

Yes - I read any up to date science magazine available .. but a book written in 2004 by a prominent physicist is not out of date .. and the others are not badly out of date. My suggestion to you is to read them to expand your thought processes which seem to have become so narrowed as to exclude ANY concept or source of information outside your total and immediate understanding. Easily found on the internet is Pascual Jordan, for instance, who filled in some blanks left by Einstein. 'a star could be made out of nothing at all, because at the point of zero volume its negative gravitational energy would precisely cancel out is positive mass energy.'

I think one of your difficulties understanding me, Chris, is that I am not willing to overlook the huge voids which the authors of the books I have read admit lie within the scientific observations of Big Bang .. while you seem to be be able to overlook them quite happily. that's fine - I can't convince you and I'm not trying to convert you.

=Chris There are no "huge voids". There are many unanswered questions, and that is quite a different thing.

Huge voids Chris.

=Chris My problem with your natural philosophy (which I will not call science) is that you place what is possible and what is probable on the same level. That is not rational thinking.

I wish I could refernce the quote - "if nature can conceive of anything it will probably do it".

[apodman]

There is so much to criticize and so little time. But, my friend Sputnick, I have to jump on the bandwagon and ask the same of you that others have:

Please take the time to edit your quotes properly. It is difficult to follow anything when attributions are all mixed up in identity, style, nesting, and leftover unmatched bbcode, so please take care to get the identities right and try to stick with one style of attribution within a single post. I would appreciate it.

---

And, all my friends, it makes threads unnecessarily long to read and re-read when long posts are quoted and re-quoted in bulk. Let us not get carried away with quoting. It's very easy to ...

The Little Anti-Bang Theory - A New Argument
responding to posts by apodman and others

... introduce your point without excess clutter for the reader to navigate. The title above was just an example, of course, and nonsense as far as I know. So google you don't need to send your bots a-knockin'.

---

And, everyone, observe that there is no logical difference between the conversation shown in the nested version ...

(a) Do you want to go to breakfast?

(b) Sure, what time?

(c) Nine o'clock works for me.

(d) Okay, a*, I'll be there.

... and the un-nested version ...

(a) Do you want to go to breakfast?

(b) Sure, what time?

(c) Nine o'clock works for me.

(d) Okay, a*, I'll be there.

So, if you're faced with the task of editing a nested mess, why not make it easy on yourself and just bust it into a series of simple quotes?

Observe also that statements (a), (b), and (c) are in order in both cases, but the attributions (1), (2), and (3) are in order in the simple case and backwards in the nested case. The attributions are also paired with their statements in the simple case, whereas 2 of the 3 are separated from them in the nested case. The nested case is hard to read by its nature, even when we get it right. With complex nesting (more than one quote at the sub-levels), you get a mixture of frontwards and backwards as you read. What a treat.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

The BBT is here because there are huger voids in other models? It would appear to be so.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

Hello Sputnick,

I read your first post and while the point counterpoint is in full swing there is something you mentioned at the very start of your thread which eluded me. It's probably dumb to ask but what to type of molecule were you referring to when you said, "........one molecule......"?

That's the question I asked in two emails to New York - to the Rose Centre.

That's good. Thank you.