Silly question but expected. It's science river, not "drag em out of your arse pseudoscience" you exclusively partake in! They have obviously looked in all parts.
No evidence yet of any companion.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
planets orbit like their stars vibrate ?
- Thread starter nebel
- Start date
No evidence yet of any companion.
What part of the Night Sky have they looked ?
Segura-Cox, Herschel data from ESA/Herschel/SPIRE/PACS/D. Arzoumanian
ALMA ,
Region L1709
sory for the foreign language source.
nebel , english translation would be a good thing .
it basically calls the nascent stars, proto planetary rings seen by ALMA " siblings" or un-equal twins, not that the star had to be fully formed first, but as paddoboy pointed out, they are born in the the same cloud, not just in a rigid sequence. try google translate. ha ha.nebel , english translation would be a good thing .
"Astronomers have found compelling evidence that planets start to form while infant stars are still growing.nebel , english translation would be a good thing .
dust rings acting as cosmic cradles, where the seeds of planets form and take hold." quoted from
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Stars and planets grow up together as siblings." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201023191029.htm>
Dust rings asserted in this thread to reflect standing wave patterns in a dynamic system.
" the interplay of centrifugal and magnetic forces in a disk surrounding the star plays a crucial role in the star's birth cry."
quoted from:
National Institutes of Natural Sciences. "ALMA hears birth cry of a massive baby star." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 June 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612115407.htm>.
these stories relate to the thread's assertion, that the natural vibrations, "Eigenschwingungen" of a system , its mass, determines the orbits of its planets.
"Astronomers have found compelling evidence that planets start to form while infant stars are still growing.
dust rings acting as cosmic cradles, where the seeds of planets form and take hold." quoted from
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Stars and planets grow up together as siblings." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201023191029.htm>
Dust rings asserted in this thread to reflect standing wave patterns in a dynamic system.
" the interplay of centrifugal and magnetic forces in a disk surrounding the star plays a crucial role in the star's birth cry."
quoted from:
National Institutes of Natural Sciences. "ALMA hears birth cry of a massive baby star." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 June 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612115407.htm>.
these stories relate to the thread's assertion, that the natural vibrations, "Eigenschwingungen" of a system , its mass, determines the orbits of its planets.
Dust rings asserted in this thread to reflect standing wave patterns in a dynamic system.
" the interplay of centrifugal and magnetic forces in a disk surrounding the star plays a crucial role in the star's birth cry."
Highlighted
Agreed , but also the galactic core , the globular centre . Where stars are formed .
Next that is highlighted ;
Agreed , As well as Rotation . Magnetic Fields , not only to each planetary body , but as well the Galactic Magnetic Field .
And that there is a fluid Dynamic , three dimensionally , in the spaces between planets , ( in any system in this Universe ) .
Last edited:
Gibberish.And that there is a fluid Dynamic , three dimensionally , in the spaces between planets , ( in any system in this Universe ) .
Reasonably correct....I left the unevidenced part last paragraph out."Astronomers have found compelling evidence that planets start to form while infant stars are still growing.
dust rings acting as cosmic cradles, where the seeds of planets form and take hold." quoted from
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Stars and planets grow up together as siblings." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201023191029.htm>
Dust rings asserted in this thread to reflect standing wave patterns in a dynamic system.
" the interplay of centrifugal and magnetic forces in a disk surrounding the star plays a crucial role in the star's birth cry."
quoted from:
National Institutes of Natural Sciences. "ALMA hears birth cry of a massive baby star." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 June 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612115407.htm>.
The bone of contention is that the collapsing conglomeration of dust and stuff to an eventual accretion disk, has now been verified in many systems, at various stages of proto-Sun and planetary formation.
The gravitational interactions will determine the start of planetary/proto-Sun formations.
↑
Wouldn't though the gravity , by the star , take the dust rings for its self . ? Leaving little for any planet to become a planet .
nebel , english translation would be a good thing .
"Astronomers have found compelling evidence that planets start to form while infant stars are still growing.
dust rings acting as cosmic cradles, where the seeds of planets form and take hold." quoted from
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Stars and planets grow up together as siblings." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201023191029.htm>
Wouldn't though the gravity , by the star , take the dust rings for its self . ? Leaving little for any planet to become a planet .
To answer that river, you need to be familiar with science...orbits in particular...and why the planets currently orbit the Sun....or why if our Sun should magically become a BH, all the planets would continue to orbit without change.↑
Wouldn't though the gravity , by the star , take the dust rings for its self . ? Leaving little for any planet to become a planet .
Answers are in the cosmology section.
To answer that river, you need to be familiar with science...orbits in particular...and why the planets currently orbit the Sun....or why if our Sun should magically become a BH, all the planets would continue to orbit without change.
Answers are in the cosmology section.
Are you familiar , pad ?
reasonably familiar yes...as shown by the answers I have given you, and my threads and posts in the sciences section.Are you familiar , pad ?
↑Wouldn't though the gravity , by the star , take the dust rings for its self . ? Leaving little for any planet to become a planet .
To answer that river, you need to be familiar with science...orbits in particular...and why the planets currently orbit the Sun....or why if our Sun should magically become a BH, all the planets would continue to orbit without change.
Answers are in the cosmology section.
reasonably familiar yes...as shown by the answers I have given you, and my threads and posts in the sciences section.
So give us a brief on your answers , your threads and posts .
Why? So you can troll? or claim some nonsensical one liner dismissal of? All the answers are given in the sciences and cosmology section. That you are unable to contribute to is not my concern, but obviously because you are unable to add anything worthwhile, other then gibberish and nonsense.
Why? So you can troll or claim some nonsensical one liner dismissal of? All the answers are given in the sciences and cosmology section. That you are unable to contribute to is not my concern, but obviously because you are unable to add anything worthwhile, other then gibberish and nonsense.
Highlighted
So we can discuss .
You never really discuss anything pad , you just " refer to " ..... , what ever , but never really discuss .
Last edited:
No, exactly what I said and why you are banned from the sciences...trolling.Highlighted
So we can discuss .
Yep, I refer to current scientific theories and knowledge...that which you reject in favour of your own delusional self grandeur inspired nonsense.You never really discuss anything pad , you just " refer to " ..... , what ever , but never really discuss .
No, exactly what I said and why you are banned from the sciences...trolling.
How do you know this ?
Last edited:
↑
So you can't discuss anything scientific , on your own . You have no thoughts of your own .
You never really discuss anything pad , you just " refer to " ..... , what ever , but never really discuss .
Yep, I refer to current scientific theories and knowledge...that which you reject in favour of your own delusional self grandeur inspired nonsense.
So you can't discuss anything scientific , on your own . You have no thoughts of your own .
Of course I do. No one needed to tell me that you are a dishonest gullible troll. The evidence is for all to see and why you are banned from the sciences.↑
So you can't discuss anything scientific , on your own . You have no thoughts of your own .
And on science, simply put, my thoughts align with the accepted scientific theories because of the evidence. Unlike you, I don't simply ignorantly reject all of mainstream because it is mainstream. You fail to recognise or understand that all mainstream was also hypothetical at one time.
Of course I do. No one needed to tell me that you are a dishonest gullible troll. The evidence is for all to see and why you are banned from the sciences.
And on science, simply put, my thoughts align with the accepted scientific theories because of the evidence. Unlike you, I don't simply ignorantly reject all of mainstream because it is mainstream. You fail to recognise or understand that all mainstream was also hypothetical at one time.
As I thought , no thoughts . Just repeat pad .