The Earth came from the Sun!

Is it not common knowledge now, that mass evolves to space, and that the sun is expanding in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics?

Does everyone not realize that the planets were once part of the sun, and that they, one by one, on a timeline, departed the sun and traveled away from the sun and continue to do so today?

Does everyone not see that these hot massive objects cooled on the outside first, as they should, and continue to cool?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not difficult to see and understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really.

Explain why, since the Sun is primarily hydrogen and helium with a few traces of other elements, that the planets given their makeup would migrate out from the Sun.

Also include the measurements showing the current migration outward.

And you might need to re-read the second law as well as current star evolution theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This link says the Earth is migrating out, slowly, agreed. This didn't happen overnight.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The amounts due to the Sun's mass loss and tidal influences amount to a very small difference. In 10 billion years, we'd still be in our habitable zone (barring the expansion of the Sun). Unless you now propose that the planets were flung out by some other mechanism, and then suddenly halted where they are, that link doesn't help you.

 

Are you proposing that at one time, the distance between the sun and the earth was not increasing?

 

No, I'm saying that those mechanisms aren't enough to support your theory that all the planets came out from the Sun.

There is a migration theory that's relatively new. But it has more to do with explaining why the Solar System isn't as compact as we've found others to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_model

 

My theory explains the formation of the outer planets, unlike the current theory which can not.

The notion that planets were formed by a collection of gas and dust is absurd!

Your timeline is way off. The planets are cooling as time goes on. That means they are getting less dense by way of expanding their outer boundaries. So while the Earth's volume is increasing as it cools and getting less dense, the terrestrial part of the planet as we know it is getting smaller. That causes earthquakes, for example.

Make no mistake, the core is cooling and mass is evolving to space. All mass gets less dense over time. If it didn't perpetual motion would be possible.

 

So not a proponent of tectonic plates either, I suppose.

Well, present your theory. Explain why you think yours is better than current theory, which is based on and supported by years of observation of ours and other systems.

 

I consider the outer boundaries of the sun the outer boundaries of our solar system. Our solar system IS the sun. Of course the outer areas of the solar system are less dense, and the sun as we know it is actually the core of the "sun." So, we live IN the sun, in a less dense region than the core of our solar system.

SOLAR SYSTEM, hmmmmmmmmm.

 

are you claiming that the planets emerged directly from the sun as it currently exists and that other planets will emerge from it in the future?

 

Yes.

 

Does this include all objects in the solar system, such as the asteroids, Kuiper objects, or the Oort cloud? If so, then either the Sun is much, much older than thought, or again, you must have some method of quickly getting them to their current locations and then losing that momentum.

If not, then where did they come from?

 

Then you need to provide a detailed theory and facts to back up the claim that fit the existing solar system.

I'll be waiting.

I would suggest presenting the paper/theory for publication to the peer-reviewed journals so you might want to hold off on saying anything more until it is published.

 

Like I said earlier, the entire solar system IS the sun. So, a direct answer to your question is yes, all objects in our solar system came from the core and our solar system is getting less dense (expanding) over time.

Sure, some rogue mass could have migrated from other areas in our galaxy, or from other areas in space, but generally, all the mass came from the core (the sun as we know it).

...and generally, our galaxy is doing the same, it is getting less dense over time, and all the mass from the galaxy came from the core of the galaxy. It is happening at every level in the universe. Mass is evolving to space!

 

How did the mass in the outer part of the galaxy escape the core, given that if this was remotely true, the galactic core would consist of an even larger black hole than is there now.

And you didn't answer my question about the outer objects.

 

I love the oort cloud.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

True, the core of the galaxy was more dense previously. The black hole was previously more dense, but has since got less dense by means of some of the mass traveling outwards.

Do you understand that if it was not the case of mass getting less dense that mass would be perpetual motion?

It is a fact at every level of the universe, mass is evolving to space. It has to in order to be in accordance with the second law.

The outer mass of the galaxy didn't "escape" the core, the core expanded and got less dense.

I answered it. All the mass in our solar system came from the core, what we call the sun. I also stated that the entire solar system IS the sun, and it continues to expand.

 

Nothing but crickets!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Waiting on you to elaborate on your idea.

Makes no sense to spend a lot of time defending conventional theory and centuries of observation if you're going to just dismiss it as "absurd". New theories only replace existing ones when they can explain phenomena better. You haven't done that.

It sounds like you're touching somewhat (and I'm reaching here) on the fact that space-time is expanding. But that effect is not appreciable on a local scale, and local includes galactic, because even as that size the difference over time is very small.

Again, it's your idea, you run with it. You're making the claim.

 

The Sun changes size not due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics but because of its changing elemental composition.

They were once part of a star, the one which came before our current sun because any element above Lithium was made in a nuclear furnace. However, they didn't come from our sun after our sun had started burning Hydrogen, they formed outside of the sun from the remains of its accretion disk.

Due to alterations in the mass of the Sun and gravitational radiation from the Earth's motion. The migration isn't as large as you're implying.

Your guess. A theory is an hypothesis and model supported by evidence. You have none of that. Current models can describe the collapse of stellar clouds into accretion disks and then planets form from the outer parts and the core becomes the parent star. That's a level of prediction and modelling you haven't got so to claim you've got something superior to current models is simple wrong. If you claim otherwise provide a working model and demonstrate it can predict the things you claim it can.

And yet the models work, thus the notion is not absurd.

As things cool they reduce in size. This wouldn't have any affect on the orbit though, as the total mass is unchanged. Besides, thermal energy is produced by nuclear decays within the Earth, otherwise it would have cooled completely long ago.

That's not even coherent. Mass gets less dense over time? Quantify and demonstrate.

While the Sun doesn't have the same 'hard' surface the 4 inner most planets do it does have something resembling a surface and above it things like the corona, which is the solar version of an atmosphere.

How would a rock planet form in the Sun, where its hot enough to literally melt the Earth? How would it clump together and then leave the Sun?

Are you just playing with words? Are you saying, in a very round about and deceptive way, that you're redefining 'Sun' to be anything closer to the Sun than say the heliopause and thus even though the Earth didn't star life below the surface of the Sun you're able to say, using your new definition, that it started 'inside' the Sun?

If you're redefining what you mean by 'inside the Sun' from 'below its surface' to 'anything within the solar system' then you're trolling because you aren't using the common usage of terminology and thus being deliberately deceptive. Did you start this thread just to do that, to make statements which are false if understood in the usual manner but which are true if you redefine what 'in the Sun' means, as you have?

Let's be more precise. Are you claiming the Earth began below the surface (by which I mean closer than the photosphere) and migrated out to its current position or are you saying it started closer to the Sun's photosphere than it currently is, like 50% the current distance, and migrated outwards. If its the former then you're wrong. If its the latter then you're trolling for making up your own definition of 'in the Sun' and not telling anyone until pushed on it.