Monday, December 15, 2008

Gravity In The Garbage Can

Science Daily: Planet Formation Could Lie In Stellar Storms Rather Than Gravitational Instability.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2008) — New research suggests that turbulence plays a critical role in creating ripe conditions for the birth of planets. The study, to be published in The Astrophysical Journal, challenges the prevailing theory of planet formation.

Using three-dimensional simulations of the dust and gas that orbits young stars, the study demonstrates that turbulence is a significant obstacle to gravitational instability, the process that scientists have used since the 1970s to explain the early stage of planet formation.

Gravitational instability proposes that dust will settle into the middle of the protoplanetary disk around a newly-formed star. It is thought that the dust will gradually become denser and thinner until it reaches a critical point and collapses into kilometer-size clumps, which later collide to form planets. But new research by San Francisco State University professor Joseph Barranco shows that turbulent forces keep the dust and gas swirling and prevent it from forming a dense and thin enough layer for gravitational instability to occur.

"These results defy the proposed solution of how planets are formed," Barranco said. "Scientists have long been using gravitational instability theory to explain how millimeter-size particles grow to kilometer-size, but these new simulations open new avenues of investigation. Perhaps massive storms, similar to hurricanes found on the Earth or Jupiter, provide clues about how tiny dust grains clump together to become kilometer-size boulders."
Hmmm. Planets forming from the hurricanes of Jupiter? I seem to remember a certain Dr. Velikovsky making such a claim.


Quantum_Flux said...

I think that electricity is mainly responsible for the formation of interstellar dust clouds, perhaps so for all of the "missing dark matter" that astrophysicists tend to talk so much about.

OilIsMastery said...

I think so too...=)

Quantum_Flux said...

What do you think about this exponential time scale model (which was countered by the proposed 'stretching of spacetime' concept):

Big Bang Cosmology

According to this traditional Big Bang Model, fast acting nuclear forces took effect in the first second and then the universe is mostly electromagnetic charged plasma for the first 1 billion years, then the giant gas clouds conglomerate together under gravitation to form 1st and 2nd generation galaxies and stars that we see today?

Perhaps much of the ideas from the Big Bang Theory (such as nuclear reaction rates and electron/proton plasma collection settling rates) represents much of the data collected from all the atomic bomb testing and atom smashing that was performed during the '50s and '60s in combination with the observations of believed 'redshifts' through the hubble telescope since the '90s and all the ground based telescope data since the 1930s that Einstien worked through (BTW: I think Einstein was originally a hydrologist and then a patent office worker before becoming a mathematician).

Quantum_Flux said...

IMO: I think that nobody can trace the expansion of the universe back to a single point. How could the astronomers tell the difference between tracing the universe back to 1 point or tracing it back to many points in the general same location? What if there was a dominoe effect of big bang explosions in a cicular or spiral pattern instead of some singular cosmic point source? How do they know that what exploded didn't look like an oblate or elongated spheroid or perhaps something that was hyperdimensional (<4d) or perhaps it was hypodimensional (>4d) gemotry or perhaps even a fractal dimensional object (non-integer) that exploded?

Quantum_Flux said...

correction..hypodimensional <4d; hyperdimensional >4d.

Anaconda said...


A lot of the original "big bang" folks wanted an "alpha", in a way they were creationists.

The "big bang" theory was quickly taken to the Vatican, and it was quietly given the Pope's blessing because of exactly that: It postulated a "beginning" maybe 20 billion years ago, but still, a, "In the beginning..."

The Church could work with that...

"Big bang" is the worst kind of rank speculation -- set aside all the known physical laws...

A miracle...

As I've written before, science doesn't do "miracles".

Anaconda said...


If the gravitational model fails with regards to solar system formation, then it likely fails all-the-way-around up to and including galaxy formation.

Hotwater for the "big bang, black hole" gang who can't shoot straight:-)

And, of course, this opens the way for Plasma Cosmology because it does explain solar system formation and galaxy formation, nice.