This is my study and theory. I am looking at the data of our solar system and trying to understand how it was formed and what is happening. Planets are nothing more than waste material emitted by the Sun. When looking at the #planetary data of how far each orbiting body is from the Sun an exponential curve is produced. This indicates the planets have been accelerating away from the center of the solar system. The activity on the surface of the sun will generate the next planet to emerge from the upper strata of the Sun. Planet K, is a bit of a mystery and the initial forces which deliver the body of mass from the Sun are too. So how can we tell the planets have been traveling away from the sun and picking up speed. Ln distances gives a uniform line. planetemissiontheory is the site I made to put some graphs on. There are other indications too. For instance the orbit of each planet is concentric. M and V are tidy with very little deviation from the circular path. But each planetary body is more and more off the circular orbit and becomes elliptic to the point of no return. Back to the initial forces to explain how this occurs. I considered big bangs and so on. But the theory which I feel fits is SHM. Picture a wave out at sea it rise then brakes. So the Sun is harmonized with the forces of other Suns. A tidal like event on the molten liquid matter. This is a feasible origin for the initial forces which form a spinning ball of molten Planet. And there is another point that the first two planets are more molten and hotter. They have not cooled as much to form as thick a crust, as they are fresh from the heat. And I was shown a permanent feature on the suns surface which I was told had a regular motion around the sun. White spot. Now look at the moons of the planets which I understand to be formed as a result of impacts from astroids. number of moons 0 0 1 2 67 and as you reach the outer planets the rule diminishes due to far greater randomness. I also theorise an astroid belt and a planet are two states of orbiting masses. This is widely accepted. But the accepted theory is the dust first and then the planet. But If you smash a planet you will get dust. Also looking at planet density notice the pattern over the first five masses 5427 5243 5514 3933 1326 If you smash something and then it is packed back together its density is less and less. Mercury venus earth mars smashed planet the astroid belt reformed planet jupiter all spaced exponentially apart. I am saying these orbiting bodies are debris from a diminishing sun and could give us a better understanding of how a solar system changes over time. They are also a frictional size of the sun so way are they not in the sun because they are on a path away from the sun. sites.google.com/site/planetemissiontheory/
Stars spitting out planets!!!....Never been observed. But we have of late observed many accretion disks, with Stars and protostars at the core, and signs of planeatry formation in the outer edges of that accretion disk. We have no reason to believe our own system would form any differently. Planetary migration, both inwards and outwards probably has and does take place. Obviously the first two planets are hotter then the outer lot, simply because they are closer to the main source of heat...the Sun. More molten is not the proper terminology, as both Mercury and Venus to have hard surfaces existing at higher temperatures. All in all, what you propose/theorise is highly unlikely, and a rather flimsy hypothesis, since we have never observed Stars spitting out planets.
Another point is that no planetary orbit is perfectly circular...all are ellipses of varying degrees....including moons, comets, asteroids etc
I agree with what your saying but I cannot help but see this from the data on planet location in the system. They are traveling away from the centre, the sun. I decided to voice this idea to prove it not so. On the initial formation/spitting out consider a very small amount of material being lunched into an orbit during the explosions at the surface. The material or planet would be traveling very fast at the near sun orbit. And then, I continue to theories, this equilibrium alters as the mass of the sun is decreasing gradually due to solar wind. So looking at the planets distance from the sun acceleration is apparent.
Yes but if you look at the planets venus and mercury and their almost circular orbits. then as you carry on down the elliptic factors increase incrementally.
Here is a TABLE showing that neither the planets distances from the sun give an exponental curve nor that the eliptical orbits become more eccentric with distance. Back to the drawing board!
You are wrong about the exponential. search exponential curve planets distance from the sun. About the elliptical orbits visit page (second table down) astronomynotes.com/tables/tablesb .htm I really want to clear this up and have a web page /site/ planet emission theory (please paddoboy have a clear minded think on this and tell me its wrong).
I believe you are wrong........ Why? For one main reason....As I stated, we see accretion disks in other systems...we see lumpy matter in these disks that clump together more and more under gravity's influence. The Asteroids are 'failed planets.......It seems the simplest most easily explained method from my point of view. BTW, this should be in the astronomy, space, cosmology section, and you may get more coverage.
Welcome to the Sciforums, new member. Best of luck with your studies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now look at the moons of the planets which I understand to be formed as a result of impacts from astroids. number of moons 0 0 1 2 67 and as you reach the outer planets the rule diminishes due to far greater randomness. I also theorise an astroid belt and a planet are two states of orbiting masses. This is widely accepted. But the accepted theory is the dust first and then the planet. But If you smash a planet you will get dust. Also looking at planet density notice the pattern over the first five masses 5427 5243 5514 3933 1326 If you smash something and then it is packed back together its density is less and less. Mercury venus earth mars smashed planet the astroid belt reformed planet jupiter all spaced exponentially apart. I am saying these orbiting bodies are debris from a diminishing sun and could give us a better understanding of how a solar system changes over time. They are also a frictional size of the sun so way are they not in the sun because they are on a path away from the sun.
Oh, I see it is a fractional exponet, using fractional exponets you can fit all kinds of curves. Here is a better correlation than a fractional exponet, it is a polynomial that fits the position of the planets with an R^2 of 0.9985: y = -0.0174e5 + 0.3823e4 - 2.9319e3 + 10.195e2 - 15.439x + 8.3047 What does this more accurate curve say about the origin of the planets. Nice table what do you want me to see on that table? You said that the orbits become more eliptic the farther from the sun they are - which is wrong. The first table of your source gives the information you want. Eccentricity is a measure of how eliptical the shape of the orbit is. As you can see from your own source your prediction that the planets farther from the sun have more eliptical orbits is not correct. In science when a hypothesis is used to make a prediction and the prediction is wrong then the hypothesis is falsified. I don't actually expect you to admitt that because you seem to be on a bit of a roll. Here are some things to consider when making your web page: 1. What possible force could make a planet overcome the gravity of the sun and move out into space? 2. If the planets all emerged from the sun why do they have different compostions? 3. When the gas giants emerged from the sun and spent time in close orbit to it why didn't all hydrogen and helium blow of the planet into space? 4. What is the force that is accelerating the planets at an increasing rate the farther from the sun they are? 5. The earth - sun distance is increasing at about .15 m/year, that means at the time of the birth of the solar system the earth was at most only 0.5% closer to the sun. I say at most because according to your idea it use to be receeding much less than 0.15 m/year. Why doesn't the math support your idea? 6. The sun consists of (approximately) 71% hydrogen, 27.1% helium, 0.97 oxygen, 0.4% carbon, 0.099% silicon, 0.096% nitrogen and 0.4% the rest. What possible mechanism could form a rocky planet from this starting raw material? And finally, Why do people who have no knowledge on a subject insist on putting their misguided ideas on web pages?
Not all moons were conceived through collision....Some were captured Asteroids such as Mars' Phobos and Deimos, and Neptune's Triton and many others within the gaseous/Icy giants regions.
Kez I agree that planets were expelled from the sun , but not because of waste but to balance the sun
Hey Kez.... The poster just above me, could be labelled a troll, and delusional anti establishment freak with no interest in real science. As more attuned people have told you the model you propose is not observed anywhere, and the accretion disk method has been observed many times. All we can do is go where that evidence takes us. Don't be sucked in my the forum troll. And a quick friendly note...that is why your thread has been transferred to pseudoscience.
Six points raise by origin. Please Allow me to try to explain despite my not knowing the subject entirely. 1 As I don't have the answer to this I can only suggest somethings to consider. Why do sunspots appear we don't know but they are there. The planets are very small compared to the sun, is it not possible that as a result of the explosive forces on the sun a fragment of material could be propelled into an orbit. 2 Different compositions. Different amounts of the same material the sun is composed from. And the rest of the galaxy. 3 When lets say Jupiter was in mercury's position its state would resemble mercury. however throughout the couse of moving along the proposed path at some point a large impact altered the composition of the material. So an impacted with an astroid of composition unknown brakes the planet into a ring of material then over time it collects together to planetary state once again. 4 The reasons for the acceleration away from the sun is due to the suns changing mass. The sun as it burns sends its material into space as light solar wind etc. Hence the equilibrium at the point when the planet was formed is changing. The sun is becoming weaker so the planet travels in the direction away from the centre. Because an acceleration force is involved an exponential curve is produced. 5. You mention the time at the birth of the solar system and this is where I am going to look cranky. The time of the birth of the solar system may be different to current understandings. And my model could potential alter this. 6 Consider a pot of molten iron 99% iron but the small floating debris on the surface is the impurities. The planets are these small fractions of the suns composition. Remember I think your misguided too.
river your onto something there. As the reaction continues on the mass can no longer sustain its self. fragment are relinquished and the rate this is happening gives the curve I mentioned. The probability of a moon occurring in this solar system can be represented by 1/earths life Captured or impacted with planet I could not say. ://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxwbGFuZXRlbWlzc2lvbnRoZW9yeXxneDozNmZiMWM3MGU3NmFiZjE0
You are basing your hypothesis on many unfounded, unproven concepts, yet you ignore what we have observed in other systems. Why do you presume Jupiter was at Mercury's orbit? You have a few other questions that remain unanswered also.
