Starship Asterisk*

What are the top 2 hallmarks or features of a theory on star-system formation (including planet formation) that would make you feel that the theory is worth attention and testing?

I'm really close to finalizing my book that puts forward a new theory of planet and star formation called Mass Vortex Theory. While there is still time to polish the book with final editing, I'm interested to know the top issues according to the Asterisk community that absolutely need to be answered by this theory. ... It offers a solution to dark matter to be tested. Obviously, it includes the development of a star and planet formation. What else?

An hypothesis (not a theory) is worth paying attention to and expending time, energy and money on testing, if and only if it is published in a peer reviewed journal. If you're self-publishing you won't be taken seriously. That's life.

Rob

Star formation is easy compared to the planet formation problem. The riddle to be solved is how to bridge the gap between pebbles and objects big enough to grow by gravitational attraction. Rocks and boulders will tend to just bounce and shatter off each other when they collide, causing the opposite of growth. If you can come up with a mathmatically sound, logical solution to this problem you will have something worth looking at Sally.

Bruce

rstevenson wrote:An hypothesis (not a theory) is worth paying attention to and expending time, energy and money on testing, if and only if it is published in a peer reviewed journal. If you're self-publishing you won't be taken seriously. That's life.

Rob

Rob,

You may be interested to know that there are multiple claims made by this theory, claims which can be proven true or false. For example, it says that there is an ice layer on Jupiter under a gaseous skin (about 2000 km deep). This ice layer covers an atmosphere and rocky planet below. I know that scientists currently think that Jupiter is composed of hydrogen. What we know right now is that the moment of inertia factor is .312 which is not indicative of a uniform distribution of matter. Also, Scott Bolton the lead investigator for the JUNO mission says that Jupiter is a different planet than expected. The ammonia distribution revealed at the May 25th JUNO press conference is in keeping with a solid ice layer at some point deeper than the 350 km reported on. Hopefully, the investigation via JUNO will reveal the layered nature of Jupiter that Mass Vortex Theory predicts. And if it shows that Jupiter is all hydrogen with smoothly transitioning densities due to pressure, then Mass Vortex Theory will be shown to be wrong.

Regarding your other point about being featured in a peer reviewed journal. I am aware that this is this a common sentiment. I have to wonder, however, if at least some scientists might be willing to look at a theory that explains:
>> the unique features of our solar system including: the distances between planets, their spins, their densities, their magnetic fields, their axial tilts, how their respective atmospheres formed, the origin of Earth’s oceans and how Earth’s moon became present; as well as
>> the features of the Sun including: Joy’s Law, Hale’s Polarity Law, the lack of sunspots at the equator, the solar wind, the differential rotation between the poles (38 days) and the equator (24 days) and its composition.

I have always liked the fact that physics is less subjective than other disciplines. So it seems to me that the astrophysics and space science branches of physics do not have to depend on the subjective opinion of scientists who must by necessity judge ideas based on what is already "known." What you are saying is that I should turn back and not even attempt to release a new theory if it is not accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is like saying Galileo should not have put forward a sun-centric theory of planets without getting the approval of scholars who were certain of an earth-centric paradigm.

S. Seaver

BDanielMayfield wrote:Star formation is easy compared to the planet formation problem. The riddle to be solved is how to bridge the gap between pebbles and objects big enough to grow by gravitational attraction. Rocks and boulders will tend to just bounce and shatter off each other when they collide, causing the opposite of growth. If you can come up with a mathmatically sound, logical solution to this problem you will have something worth looking at Sally.

Bruce

Bruce,

I have read about this problem - that at least some people are aware of it - but it is rarely reported in the accounts of planet formation for the public. I appreciate this confirmation regarding awareness of the problem. And yes, indeed, my theory is different AND it overcomes this problem. My solution is sound with respect to physics (more so than mathematics) and I believe it is logical.

Even before the formation of pebbles and such, the standard theory of planet formation does not explain sufficiently to me how it is that gravity overcomes the coulomb force between atoms in the protostellar disk of gases to form the minerals and molecules of rocky material.

You say that star formation is easy, but I challenge the idea that gravitational collapse can happen from gases in a nebula. Consider the following. From Hawking and Penrose [1970]: "The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."

The idea that you can treat all the mass as residing at the center of mass is:
a) due to how the calculus (math) of the calculation works out, and
b) appropriate for looking at the center of mass of one object versus another object that is at a distance r from the first object, not necessarily a continuous sphere of matter.

Yes, a dense area of a nebula will attract more matter, but there is a limit to how dense the region as a whole can become. In a nebula, each little cubic centimeter of gas experiences the gravitational pull of its close neighbors in such a way that distant matter does not affect it much (gravity is proportional to 1/r2, the inverse square of the distance between different cubic centimeters). Additionally, atoms in the gaseous nebula have small charge imbalances that cause them to repel each other; thus, they do not get close enough to form a gravitational instability. Therefore, a dense part of a nebula is not going to trigger gravitational collapse.

Perhaps you can straighten me out on where my thinking goes wrong.

Respectfully,
S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:Regarding your other point about being featured in a peer reviewed journal. I am aware that this is this a common sentiment. I have to wonder, however, if at least some scientists might be willing to look at a theory that explains...

It the theory explains these things, it will most certainly be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:Regarding your other point about being featured in a peer reviewed journal. I am aware that this is this a common sentiment. I have to wonder, however, if at least some scientists might be willing to look at a theory that explains...

It the theory explains these things, it will most certainly be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

Thank you for commenting and the encouragement, Chris. Actually, I quote you in the book (in the body and an endnote).

Quote in the body:
“All that matters is gravitational attraction and the density of orbital material. If the density is high enough … the material will flatten out (just like spinning pizza dough).” — Chris Peterson, Cloudbait Observatory, Asterisk Forum, Sept. 21, 2015

What I hope you take from this is that your consistent thoughtful participation in the Asterisk Forum matters and is appreciated more than you know.

Many peer-reviewed articles and authoritative sources are referenced in the book; I liked your quote the best for making this particular point.

Sincerely,
S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:Star formation is easy compared to the planet formation problem. The riddle to be solved is how to bridge the gap between pebbles and objects big enough to grow by gravitational attraction. Rocks and boulders will tend to just bounce and shatter off each other when they collide, causing the opposite of growth. If you can come up with a mathmatically sound, logical solution to this problem you will have something worth looking at Sally.

Bruce

Bruce,

I have read about this problem - that at least some people are aware of it - but it is rarely reported in the accounts of planet formation for the public. I appreciate this confirmation regarding awareness of the problem. And yes, indeed, my theory is different AND it overcomes this problem. My solution is sound with respect to physics (more so than mathematics) and I believe it is logical.

It is true that the problem of how to form planets out of dust and gas is often omitted in writings for the public, but much work on this has been reported on in this forum as it is a very active area of research. If you have cracked this conundrum it would be a great thing indeed.

Even before the formation of pebbles and such, the standard theory of planet formation does not explain sufficiently to me how it is that gravity overcomes the coulomb force between atoms in the protostellar disk of gases to form the minerals and molecules of rocky material.

Nor to me either, come to think of it.

You say that star formation is easy, but I challenge the idea that gravitational collapse can happen from gases in a nebula. Consider the following. From Hawking and Penrose [1970]: "The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."

I didn’t exactly say that star formation is easy, I said that it was easy in comparison to the planet formation problem, which in my opinion was a more difficult nut to crack. My opinions can change when persuasive arguments are presented, such as the Hawking and Penrose quotation you offered.

The idea that you can treat all the mass as residing at the center of mass is:
a) due to how the calculus (math) of the calculation works out, and
b) appropriate for looking at the center of mass of one object versus another object that is at a distance r from the first object, not necessarily a continuous sphere of matter.

Yes, a dense area of a nebula will attract more matter, but there is a limit to how dense the region as a whole can become. In a nebula, each little cubic centimeter of gas experiences the gravitational pull of its close neighbors in such a way that distant matter does not affect it much (gravity is proportional to 1/r2, the inverse square of the distance between different cubic centimeters). Additionally, atoms in the gaseous nebula have small charge imbalances that cause them to repel each other; thus, they do not get close enough to form a gravitational instability. Therefore, a dense part of a nebula is not going to trigger gravitational collapse.

Perhaps you can straighten me out on where my thinking goes wrong.

Respectfully,
S. Seaver

I don’t know that your thinking is wrong at all. In fact, I am intrigued. You’ve well demonstrated that there is a need for a more complete explanation of solar system formation. Whether you have found it or not is the big question though. Since I haven’t read your work (yet) I couldn’t possibly say.

Bruce

@ sallyseaver. YOUR COMMENT ( What I hope you take from this is that your consistent thoughtful participation in the Asterisk Forum matters and is appreciated more than you know )
i COULD NOT POSSIBLY AGREE WITH YOU MORE, MR. CHRIS PETERSON YOU ARE JUST THE BEST

sallyseaver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:Regarding your other point about being featured in a peer reviewed journal. I am aware that this is this a common sentiment. I have to wonder, however, if at least some scientists might be willing to look at a theory that explains...

It the theory explains these things, it will most certainly be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

Thank you for commenting and the encouragement, Chris. Actually, I quote you in the book (in the body and an endnote). :)

Quote in the body:
“All that matters is gravitational attraction and the density of orbital material. If the density is high enough … the material will flatten out (just like spinning pizza dough).” — Chris Peterson, Cloudbait Observatory, Asterisk Forum, Sept. 21, 2015

What I hope you take from this is that your consistent thoughtful participation in the Asterisk Forum matters and is appreciated more than you know.

Many peer-reviewed articles and authoritative sources are referenced in the book; I liked your quote the best for making this particular point.

Thank you, but you should understand that quoting me in this way is not appropriate in an academic work. I was speaking there in an informational context, as an educator. My area of research and expertise is not planetary system formation. That quote represents a secondary source, and your references should be primary sources.

BDanielMayfield wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:
Even before the formation of pebbles and such, the standard theory of planet formation does not explain sufficiently to me how it is that gravity overcomes the coulomb force between atoms in the protostellar disk of gases to form the minerals and molecules of rocky material.

Nor to me either, come to think of it.

You say that star formation is easy, but I challenge the idea that gravitational collapse can happen from gases in a nebula. Consider the following. From Hawking and Penrose [1970]: "The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."

I didn’t exactly say that star formation is easy, I said that it was easy in comparison to the planet formation problem, which in my opinion was a more difficult nut to crack. My opinions can change when persuasive arguments are presented, such as the Hawking and Penrose quotation you offered.

The idea that you can treat all the mass as residing at the center of mass is:
a) due to how the calculus (math) of the calculation works out, and
b) appropriate for looking at the center of mass of one object versus another object that is at a distance r from the first object, not necessarily a continuous sphere of matter.

Yes, a dense area of a nebula will attract more matter, but there is a limit to how dense the region as a whole can become. In a nebula, each little cubic centimeter of gas experiences the gravitational pull of its close neighbors in such a way that distant matter does not affect it much (gravity is proportional to 1/r2, the inverse square of the distance between different cubic centimeters). Additionally, atoms in the gaseous nebula have small charge imbalances that cause them to repel each other; thus, they do not get close enough to form a gravitational instability. Therefore, a dense part of a nebula is not going to trigger gravitational collapse.

Perhaps you can straighten me out on where my thinking goes wrong.

Respectfully,
S. Seaver

I don’t know that your thinking is wrong at all. In fact, I am intrigued. You’ve well demonstrated that there is a need for a more complete explanation of solar system formation. Whether you have found it or not is the big question though. Since I haven’t read your work (yet) I couldn’t possibly say.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Thank you very much for taking the time to reason through this with me. I really appreciate it.

I don't mind healthy skepticism. It is appropriate. On the other hand, getting frozen out with no interaction, on the other hand, is pretty demoralizing.

S. Seaver

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote: Actually, I quote you in the book (in the body and an endnote).

Quote in the body:
“All that matters is gravitational attraction and the density of orbital material. If the density is high enough … the material will flatten out (just like spinning pizza dough).” — Chris Peterson, Cloudbait Observatory, Asterisk Forum, Sept. 21, 2015

What I hope you take from this is that your consistent thoughtful participation in the Asterisk Forum matters and is appreciated more than you know.

Many peer-reviewed articles and authoritative sources are referenced in the book; I liked your quote the best for making this particular point.

Thank you, but you should understand that quoting me in this way is not appropriate in an academic work. I was speaking there in an informational context, as an educator. My area of research and expertise is not planetary system formation. That quote represents a secondary source, and your references should be primary sources.

Chris,

It seems to me that the claim I quote you on, namely "All that matters is gravitational attraction and the density of orbital material. If the density is high enough … the material will flatten out (just like spinning pizza dough)" is not controversial and it is okay that it comes from an educator. It is a well-known phenomenon.

My book is geared towards a general science educated audience, so that it has a better chance of being read and understood. Academics are going to feel like Rob (above) and ignore my work.

I can understand that you would be concerned about having your name mentioned in a book on a new possibly-controversial theory. Do you perhaps have a suggestion for a different source that can say the same thing in about the same amount of characters?

Another remedy would be to put your name in my general disclaimer at the beginning of the book:
"Note: Opinions and statements included in this book are solely those of the author, and are not endorsed or verified as accurate by NASA, JPL, ESA, NSF, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the WIYN Observatory, the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., the US Geological Survey, any university or any other institution. The quote by Chris Peterson of Cloudbait Observatory does not imply any endorsement or approval of ideas in this book."

Your thoughts?

S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:What are the top 2 hallmarks or features of a theory on star-system formation (including planet formation) that would make you feel that the theory is worth attention and testing?

I'm really close to finalizing my book that puts forward a new theory of planet and star formation called Mass Vortex Theory. While there is still time to polish the book with final editing, I'm interested to know the top issues according to the Asterisk community that absolutely need to be answered by this theory. ... It offers a solution to dark matter to be tested. Obviously, it includes the development of a star and planet formation. What else?

10 years ago, Sally, when I proposed that Voids were filled with anti-matter, and expanding, I was seen here as a laughingstock .. however .. the idea has now been fairly well confirmed. https://www.universetoday.com/84934/ant ... expansion/ I've also proposed an alternate planet forming theory involving spheres of water like some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, etc. That also was seen as ludicrous .. yet more and more evidence show the possibility. In short, don't look to others for confirmation of new ideas. You'll be ridiculed not matter what, as were most of the major discoverers of unorthodox truth. Eventually, if you're right, you'll be proven right. And maybe new ideas will, eventually, become more acceptable as 'new ideas' rather than blasphemy against consensus, though that's been a five thousand year journey with little progress.

HiYoSilver wrote: 10 years ago, Sally, when I proposed that Voids were filled with anti-matter, and expanding, I was seen here as a laughingstock .. however .. the idea has now been fairly well confirmed. https://www.universetoday.com/84934/ant ... expansion/ I've also proposed an alternate planet forming theory involving spheres of water like some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, etc. That also was seen as ludicrous .. yet more and more evidence show the possibility. In short, don't look to others for confirmation of new ideas. You'll be ridiculed not matter what, as were most of the major discoverers of unorthodox truth. Eventually, if you're right, you'll be proven right. And maybe new ideas will, eventually, become more acceptable as 'new ideas' rather than blasphemy against consensus, though that's been a five thousand year journey with little progress.

I should add, I never proposed my planet forming theory as a REPLACEMENT theory, just supplemental. Even so, as with the anti-matter voids, the ridicule was intense. Don't let it bother you.

HiYoSilver wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:What are the top 2 hallmarks or features of a theory on star-system formation (including planet formation) that would make you feel that the theory is worth attention and testing?

I'm really close to finalizing my book that puts forward a new theory of planet and star formation called Mass Vortex Theory. While there is still time to polish the book with final editing, I'm interested to know the top issues according to the Asterisk community that absolutely need to be answered by this theory. ... It offers a solution to dark matter to be tested. Obviously, it includes the development of a star and planet formation. What else?

10 years ago, Sally, when I proposed that Voids were filled with anti-matter, and expanding, I was seen here as a laughingstock .. however .. the idea has now been fairly well confirmed. https://www.universetoday.com/84934/ant ... expansion/

Well, no. Somebody played with the numbers and made some assumptions that don't seem to be supported by reality. The idea hasn't been confirmed at all. Indeed, the paper is 7 years old and the idea has gone nowhere. Not surprisingly.

Chris Peterson wrote:Well, no. Somebody played with the numbers and made some assumptions that don't seem to be supported by reality. The idea hasn't been confirmed at all. Indeed, the paper is 7 years old and the idea has gone nowhere. Not surprisingly.

Yeah, well, sputnik is a legend in his own mind.

To be fair, we also weren't laughing, we were just resting our faces in our palms frequently.

But the cat came back the very next day,
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner
But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away.

geckzilla wrote:To be fair, we also weren't laughing, we were just resting our faces in our palms frequently.

But the cat came back the very next day,
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner
But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away.

That cat doesn't believe in escape velocity.

bystander wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Well, no. Somebody played with the numbers and made some assumptions that don't seem to be supported by reality. The idea hasn't been confirmed at all. Indeed, the paper is 7 years old and the idea has gone nowhere. Not surprisingly.

Yeah, well, sputnik is a legend in his own mind.

I thought I recognized that tainted air.

Rob

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:What are the top 2 hallmarks or features of a theory on star-system formation (including planet formation) that would make you feel that the theory is worth attention and testing?

I'm really close to finalizing my book that puts forward a new theory of planet and star formation called Mass Vortex Theory. While there is still time to polish the book with final editing, I'm interested to know the top issues according to the Asterisk community that absolutely need to be answered by this theory. ... It offers a solution to dark matter to be tested. Obviously, it includes the development of a star and planet formation. What else?

10 years ago, Sally, when I proposed that Voids were filled with anti-matter, and expanding, I was seen here as a laughingstock .. however .. the idea has now been fairly well confirmed. https://www.universetoday.com/84934/ant ... expansion/

Well, no. Somebody played with the numbers and made some assumptions that don't seem to be supported by reality. The idea hasn't been confirmed at all. Indeed, the paper is 7 years old and the idea has gone nowhere. Not surprisingly.

I'm glad you're a skeptic, Chris, you promote investigation. But a 7 year old paper is not very old, after all, it took modern science 2,000 years to catch up to Aristarchus.

geckzilla wrote:To be fair, we also weren't laughing, we were just resting our faces in our palms frequently.

But the cat came back the very next day,
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner
But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away.

Contemplation is more restful that way, Geck. I'm allergic to cats though, which has had a serious detrimental effect on my social life, almost as much as my unorthodox scientific opinions.

bystander wrote: Yeah, well, sputnik is a legend in his own mind.

Perseverence, Bystander old chum.

Chris Peterson wrote: Well, no. Somebody played with the numbers and made some assumptions that don't seem to be supported by reality. The idea hasn't been confirmed at all. Indeed, the paper is 7 years old and the idea has gone nowhere. Not surprisingly.

It seems someone has accepted it. This is from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... verse.html

"the question of whether the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is attractive or repulsive has not been answered until now.
In the new study, Massimo Villata of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino (Observatory of Turin) in Pino Torinese, Italy, has shown that the current formulation of general relativity predicts that matter and antimatter are both self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other. But unlike previous antigravity proposals –- such as the idea that antimatter is gravitationally self-repulsive –- Villata’s proposal does not require changes to well-established theories."

It seems very simple .. anti-matter in voids creates expanding balloons in spacetime .. matter creates wells in spacetime .. wells should slide away from balloons.

P.S. Sally, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. Good luck with publishing.

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Well, no. Somebody played with the numbers and made some assumptions that don't seem to be supported by reality. The idea hasn't been confirmed at all. Indeed, the paper is 7 years old and the idea has gone nowhere. Not surprisingly.

It seems someone has accepted it. This is from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... verse.html

"the question of whether the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is attractive or repulsive has not been answered until now.
In the new study, Massimo Villata of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino (Observatory of Turin) in Pino Torinese, Italy, has shown that the current formulation of general relativity predicts that matter and antimatter are both self-attractive, yet matter and antimatter mutually repel each other. But unlike previous antigravity proposals –- such as the idea that antimatter is gravitationally self-repulsive –- Villata’s proposal does not require changes to well-established theories."

It seems very simple .. anti-matter in voids creates expanding balloons in spacetime .. matter creates wells in spacetime .. wells should slide away from balloons.

That does seem seductively simple HiYoSilver. (Perhaps this can be relocated to a new thread.) Maybe it is too simple to be believed. Chris' point is hardly refuted by the news report you quoted though, which is six years old.

Bruce, (hardly Chris' favorite defender)

HiYoSilver wrote:
10 years ago, Sally, when I proposed that Voids were filled with anti-matter, and expanding, I was seen here as a laughingstock .. however .. the idea has now been fairly well confirmed. https://www.universetoday.com/84934/ant ... expansion/ I've also proposed an alternate planet forming theory involving spheres of water like some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, etc. That also was seen as ludicrous .. yet more and more evidence show the possibility. In short, don't look to others for confirmation of new ideas. You'll be ridiculed not matter what, as were most of the major discoverers of unorthodox truth. Eventually, if you're right, you'll be proven right. And maybe new ideas will, eventually, become more acceptable as 'new ideas' rather than blasphemy against consensus, though that's been a five thousand year journey with little progress.

Dear HiYoSilver,
Thank you very much for your understanding, encouragement and the interesting article.
Have you seen the GE Commercial: New Ideas are Scary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmQvc6tB1o?

Although I do not accept the anti-matter solution to dark energy, I enjoyed getting the link and learning about this idea. I can see why people would want to explore it.

I wonder what you will think of my theory.

Thanks again,
Sally