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.
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.
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.
"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 ) .
Reasonably correct....I left the unevidenced part last paragraph out. 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 .
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.
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 .
No, exactly what I said and why you are banned from the sciences...trolling. Yep, I refer to current scientific theories and knowledge...that which you reject in favour of your own delusional self grandeur inspired nonsense.
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.